The document provides a reflective report on a negotiation exercise between two teams, Boston and Fresh Air. It identifies two main issues that contributed to Boston's unsuccessful negotiation outcome: 1) inadequate preparation, as the team did not fully understand Fresh Air's interests and positions, and 2) becoming emotional and allowing tensions to escalate during negotiations. The report recommends improving preparation through a detailed crib sheet and assigning calm team members to lead discussions. It also suggests using positive statements and naming or diverting tactics to handle tensions and threats constructively.

1. Nottingham University Business School
Undergraduate Programmes
PURCHASING STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES
THE REFLECTIVE REPORT OF THE NEGOTIATION EXERCISE
Student Name: NGO MY NGAN LE
Student ID: 4237670
COPY 2
1

2. INTRODUCTION
The case indicates five negotiating issues that Boston team (my team) needs to put on the
bargaining table with Fresh Air, particularly they are gates, headquarter, transportation, training and
tax abatement. After discussion session, my team drew up a plan including favourable positions and
maximum positions for each issue. Maximum positions are results may put us into disadvantageous
conditions but we can compromise with Fresh Air. Our task is: Geogre Butter is the main negotiator
for all issues relating to gates, Eleanor Barnes for headquarter and transportation, Anvar Hamzayev
for tax abatement and I for training. Overall, actual results are quite far away from my team’ first
expectation. In my perspective, inadequate preparation combing with getting emotional leading to
tense atmosphere are main causes for unfavourable results. The rationale for presenting these
issues in my report is because they happened in both negotiating teams and for me; they
contributed to about 80% of my team’s negotiation failure. The report is structured as two parts
corresponding with two issues mentioned above. Each part has descriptions of conditions result in
issues combining with my own analysis about the rationale behind them and also recommendations
about what I and my teammates can do differently to have better results.
ISSUE 1- INADEQUATE PREPARATION
Although my team indicated favourable and maximum positions, in my viewpoint, our
preparation was still insufficient before we start to negotiate with Fresh Air. This inadequacy was
partly due to time constraints but the main reason was that my team did not truly put ourselves into
our partner’s shoes to understand their interests and propose a viable package. During the negotiating
process, my team many times felt surprised towards reactions from the partner for our
recommendations because we did not anticipate sufficiently their possible behaviour. This leaded us
to passive position and pushed our first expected results far away. Moreover, surprise and
confusion were also happened in Fresh Air’s team through the fact that they exposed their
interpersonal conflicts in front of my team when arguing three options proposed from us regarding
headquarter and incentive package.
To solve inadequate preparation issue, Burt, Dobler and Starling (2003, p.464) introduced the
use of a crib sheet as a powerful preparation tool for negotiations. Crib sheet includes the expected
agenda, negotiating issues with most favourable positions (maximum and minimum positions) and
compromise positions as well as the BATNA. Moreover, it also notes down behaviour that
negotiators should and should not do during the negotiation. Thanks to crib sheet, each negotiating
team member would have an official document to which they can refer, act, and the most
important thing is to direct negotiation around positions listed in the sheet. The following figure
is a sample crib sheet illustrating this recommendation.
2

3. Figure: A sample crib sheet (Burt, Dobler and Starling, 2003, p.465)
3

4. However, it is obvious that we cannot have a perfect preparation because nothing is
perfect. Sometimes the team needs to adjust its strategy. A recess is always an option but
managers do not prefer this way because they do not want signal a need to adjust strategy (Brett,
Friedman and Behfar, 2009). The alternatives are using gestures and postures that agreed previously
in the team or passing notes when team members sit together. If members sit apart, text messaging
may be a useful tool for intrateam communication.
ISSUE 2 – GETTING EMOTIONAL AND TENSE ATMOSTPHERE
Brett, Friedman and Behfar ‘s article in 2009 warned negotiating teams that the biggest
challenge may come from their own side of the table. This is illustrated obviously from both sides in
our negotiating process. In the initial stage arguing about gates, due to uncontrollable emotions,
Geogre and Eleanor talked the same time; then in the second stage about headquarter and incentive
package, five members of Fresh Air team talked together. This made no one listen and
understand the whole points of others. At the end of the negotiation, when I discussed with my
friend who is in Fresh Air team, she told that her team mentioned about incentive package with 7M
and MIP for the headquarter location. If my team heard about that, we might agree because it not
only meets Fresh Air’s desire but also prevents us from the police’s protest due to cutting down their
financial support to give to Fresh Air. Thus, more than two people talking at the same time let us not
identify all the other’ interests but also made the negotiating atmosphere tense.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that my teammates- Geogre and Eleanor got too emotional and
then became irrationally intransigent toward the other side. The most obvious evidence for this was
when Fresh Air threatened us by repeating again and again that San Francisco offered them 8M for
incentive package, Geogre reacted irrationally and without discussing with the whole time that Boston
would also offer 8M. Furthermore, he also flashbacked by a threat that Fresh Air had to choose
among three options:1) BWTC + 5 M for tax and training 2) Downtown + 8M up to their division or
3) nothing. Eleanor also advocated with Geogre’s opinion and showed a challenging behaviour to the
other side. These undisciplined behaviours escalated tense atmosphere of the negotiation. According
to Mangione (2010), tense atmosphere creates negative emotions for all negotiators and as a result,
no agreement or committed an unworkable plan is likely to happen. In our case, tense atmosphere
leaded us to a relatively unworkable plan with a lot of risks:
First, we agreed with Fresh Air to allow them to use two gates in terminal E and then from
Year 3 four gates in terminal C, which surely causes huge anger from the other LCC FlyTron,
negative publicity about both Logan Airport and Boston as well as damages Boston’s
reputation to future partners who intend to invest to the city.
4

5. Second, about headquarter and incentive package, despite reaching an agreement that Fresh
Air will use downtown building as expected, we had to trade off 8M incentive package which
may lead to the police’s protest.
The next section is recommendations to reduce getting emotional and tense atmosphere in
negotiations. Burt, Dobler and Starling (2003, p.463) proposed that successful negotiators often take
to a lot of time on developing a suitable agenda before sitting down at the table. The suitable agenda
sequences negotiating issues based on their probable ease of agreement. Thanks to this, an
atmosphere of cooperation and momentum can develop that may facilitate the solving the more
difficult issues. To apply in our case, issues about gates should be discussed after ones about
headquarter because gates at the airport are likely a more sensitive and important issue for an airline
compared to headquarter location. In the negotiation, our instructor decided which team starts first by
tossing the coin; however, in the future, my team should actively begin to assure the sequence of
negotiation following our intention. The next suggestion to solve the issue is assigning suitable
roles for team members. Fisher, Ury and Patton in their book” Getting to Yes” published in 1991
stated that a wise agreement in collaborative negotiations results from identifying basic interests,
mutually satisfying options and fair standards. Thus, the lead negotiator, who does most of the
important talking, should be changed to one who is calm, enables to encourage Fresh Air talk more
about their interests and uses positive statements. For me, Anvar instead of Geogre is a suitable
candidate for a lead negotiator of my team because he is the calmest and also has an ability to make
others share more about themselves. This conclusion was based on my team conversation about life in
Nottingham during our break. Regarding to the final criteria of a lead negotiator, Burt, Dobler and
Starling (2003, p.469) discussed that when negotiators use positive statements showing their
sympathy for the partner’s viewpoint even though the negotiator disagrees with it, the partner is more
likely to consider the negotiator’s viewpoint objectively. Thus, my team could response to the threat
from Fresh Air by wiser turns like “naming” tactic proposed by Kolb (2004). Particularly, the writer
recommended we could apply this tactic by replying that “ You and I both know that will mean more
work for you”, then showing Boston’s advantages like young , well-educated and cheap labour which
Fresh Air really desires for their business; and especially less LCC competition than is found in the
other finalist cities. However, naming tactic is categorized as a restorative turn, which may put the
other party on the defensive. Thus, a participative turn like “diverting” should be put into
consideration. According to Kolb (2004), participative turns shift the focus to the problem itself, treat
with the other party as a partner not an opponent and open up the dialogue in ways that restorative
turns are not likely to do. In particular, my team could divert the threat from Fresh Air party by
replying “We know things are tight, but we want to explore some other ideas with you”. Overall,
5

6. using separately or combining restorative and participative turns are possible ways for us to cope
with threats wisely and break negotiation deadlocks.
CONCLUSION
Overall, inadequate preparation as well as getting emotional leading to tense atmosphere was
roots for unfavourable outcomes of the negotiation. Based on analysis and suggestions presented
above, steps to avoid these issues and have a more favourable negotiation can be generalised as
follows:
1) Prepare a good crib sheet with a suitable agenda, a clear description of favourable and
compromise positions as well as desirable behaviours.
2) Assign suitable roles for team members
3) Use both restorative and participative turns to react the partner’s moves (prior to participative
turns)
4) Use a recess or more secret methods like tacit gestures and postures, note passing and text
messaging when the team needs to adjust the strategy.
REFERENCES
Brett, J., Friedman, R. and Behfar, K. (2009). How to manage your negotiating team. Harvard
6

7. Business Review, 87(9), pp.105-109.
Burt, D., Starling, S. and Dobler, D. (2003). World class supply management. Boston: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books.
Kolb, D. (2004). Staying in the Game or Changing It: An Analysis of Moves and Turns in
Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 20(2), pp.253-268.
Mangione, C. (2010). Negotiation Strategies: Ask for it!. 1st ed. [ebook] Available at:
http://dgsomdiversity.ucla.edu/workfiles/lectures/Mangione-Negotiation-May2010.pdf
[Accessed 3 Dec. 2014].
(Word count: 1634)
7