What were the goals of an original negotiation?
The original negotiation aims at ensuring that the smiths pay their pledge without involving the law. Peter Smith and is wife signed an agreement to support the MCA in building up a modern museum but decline to give the funds after disagreements. Peter and his wife are judges and lawyers respectively and should know the consequences of failure to honor their pledges and a result they ran away from the city. The new director and is team are supporting the idea that peter should be sued while some thinks that he should not. Others prefer that alternative means if forcing him to pay his pledges should be used. The museum currently depends on pledges from donors with the 5million from peter hindering the building of the new museum. The original negotiation where peter should give out 5milion aims at developing a new museum.
Was your original BATNA? What was its value?
BATNA is an acronym of Best Alternative to a negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 2012). This is a way of action that can be taken by a particular party when the first negotiation process fails and the entire agreement cannot be reached (Fisher & Ury, 2012). BATNA is believed to be the key focus in a negotiation theory. It helps to establish a successful negotiator. In this case, the original BATNA is to sue a law case that will force Peter Smith to give out his pledge. Sometimes it is better to involve a law whenever the original negotiation fails. On a law standpoint, Peter will be forced to write a written pledge in front of her wife. This in advance will play a significant role, as it will make Peter to give out his pledge. This will help to make the new building to be continued and they will continue to get the interest as they used to get. One of the values of the original BATNA which is to sue to a lawsuit is that it will persuade Peter to give out his pledge a agreed and this will help in the construction of the new building.
What are your interests (as opposed to your position)?
As a chairperson, I should ensure that conflicts are minimized between the board members. As the chairperson I should ensure that people who have made pledges are able to pay the required amounts. The new museum should be developed since the chairperson should ensure that people pay the necessary amounts and conflicts are minimized between the board members. The plan to build a modern museum should be completed with the chairperson ensuring that the necessary resources are available. The chairperson understands that just like other organizations MCA should not entirely depend on donors since they may lack the actual amount they pledged to donate. The most important thing to note is the way forward in order to get the amount required for construction of the museum. Smith should pay since he pledged even though he will not pay the full 5million. He was in full support of the MCA and as a member he should be forced to pay without necessary suing him to the law suits.
What are some options for mutual gain?
Mutual gain is a notion whereby every person will benefit from the agreed condition. In addition, it leads to a win-win outcome, as every person will have a good reputation. In this case, it is better for Peggy to maintain his position as he has a very public recognition and suing lawsuit may led to the violation of his reputation. Additionally, it is also to consider the welfare of Peter Smith and the situation at hard. The fact that there is financial crisis every where, it is better to find a way through which Peter will be in a position to pay his pledge. Thus, Peggy may think of lending Peter with money in order to fulfill his promise. In relation, he may also advice Peter Smith to give out materials for the construction of the entire building instead of giving out the pledged funds. This is essential, as it is one way of solving out the scandal. This will help him to avoid the scandal of a lawsuit. Additionally, it will help him to matter the welfare of Peter who pledge to give out $5M.
Identify influence tactics: which ones could you use on the Smiths?
Smith and his wife should be sued to a court of law just like other people who refuse to pay their pledges are sued. Smiths are running away from a signed agreement which will cause them harm if they are sued since the laws will not support them. The chairperson as well as other board members is in unison agreement to sue the smith since they believe that the laws will fully support them like they have done before to those who report such cases. There is an alternative way of ensuring that the Smiths pay their 5millio pledge. The board should forcefully ask Smiths to pay their debt since the organization has pending debts as result of donors who have not honored their pledges. The board should ensure that Smiths do not run away without fulfilling their pledge failure to which negative consequences should follow. The board should threaten Smiths in order to ensure they pay their pledge in full amount since they are not facing financial hardships.
What power bases do you (as Peggy Fischer) have in regards to each of the Smiths? Explain.
I being the chairperson of Midwestern: Contemporary Art (MCA), I have different powers in regards to each of the Smiths, for instance, I have power to seek lawsuit to force Peter Smith to pay the pledge funds. In addition, I have power to take any action to make sure that the pledged funds are fully fulfilled. I have also power to conclude that Smith will not give out his pledge due to the ongoing financial crisis. On the side of Smith, he has power to find any mean to pay his pledge whether to give out materials for construction instead of giving out the pledged money. He has also power to stop the case as he is one of the judges and his wife is a lawyer. Thus, they can also sue a case against me. From this perspective, it can be seen that Peggy has more power than Peter Smith as he has the mandate to sue the lawsuit incase of the failure of the negotiation.
How might you (again as Peggy Fischer) draw on your personal network to influence each of the Smiths? Explain.
Being the chairperson of the MCA, I can find any mean to make sure that I have influenced Peter Smith’s power to stop the case. For instance, I can argue him to pay the pledged funds or report high to the high court. Peter smith is a judge while his wife is a lawyer by profession. They know the consequences resulting from their failure to pay their pledge which makes them run away. I should force the lawyer who is Peter’s wife to pay the pledge which she and her husband made. She is influential as a lawyer but that should not hinder me as the chairperson to let justice take place.
References
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2012). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. London: Random House Business.
