In this particular case, the first thing I noticed was that it differed from case number two in terms of compromise. In case number two the parties involved had no clear idea of what they wanted and did not have their BATNAs defined either allowing them to be more open minded in the agreement process. In this particular case, there were 57 stakeholders involved and each of them had their BATNAs and needs clearly defined. They knew exactly what they wanted and this made them inflexible and hard to please. It is pretty predictable that each stakeholder would stick to their own objective and be hard to bend if they were clear about their needs.
The second thing I thought was interesting was that the mediators divided the negotiation into three sessions in which they presented their ideas and solutions to the stakeholders . This was very helpful for them because it sort of gave stakeholders an ultimatum forcing them to choose one and eventually open up more to the different......
Join Now or Login to view the rest of this paper.
Approximate Word Count: 290
Approximate Pages: 2 (260 words per double-spaced page) |