BUSI 455 Week 8 Negotiation 2: Self-Critique Example

Negotiation 2 Self-Critique: Measuring Two Negotiations Against Three Goals

The Goals I Set

My Week 2 self-analysis in ExpertNegotiator named three habits to build: arriving with a goal and a floor on each issue, putting the first number on the table when well informed, and drawing out what the other side really cares about through questions. This critique measures my performance in both negotiations against those goals, with most attention to Negotiation 2.

Goal 1: Preparation

I met this goal in both negotiations. Each planning post set an opening, target and resistance point for every issue, and each resistance point came from an estimate of our best alternative. The preparation paid off most clearly in Negotiation 2, where we had estimated the cost of both sides' alternatives in dollars. Knowing that the landlord would lose about $67,000 in nine months of vacancy kept us from treating a weak alternative of our own as a reason to give in. Lewicki et al. (2015) describe planning as the most neglected step in negotiation, and I now see why: every good decision we made at the table had been made in the plan first.

Goal 2: The First Offer

I met this goal in both negotiations, but with a better method the second time. In Negotiation 1 we opened with a single price range, which anchored the discussion but led straight to a price argument. In Negotiation 2 we opened with two complete packages of equal value to us. The landlord's choice of the ten-year package told us where its priorities lay before we had conceded anything. A single offer stakes a claim; two equivalent offers ask a question at the same time. The packages also kept the first session from turning into a contest over one number, because the landlord had to weigh rent against term, allowance and increases all at once. If I were to improve the method further, I would build a third package around a different priority, such as a lower allowance with patio use included, to learn even more from the choice.

Goal 3: Questions About Interests

In Negotiation 1, I met this goal only late. The question about wasted pastries, which created the best part of that deal, came in the second session, after we had already given away early delivery. In Negotiation 2 we asked why the long term mattered in the second session, before conceding anything on it, and the answer about the lender's refinancing shaped the whole agreement. That was the most important change between the two negotiations. I also learned to ask a follow-up question rather than accept the first answer: when the landlord's pair first said the long term was "better for the center," my partner asked what made it better, and only then did the refinancing come up.

Comparing the Two Negotiations

Loewenstein et al. (1999) showed that people who set two cases side by side and spotted the principle they shared went on to use it in a new negotiation far more often than people who read the same cases one at a time. Comparing my two negotiations shows the principle I most needed: value is created when one side learns what the other side values and offers it in exchange for what it values. In Negotiation 1, we found that out by accident; in Negotiation 2, we planned for it with packages and conditional concessions, and the result was better than our targets on four of six issues.

Elfenbein et al. (2008) found that negotiators' outcomes were partly consistent across different negotiations, which suggests that habits travel with a negotiator from one table to the next. That makes it important to name my habits honestly, including the weak ones.

A Weakness That Remains

My clearest remaining weakness is discomfort with silence. Twice in Negotiation 2, after making an offer, I added a sentence softening it before the other pair responded, for example saying that the allowance figure was "a starting point." My partner pointed out after Session 2 that those additions invited counteroffers we did not need to invite. Next time, I will make an offer, explain it once and then stop and wait for a response, and my partner and I will agree that whoever is not speaking will signal if I start to fill a pause.

Ethics at the Table

In the Ethics Paper I argued that a negotiator may keep a limit private but may never misstate it. Negotiation 2 tested that position. When the landlord's pair asked whether we had looked at other spaces, I answered truthfully that we had seen one four blocks away and that moving would be costly for us, without stating our resistance point on rent. The honest answer did not weaken us; it made our 60-day deadline believable and invited the landlord's own candor about the lender. I am more convinced now that truthful discretion is both right and effective.

Working With a Partner

Our division of roles worked: one of us led the presentation while the other tracked the plan and asked the interest questions. In Negotiation 1, we had not agreed on who could concede what alone, and the early delivery concession slipped out; in Negotiation 2, we required both partners' agreement for any concession on term or allowance, and nothing slipped. The peer feedback I received said that I prepared thoroughly and wrote clear messages, and that I could listen longer before replying, which matches my own assessment.

Conclusion

The course began with Sande and Johnson's (2015) reminder that conflict is an opportunity to serve others as well as ourselves. Both negotiations bore that out: our best results came from understanding what the other side needed and finding a way to provide it. I will carry three practices forward: plan limits from alternatives, open with packages, and ask before conceding. Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering before hearing (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016), and my remaining work is to hear more, and say less, at the table.

References

Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L. (2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1463-1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Gentner, D. (1999). Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 586-597. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212967

Sande, K., & Johnson, K. (2015). Resolving everyday conflict (Rev. ed.). Baker Books.