University of greenwich id number: 001390495

FPT Student ID number: GBS190276

Module code: busi1632

Module assessment title: NEGOTiATIONS

Lecturer Name: BUI THANH KHOA

Submission date: July 14 2024

1
 Table of content

The real estate

I) Introduction..........................................................................................3
II) analysis................................................................................................3
III) Outcome evaluation...........................................................................3
IV) Conclusion:.........................................................................................4

The Glastonbury Fesitval

I)Introduction..........................................................................................4
II) analysis................................................................................................4
III) Outcome evaluation:..............................................................................5
IV) conclusion:.............................................................................................6

The rail dispute:

I) introduction..........................................................................................6
II) analysis................................................................................................6
III) outcome evaluation............................................................................7
IV) conclusion..........................................................................................8

2
The real estate

I) Introduction:

The land on Park Row is the subject of the first simulation. I am party A, the Seller, in this
section. The goal is to sell a ten-year-old plot of land that I am no longer using. The nature of this
kind of discussion is distributive. It emphasizes the sharing of limited resources and is
characterized by aggressive, concessional, or surrendering behavior, according to Han et al.
(2022). Giving and receiving are necessary during distributive negotiation in order for the parties
to come to a consensus. Determining the land's market worth while accounting for the
accompanying documentation procedures and financial benefits to maximize value for both the
seller and the buyer will be the main focus of this negotiation.
II) Analysis

My main goal in this discussion is to maximize the cash return on the property because I already
have a strong alternative in mind, which is to sell the land to the developers as stated in my
BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). My result is minimally acceptable
according to BATNA. If the negotiations don't result in outcomes that are at least as excellent as
my BATNA, I'm prepared to call it quits (Sebenius, 2017). Not settling for anything less than
£100,000 will not happen. Since we haven't yet determined our ZOPA, I'm also willing to
investigate any opportunities that prospective buyers may provide. By employing the ZOPA, we
can make offers that fall into the range of what both parties could find agreeable. This helps
prevent time being wasted on ideas that aren't realistic (Yao, Zhang, and Liu, 2020). Since the
buyer hasn't revealed their bid yet, the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) is still unclear, but
based on our initial discussions, I'm cautiously optimistic. The best-case scenario for me would
be to negotiate a price of about £20,000, which would enable me to profitably exit the
transaction. This amount would allow me to reach a financially beneficial agreement at the end
of the negotiation and represents a sizable premium over my bottom line.
In an attempt to take the upper hand in negotiations right away, I chose to use the highball
technique. This tactic entails making an opening offer that is much more than what you can
reasonably hope to get (Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, 2021). The objective is to anchor the
discussion at a higher position, swaying the outcome in my favor, rather than necessarily getting
the opposing side to accept it outright. Keeping this in mind, I boldly put out a £20,000 price,
which is twice my best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
As expected, the buyer responded with a counteroffer, recognizing the high initial price. They
brought up the issue of paperwork and the associated time commitment, emphasizing the burden
of finalizing the land transfer. They then advised deducting £2,000 from the asking price.
They did, however, decrease the cost by promising to cover all of the printed paperwork required
for the transaction and accepting full responsibility for carrying out the land transfer process.
This was an important issue, as administrative procedures may be time-consuming and costly.
Recognizing the buyer's desire to haggle and the added value of their promise to handle the
paperwork, I strategically responded with a revised price of £18,600. This constituted a
satisfactory compromise for both parties. I obtained a price substantially higher than my BATNA
while still providing a beneficial outcome for the buyer by decreasing the labor connected with
the transfer. Finally, this collaborative approach resulted in a satisfactory outcome for both of us
III) Outcome evaluation:

3
Given the distributive nature of this negotiation, moral issues were less important than
integrative factors. Distributive talks, often known as win-lose negotiating, are largely concerned
with obtaining a larger portion of a fixed pie (Stoshikj, 2014). Transparency was essential, with
both parties openly expressing their requirements and constraints. The existing relationship
played little role in the negotiation because the engagement was transactional. It was a one-time
transaction with the expectation of little further involvement. Despite my desire to obtain the best
possible outcome for myself, the negotiation remained friendly.
Both parties eventually reached a mutually acceptable arrangement of £18,600, without resorting
to emotional manipulation or undue revealing of personal information. Respect and
professionalism in distributive discussions can result in a beneficial solution for all parties
concerned. The process has a very favorable impact on the outcome. The initial offer was within
my expectations, which were double my BATNA, and I wanted as much as feasible from the
purchase.
So, in the end, £18,600 was sufficient for me, as the other party volunteered to fund all of the
paperwork and processes.
IV) Conclusion:
This was an excellent discussion; both parties agreed on the parameters and came away with a
mutually beneficial agreement. However, looking back, I believe there are a few areas where I
could have improved. The price mechanism comes first. I have yet to understand the buyer's
motivation and budget. I could have asked for more specifics and gotten them to demonstrate
their needs for my land, and I might have gotten a greater price because the buyer agreed to the
price range quickly, even though it was double the price I could give earlier. In the future, I'll
make an effort to learn more during transactions like this and refrain from setting expectations
too soon, which could limit my advantages.

The Glastonbury Festival

I) Introduction:
The details of persuading Sai to take part in this negotiation simulation are being negotiated
between the management of Sai and the Glastonbury Organising Committee. I work in the
division that acquires festival artists. It is my responsibility to get in touch with Sai's manager in
order to add her to the Glastonbury performance schedule. Their main goal is to secure Sai's
performance at Glastonbury, as they have expressed a desire to perform there. Sai is currently
one of the most well-liked young acts. Here, we look at the negotiations that took place around
emerging pop sensation Sai's possible performance between her management (Party B) and the
promoters of the Glastonbury Festival (Party A).
II) Analysis:
Party A knew that Sai was becoming more and more popular, and that this could lead to more
people attending festivals. The main stage's limited availability and budgetary constraints,
however, were reasons for concern. Party B, however, felt that Sai should be given a key role
and acknowledged the importance of treating artists equitably. This kind of negotiation, known
as integrative or interest-based negotiation, is a cooperative approach to reaching mutually
beneficial agreements for both sides (Bartos, 1995). According to Kersten (2001), there are four

4
basic elements in the integrative negotiating process: defining and diagnosing the problem,
highlighting requirements and interests, developing alternative solutions, weighing those
possibilities, and reaching a resolution.
My party believes that Sai has an edge in this case because, although she hasn't yet achieved
success, the public is now favoring her. As a result, it's a wonderful idea to have Sai play at the
festival in order to grow her fan base and reap more advantages. To achieve the objectives of
both sides in this discussion, it is essential to ascertain the areas of shared interest, what we can
provide, and what Sai can bring to the celebration (Rahwan et al., 2009).We first address Sai's
desire to play at Glastonbury, but only if it takes place on the main stage. We spoke about Sai's
ability to perform, but I will give her a fair payment of £153,00 if she accepts the shared dressing
room, and £152,000 otherwise. Following the proposal, Sai's management agreed to share the
dressing room, but they weren't happy with the price. As a result, we also spoke about other
layout options.
We talked about how Sai can be involved in all the publicity that is intended for the festival, such
as the Backstage Meet and Greet with fans and the Social Media campaign, since it is best to
increase her performance fee while making her one of the things that draws the audiences in as
much as possible. In addition, we think Sai has the potential to be a huge celebrity in the future,
therefore we are prepared to fulfill all of her needs in exchange for her involvement in the
publicity.Since we will be considering prospects for future cooperation, we would want to
maintain our reputation (Patton and Balakrishnan, 2010). Party B offers to supply Party A with
any extra special services, such as transportation, flowers, and champagne, in exchange for Party
A sharing the dressing room and taking part in media events before and after the performance.
Ultimately, the conditions agreed upon by both sides. Both parties view the arrangement as
comprehensive and advantageous. Regarding uniformity, there is cooperation between the two
parties in this case. Here, the relationship between the two parties is founded on coordination.
MejíaArauz and colleagues, 2018) Party B initially considers changing a section of the interface
for both parties. While win-win outcomes should be the goal of the agreement, Party A was more
concerned with personal advantages. This resulted in some very difficult arrangements. Party A
and Party B worked together to reach a final agreement that would be advantageous to both
parties. In addition to genuinely caring about each other's enjoyment during the activity and
building long-lasting connections, there is no real financial competition between the two parties.
Table 1 shows the outcomes below.
Terms of agreement Festival organisers
Performance fee £153.000
Other terms of agreement Yes
Backstage meet & greet fans Yes
Social media campaign Yes
Shared dressing room Yes
Main stage Yes
Stair treatment ( transporation, flowers, Yes
champagne)

III) Evaluate the outcome:

Even when the parties' goals differ, they are both successful in trading benefits. In transactions of
this nature, moral concerns are crucial. Some moral conundrums, such as those involving

5
concerns of sincerity and conviction, could occur in situations similar to the one described above
(Savolainen and Lopez-Fresno, 2018). It might be viewed as an untrustworthy conduct and affect
both parties' beliefs if one of the parties misled about any conditions and was discovered
(Gaspar, Methasani, and Schweitzer, 2019). By switching to an integrative strategy, both sides
made collaborating to create value their top priority. In the end, a long-term connection and a
common interest in a prosperous festival took precedence over immediate financial benefit when
it came to adding value through cooperation. This instance illustrates how integrative negotiation
may result in win-win agreements. Focusing on mutual understanding and creative problem-
solving, both sides were able to reach a win-win settlement that enhanced the festival experience
and created a promising future partnership.
IV) Conclusion:
The outcomes of the negotiation were excellent, notwithstanding the initial stress. Following this
negotiation, the two sides' relationship has improved. In addition, there was a strong indication of
future cooperation and excellent negotiation execution. Sai's demands were reasonable, and they
may have a good effect on her performance by giving her more confidence and improving her
performance at the Glastonbury Festival. It was a win-win exchange of ideas. In this case, the
transaction took a long time since there was some dispute on both sides and a very unpleasant
environment at the beginning. Next time, my end will communicate more effectively and
professionally in order to provide a more seamless and comfortable arrangement.
The Rail Dispute
I) Introduction:
As the General Secretary of The Rail Union, it is my responsibility to negotiate better pay and
working conditions for railroad workers with the Rail Consortium Representative.
COVID-19 had an impact on the railway, and salaries and working conditions have declined. For
this reason, I needed to settle with the train firms as quickly as feasible. The objective of this
discussion is to achieve excellent outcomes for employees.
II) Analysis:
The goal of this agreement is to optimize employee well-being and the burden for the railway,
which is a difficult task. Our objective is to come up with a win-win solution that takes into
account the requirements of the company and its employees. Here are several major issues with
the current state of affairs. The burden on the railroad is no longer manageable, which might put
a strain on resources. The quality of life and contentment of employees have also been harmed
by a decrease in pay and benefits. Both production and safety may be adversely impacted by this
morale loss. We suggest a cooperative, benefit-sharing bargaining approach to overcome these
obstacles. Our goal is to implement a workforce reduction strategy that minimizes adverse
effects on the lives of employees and is suitable. In order to boost quality of life and restore
employee satisfaction, pay and benefit improvements are important. In the end, this will result in
a workforce that is more engaged and productive. Lowering the workforce can ease the burden
on resources and workload. To preserve safety standards, nevertheless, this must be done
deliberately, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.
We may investigate innovative ideas that take into account the operating requirements of the
railway as well as the welfare of its staff by being honest with each other and seeking to discover

6
common ground. This might involve choices like voluntary redundancy plans, early retirement
payouts, or retraining initiatives to provide staff members new skills.
A mutually advantageous agreement that takes into account the requirements and interfaces of
the railway and its personnel is the main goal of this negotiation. According to Mejía-Arauz et al.
(2018), this indicates that we will collaborate to develop a solution where all parties feel they can
accept responsibility and actively engage going ahead. By giving this collaborative approach top
priority, we can make sure that the railway and its workers have a viable future.
We tried to get a firm grasp of each other's needs and constraints after having a thorough
conversation and coming up with unique ideas. This required candid communication and a desire
to identify points of agreement. Our ultimate objective was to come to a decision that all sides
could comfortably support, guaranteeing a win-win situation for our company and its priceless
workers. We began by acknowledging the difficulties and worries that exist today (Ward et al.,
2008).We said we were willing to consider suggestions for a 10% decrease in the workforce in
exchange for at least an 11% pay boost for the surviving staff members. In addition to base pay,
we looked at the potential for non-specific compensation packages to customize benefits to our
workforce's wide range of demands.
On the other hand, the requirement for Sunday labor at a regular hourly wage had been a major
topic of conversation for us. Even though our staff was aware of the possible advantages of this
strategy, keeping the scheduled Sunday off remained a top priority, especially in light of the
current on-call charge of more than £150 each instance. We said that we were willing to look at
different approaches to staffing needs that would not jeopardize worker welfare.
By gathering relevant information and appreciating the perspectives of all parties, I can make
better decisions and increase the likelihood that my efforts will be fruitful (Miles, 2013). We
sought to collaborate to create a solution that effectively met the interface demands of both our
parties through a thorough survey process and cooperative option configuration. In the end, it
was important for both sides to accept the value proposition that was put out and come to a
mutually advantageous decision that would promote a solid, long-lasting working relationship.
The results are shown in table 2 below.
jeopardizing the wellbeing of employees
Terms of agreement General secretary of union
Number of redundancies 10%
Nature of redundancies Staff attrition
pay 8% pay increase
Condition: Sunday rest day Keep Sunday rest day voluntary
Sunday overtime hour rate X1,5 hourly rate
Holiday time 25 days
On call premium flat rate £60-£79

III) Evaluate the outcome

Even though the integrative transaction was successful, it did bring up some preliminary
ethical issues. In contrast to the Glastonbury situation, questions about sincerity and
competing interests—where one party's gain can possibly come at the price of the other—
might have been raised (Gaspar, Methasani, and Schweitzer, 2019). But in this particular
negotiation, both sides upheld extraordinarily high moral standards. They stayed true to their

7
 original claims and spoke honestly and openly at all times. Both parties showed total honesty
by stating their sincere desire for a high degree of engagement (Olekalns and Smith,
2007).Maintaining these moral standards was essential to fostering trust and, in the end,
reaching a win-win solution. Initially, their interfaces were all finished, and logically, the
other side finishes theirs as well. This may also be considered a commendable result,
considering how well the arrangement was put together and how each party had a distinct
degree of interest. That being said, neither party's accomplished conditions are essentially
better adjusted. Everything that my side had planned and needed to do was effectively
organized.
IV) Conclusion:
In conclusion, not only did both parties show interest in the transaction, but it also went
really well in terms of preparation. In any case, it's usually a unique scenario where both
sides have a distinct interface and can easily reach a consensus. Additionally, there are
similarities between the two sides in terms of identity and norms. But, instances like these
won't happen very frequently going forward.
Therefore, my side will work to progress in many areas in order to simplify future
transactions in a professional and understandable manner.

Reference:
Bartos, O.J. (1995). Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 542(1),
pp.48-60doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716295542001004 manner, my side will endeavour to
make advances in many aptitudes.
Gaspar, J.P., Methasani, R. and Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty Shades of Deception:
Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 33(1), pp.62–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0047
Kersten, G.E. (2001). Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and
Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(6), pp.493–514.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012256222803
Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B. and Saunders, D.M. (2021). Essentials of Negotiation. 7th ed. New
York, Ny: McGraw-Hill Education
Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Dayton, A. and Henne-Ochoa, R. (2018). Collaboration or
negotiation: Two Ways of Interacting Suggest How Shared Thinking Develops. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 23, pp.117–123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.017.
Miles, E.W. (2013). Developing Strategies for Asking Questions in Negotiation. Negotiation
Journal, [online] 29(4), pp.383–412. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12034.
Olekalns, M. and Smith, P.L. (2007). Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in
Negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), pp.225–238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
006-9279-y.

8
Patton, C. and Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar) (2010). The Impact of Expectation of Future
Negotiation Interaction on Bargaining Processes and Outcomes. Journal of Business Research,
63(8), pp.809–816. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.07.002.
Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L. and Dignum, F. (2009). A Formal Analysis of
interest-based Negotiation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 55(3-4),
pp.253–276. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-009-9145-6.
Savolainen, T. and Lopez-Fresno, P. (2018). (PDF) Role of Trust in Integrative Negotiations.
[online] ResearchGate. Available
at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325012801_Role_of_Trust_in_Integrative_Negoti
ations.
Sebenius, J.K. (2017). BATNAs in Negotiation: Common Errors and Three Kinds of ‘No’.
Negotiation Journal, 33(2), pp.89–99. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12176.
Stoshikj, M. (2014). Integrative and Distributive Negotiations and Negotiation Behavior.
Journal of Service Science Research, [online] 6(1), pp.29–69.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12927-014-0002-8
Ward, A., Disston, L.G., Brenner, L. and Ross, L. (2008). Acknowledging the Other Side in
Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), pp.269–285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-
9979.2008.00184.x.
Yao, J., Zhang, Z. and Liu, L.A. (2020). When There Is No ZOPA: Mental Fatigue, Integrative
Complexity, and Creative Agreement in Negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 14(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12178