Negotation

I actually enjoyed the negotiation excepercise in last week's class more than i anticipated. As the recruiter, it was entertaining seeing how the conversation played out and coming up with ways to influence the employee into backing down and believing my reasons for why i was low balling him on the offers.

I think we did pretty well on the negotiations overall- there was a good back and forth going on the whole time and the employee was holding his ground pretty well, calling me out on my salary and bonus explanations by saying that he had "spoken to other employees and they had told him they were hired with a higher level base/bonus package..." In both cases, we would improvise explanations for why we "couldn't" offer/accept a higher/lower salary, bonus structure, vacation package, division, etc.

I thought we were pretty mainstream with how the points totaled up in comparison to the rest of the class. As the recruiter, i "won" on some negotiation points, and then gave more leiway or wiggle room to the employee to win on other ones so he didn't feel completely dominated in the negotiation. At one point, when i was trying to battle with the employee to keep the start date later, while he wanted it earlier, i resorted to confiding "insider information" to him that the current employee that he was going to be replacing was being "phased" out forcefully, and that his term would overlap with the new employee if we let him start before Aug 1. When that wasn't enough of a deterrant to the employee, i told him that the current employee had violent tendencies and that we didn't want to put him in harm's way, since he would likely feel rage towards the new employee who was taking his position. I finally told him that if he insisted on starting earlier than august 1, the earliest we could do was July 1, not June 1, and that he would have to understand that he was entering a potentially hostile work environment at his own risk at that time. He told us he wasn't concerned about it since it was the employer's responsibility to ultimately provide a safe and comfortable work environment for him, and that he trusted that they would do their job. That conversation clearly wouldn't be a professional one to instigate in real life, but for the sake of the role playing it seemed okay to just run with it. :)

I didn't have any preconceived notions of my negotiation partner because i didn't know him, so i had no idea what to expect in terms of his assertiveness or submissiveness, etc. It ended up being a pretty balanced negotation, though, with both sides holding ground on certain points that were of higher importance to us and backing down on ones we weren't as concerned with. I think my role in this negotation somewhat reflects my general approach to conflicts in my life. I consider myself a pretty fair, level headed person, and am pretty good and finding a balance and give-take solution whenever possible when problems arise. I believe that things should be fair whenever possible, and am a strong believer in compromise as a tactic for conflict solving. In this situation in real life, i would not have felt good about a negotiation that ended with me getting my way by bulldozing through and demanding that my terms be met on all/most points. I would want to walk away knowing that the employee felt satisfied that they were able to get their way on some of the contract terms that were important to them, but also knowing that i held firm on some of the terms that were more critical to me. That way, we both have a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, and there is no reason for resentment down the line since things started with a balanced playing field and no one feels slighted.