ARTICLE REVIEW
CASE STUDY: A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN A SHOPPING CENTRE AND A
RETAILER
This article is study about a negotiation between a shopping Centre and a
retailer. This article was conducted in 2014 by Henrique Jose Serrano Costa Freitas. A
Project carried out on the Negotiation Analysis course, under the supervision of:
Professor Luis Almeida Costa. The total pages of this study are only 30 pages after
published it. The study's main goal is to examine actual talks that take place in the
Spanish market between shopping centers and a store. They were able to comprehend
the drawbacks as well as spot some potential for development thanks to his analysis
and the examination of several bargaining strategies. Researchers come to the
conclusion that value creation requires a package-transaction strategy, where parties
attempt to connect all the factors brought up for debate. A case study that they created
to introduce the distinction between single-issue and multi-issue negotiations will also
be utilized in the Negotiation Analysis course. Case studies are also created to help
people understand how conversations can be handled more successfully, resulting in a
mutually beneficial agreement.
There are several main issues in this article which are the first one is in single-
issue negotiations which one side must lose in order for the other side to win. As a
result, negotiations are often challenging. On the other side, when it comes to
negotiations, there is an integrative aspect that allows both parties to profit, potentially
making the negotiation process less difficult. As a result, both players should focus on
the following four acts in order to create value. Then, by focusing on a draught
promotes progress, helps to keep the conversation on topic, and often raises crucial
issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. Additionally, "experienced negotiators will
intuitively strive to integrate extra concerns into complex package proposals, both to
create more value and close the distribution dimension negotiation," according to a
study (Dierickx, 2008). Therefore, setting up an agenda with a variety of topics is
crucial. By creating "score systems that grant points to varying degrees in each attribute
and quantify trade-offs between issues" was advised by Howard Raiffa (1982) to
parties. By examining complementarities and synergies across subject sets, the author
actually highlights the significance of building linkages between concerns and
recognizing trade-offs. As was already noted, it is crucial to include a wide range of
topics in the conversation to make it comprehensive. Instead of tackling each issue one
at a time with the greatest effort, it is crucial to focus pressure on the most crucial ones.
With the latter, value creation may be more challenging because the result of the
negotiating process may resemble single-issue negotiations.
There is theory that related to the cases in this article which is the Behavioral
Theory Labor of Negotiations. A thorough theory of labor bargaining is developed by
Walton and McKersie. Four sets of activity systems that the authors feel contribute to
the majority of behaviors seen in labor negotiations are abstracted and studied by the
writers. The first set of actions, referred to as "distributive bargaining," entails rivalry
with the goal of influencing how scarce resources are distributed. The second system,
or "integrative negotiation," consists of actions that broaden the range of potential
rewards shared by the participants to the negotiation. The behaviour and other activities
that identify, promote, and act on the parties' shared interests are problem-solving
behaviors. Activities that affect the participants' attitudes toward one another and the
fundamental relationship between the social units concerned are included in the third
system. Attitude structuring is the term used to describe this process.
REFERENCES
Dierickx, Ingemar. (2008). “Price Negotiations -The Distributive Dimension of
Bargaining”.Mimeo.
Howard, Elizabeth. (1997). “The management of shopping centres: conflict or
collaboration?”. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 7(3):263-285.
