University of Greenwich ID Number:

Module Code:

Module Assessment Title:

Lecturer Name: Nguyen Thi Huong

Submission Date: 26th March 2024

Table of Contents
1.Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.Introduction

2.
The first simulation is called the Park Row Land Sale - a distributive negotiation
simulation between two neighbors over the potential sale of a land piece at Park
Row, Greenwich, London. In this simulated negotiation, I play the role of a seller who
bought a small vacant plot near my house for £35,000 at 33 Park Row, Greenwich,
London to build a garage. I sold the house when I moved to Edinburgh, Scotland in
2019. While the house sold readily, the buyers expressed no interest in buying the
land, offering only £10,000. With that situation, I approached another party - my
neighbour at 1 Park Row to check if they were receptive to the possibility of buying
the land, given that it could be beneficial as it is attached to their property. My
primary objective in this deal was to sell this land for the highest price to my
neighbour.

It is crucial to figure out each party’s Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

(BATNA), especially when the party negotiating from a stronger BATNA is in a better
position, which gives the party the ability to withdraw (Fisher et al., 2012). In this
case, my BATNA was to sell the land with at least £10,000, which shaped my
resistance to not going lower than £10,000. I also set a target point before the
negotiation: to get paid around £36,000 to £38,000 since I obtained the land at a
close price to this 10 years ago and wanted to have profits. Furthermore, my
WATNA (Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) in this case was to sell the
land to the new buyer of my house for £10,000. I have no information about the other
side’s BATNA before the negotiation, but I predict it could be around £40,000 to
£50,000 because I feel like my counterpart's purchasing power will not be too big.
.
This is a distributive negotiation, which means that it is normally the issues at stake
that concern fixed sums of products or resources to be distributed among the
negotiation parties. In the purely distributive scenario, the parties' interests are
negatively correlated, with a rise in the value of one party's outcome followed by a
decrease in the value of the other party's outcome (Barry and Friedman, 1998),
which we can call “value claiming”. In this simulation, the budgets of the buyer and
seller, as well as the land, are completely fixed.

As for the first part of the negotiation, I tried to find out if he - my neighbour - was
interested enough to buy the land, his BATNA, and his bargaining range (or Zone Of
Potential Agreement) through direct assessment. I decided to take a risk as my
stance during the negotiation would be competitive with a small initial concession
because according to Huffmeier, et al. (2014), a strong first offer, a competitive
stance, and a minor early compromise may result in a better outcome.

To start the deal, I actively requested £70,000 which was considered a “highball”
tactic for the first offer because it would lead the opposing party to reconsider its
opening offer and get closer to exceeding its resistance point (Lewicki et al., 2021).
This price was higher than my target point, and my neighbour immediately refused
saying the price was too high. With that answer, I realized that he could and wanted
to buy the land for a lower price so this was the right time to make a concession for
a good deal. I decided to lower the price and used the hardball tactic “snow” to
overwhelm my counterpart with information that could benefit him in the short term
and long term about the piece of land, like the land located right near his house,
which can be used to expand the house area. Even buying for business or reselling
in the next few years is also reasonable, it worked as the neighbour also agreed and
wanted to negotiate more with a better price. I acknowledge that my counterpart is
also looking for information about my BATNA, therefore I always conceal and
attempt to reveal as little of it as possible. However, while we were considering
purchasing that plot of land for roughly £45,000 to £48,000, I unintentionally
reminded him that I was about to move to Scotland which was a huge mistake
because it reminded of the ‘For Sale’ sign near the land, prompting the opposing
party to refuse to deal at that price range immediately, as he knew he got the upper
hand in the deal now. My neighbour right after that requested me to reduce the
selling price to about £30000 to £35000. At this point, I can see that the neighbour
also chooses to be competitive and capitalize on the opportunity fast. We kept on
discussing the prices for a few minutes, my counterpart used “aggressive behavior”
tactics to take advantage of the deal which made the rest of the negotiation tenser.

Lastly, the neighbour made a final offer of £33,000, which was a reasonable price
given the timing pressure of the deal, so I agreed immediately. So in the end, we
have a settlement point of £33,000, which is less than my target point. I felt satisfied
with the result until I heard my counterpart's BATNA was up to £80,000, at that time I
was a bit disappointed because I did not accurately identify the buyer's BATNA and
resistance point. My strength during this negotiation was that I tried to be active from
the beginning, use suitable tactics, and well-preparation for this deal. If I could play
this simulation again, I would answer and discuss more calmly to avoid disclosing
important information that could undermine my position (Sebenius, 2017), also apply
more hardball tactics like good cop/bad cop, bogey, chicken,..., and better
understand my opponent's resistance points.

The Glastonbury Festival is the second simulation, a two-party integrative

negotiation to book a rising performing artist for the music festival. It is held every
summer and is one of the UK's oldest and largest music events, attracting 200,000
attendees annually. This was a great opportunity for the upcoming solo artist which
is Sai and also me (her Managing Agent), another party, in this case, was the Artist
Booking Manager for the Glastonbury Music Festival Organising Committee.
Aviemore Festival approached me two weeks ago and offered Sai £157,000 to
perform there. Glastonbury also approached Sai last week, hoping to negotiate an
offer for Sai to perform for the festival. With Glastonbury being the largest festival in
the UK, this is an excellent opportunity for Sai to reach a broader audience and
solidify her status as a leading UK musician. My role and target in this negotiation is
to gain a booking for Sai at Glastonbury. The two sides will discuss performance
fees, stage terms, dressing rooms, and additional bonuses such as fresh-cut flowers,
champagne, or luxury car transportation. At the same time, we negotiated backstage
meet-and-greets for fans and social media promotions.

This is an integrative negotiation,

With the expectation of integrative negotiation, I set myself with the goal of
compromise if needed. I follow the integrative negotiation process because
throughout the deal. The first step is to identify and define the problem, both
parties will mutually gain from this deal since the festival will obtain an exceptional
rising performing artist if they have Sai on the stage, and Sai will gain exposure at an
event that will help her career advance further. My BATNA in this deal was that
Aviemore Festival offered £157,000 for Sai to perform there. So if the negotiations
with Glastonbury fail, Sai still has another option. The second step in the process is
to surface interests and needs. There are several forms of interest in negotiations. It
is considered by Lax and Sebenius (1986) that negotiation partners' interests can be
substantive, principled, or process/relational. Both sides had substantial interests
here. As a managing agent, I want to increase Sai’s popularity as well as obtain fair
treatment for Sai with her potential.
The third step in this process is to evaluate and select from alternatives. I wanted to
trade issues with the organizer, so I used the “Logroll” strategy,. In this case, I told
her that I wanted Sai to perform on the main stage (viết thêm về đối tác), and in
exchange, Sai would be willing to share the dressing room with other artists. The
tournament organizer agreed immediately, which led us to deal with additional
bonuses. After a long conversation, we both decided that there would be a luxury car
to pick Sai up and that flowers and champagne in the dressing room were
unnecessary. With both of us understanding that this is an integrative negotiation,
the deal becomes more convenient and straightforward. The festival organiser
wanted Sai to have the Meet & Greet fan backstage as well as get promoted in their
social media campaign, this is also what Sai needs so I have no problem agreeing
with that.
To sum up the deal, we reached a performance fee of £152,000. I had successfully
dealt with a main stage performance for Sai, a luxury car to pick up artists,
backstage Meet & Greet fans, and a Social media campaign. On the other hand, my
counterpart who is the festival organizer had successfully negotiated a shared
dressing room, with no flowers and champagne into the dressing room. They will
also have common interests such as backstage Meet and Greet fans, and doing
social media campaigns with my singer Sai. We were both happy when basic
benefits and goals were achieved. Everything went smoothly once both sides
understood the nature of this negotiation session, and we were willing to
compromise when required to help both parties reach the objectives. With that
result, the Pareto-efficient ( was likely reached. Things that I would do the same
next time are to identify the type of negotiation and carefully follow the steps in the
integrative negotiation process.

Covid-19 has significantly impacted rail passenger numbers, leading to a drop in

ticket sales revenues. The UK Government is now withdrawing financial support for
rail companies and pushing for labor reforms. Because of that, the Rail Union has
called for industrial action, including “working to contract” and “strike action”, to
disrupt the industry. If the dispute is not resolved, the government may fine or revoke
rail licenses. This makes me - the lead negotiator for The Railway Consortium to
resolve an industrial conflict with another party - The General Secretary of the Rail
Union in integrative negotiation, we will discuss proposed enhancements in the
salary and working conditions of railway employees. My goal in this deal was to
settle the dispute with the Rail Union, reduce financial costs and workforce while
improving relationships with employees.

Since this is an integrative negotiation like negotiation number two, I continue to

approach it by following its strategic process (nói thêm về khía cạnh khác). With the
first step of identifying and defining the problem, I understand that the parties have a
mutual interest in reaching a quick deal to prevent industrial action.
Second, regarding interests and needs, I believe that the railway firm will want to
prevent a strike, minimize financial costs, increase workforce flexibility, and improve
employee relationships. I actively asked for some of the trade union’s interests in this
deal through open-ended questions. My counterpart answered that they want to
prioritize employee well-being by pushing for job security, a safe workplace, and fair
treatment. This involves protecting employees from layoffs and salary cuts,
preventing unnecessary strikes by open communication, and preserving a healthy
work-life balance by protecting their time. Of course, my counterpart also wanted to
hear about my interests, which we discussed for a few minutes.
This brings us to step 3 of the process which is to Generate solution options, with
integrative negotiations, I tend to solve all of the problems and satisfy both interests.
The salary increase and the number of employees reduced will be the two most
important interests for both sides in this negotiation. All of the underlying interests
positioned to negotiate in this deal are substantive to both parties, first is about the
pay increase. The general secretary requested that they wanted the workers’ salary
be raised to 12% because inflation in the UK was rising. I replied that such an
increase was too much so instead of 12%, I used the 'concession' strategy, which
is . I will give a pay increase for employees of about 8% and in return, I will reduce
the number of employees through staff attrition. My counterpart agrees and we move
on to discuss the next part, which is the number of employees that should be
minimized. After a while of discussion and finding common ground, we decided to
reduce the number by 5%. The next issue is related to the conditions, my
counterpart wants to be kept voluntary rest on Sunday, and in return, the on-call flat
fee rate will increase from 80 to 99. That is reasonable for both parties to accept.
The remaining two items are the Sunday overtime hour rate and the number of
holidays. Here I wanted to achieve at least one of these two goals, the reduction to
25 days and the Sunday overtime paid rate to x1.0, but in the end, I couldn't deal
successfully with the counterpart.

To summarize this negotiation, I have gained benefits for the railway side including a
5% decrease in employee redundancies through staff attrition, and an on-call
premium flat rate between 80 and 99. Meanwhile, my counterpart has secured
favorable conditions for railway workers, including an 8% salary raise, the retention
of Sunday rest days as voluntary with a Sunday overtime hourly rate of x1.5, and a
30-day paid holiday entitlement. In terms of points, I get 4 and my counterpart gets 7.
With this result, both parties felt satisfied and Pareto-efficient was likely reached.
However, I am still dissatisfied that I was unable to acquire more points and better
conditions for The Railway Consortium. Because even though this is an integrative
negotiation, each side still wants to benefit more for themselves. My strength during
this negotiation was

3. Conclusion

Reference