Myti-Pet Case Report
Chris Romano
Reflection Paper #2 – Myti-Pet
1. How did you plan for the negotiation? Explain how you decided on a strategy? In the Myti-Pet case I played the role of one member of the Myti-Pet leadership team. After individually reading the case information, I felt that some time would have to be spent deescalating the situation regarding our refusal to pay and their threat of a potential lawsuit. It was obvious that a long-term, trusting relationship could not be established without addressing this issue. It was also clear that a potential mutually beneficial relationship existed regarding our need for additional meat flour and our desire to change supplier for our wheat flour. If we were able to reestablish a trusting relationship that addressed some of our concerns, a lucrative opportunity existed for both firms. As discussed in Lewicki, et al. (1993), the idea of promotive interdependence is clearly evident in this case; if the negation was managed correctly, both sides would benefit greatly. However, it was very possible that each side’s perception of the degree of interdependence that existed would vary significantly. Without open information sharing, it would be very difficult to assess the existing levels of interdependence. Planning for the negation was made more complicated when I realized that I would be accompanied in the negotiation by two co-workers. We quickly determined that it would be most effective to select individual roles to play during the negotiation (I was the VP of Operations). This strategy allowed each of us to focus on certain aspects of the case and also allotted some flexibility in the ways we communicated during the negotiation. The last-minute case data instructing us to display anger at the start of the negotiation also played a role in the interaction by pushing us to display some of the cognitive distortions discussed in class, including “demonizing the other side” and “jumping to conclusions” (class
Reflection Paper #2 – Myti-Pet
1. How did you plan for the negotiation? Explain how you decided on a strategy? In the Myti-Pet case I played the role of one member of the Myti-Pet leadership team. After individually reading the case information, I felt that some time would have to be spent deescalating the situation regarding our refusal to pay and their threat of a potential lawsuit. It was obvious that a long-term, trusting relationship could not be established without addressing this issue. It was also clear that a potential mutually beneficial relationship existed regarding our need for additional meat flour and our desire to change supplier for our wheat flour. If we were able to reestablish a trusting relationship that addressed some of our concerns, a lucrative opportunity existed for both firms. As discussed in Lewicki, et al. (1993), the idea of promotive interdependence is clearly evident in this case; if the negation was managed correctly, both sides would benefit greatly. However, it was very possible that each side’s perception of the degree of interdependence that existed would vary significantly. Without open information sharing, it would be very difficult to assess the existing levels of interdependence. Planning for the negation was made more complicated when I realized that I would be accompanied in the negotiation by two co-workers. We quickly determined that it would be most effective to select individual roles to play during the negotiation (I was the VP of Operations). This strategy allowed each of us to focus on certain aspects of the case and also allotted some flexibility in the ways we communicated during the negotiation. The last-minute case data instructing us to display anger at the start of the negotiation also played a role in the interaction by pushing us to display some of the cognitive distortions discussed in class, including “demonizing the other side” and “jumping to conclusions” (class
Cited: Bazerman, M. (1990). Biases. Managerial Decision Making, 12-45, 12-47. Bazerman, M. and Gillespie, J. (1999). Betting on the Future: The Virtues of Contingent Contracts. Harvard Business Review, 3-8. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes, New York, NY: Penguin Group. Leritz, L. (1988). Negotiating with Problem People. Working Woman, 35-77. Lewicki, R.J., et al. (1993). Negotiation, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Sebenius, J. (2001). Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators. Harvard Business Review, 1-12. Williams, G. and Miller, R. (2002). Change the Way You Persuade. Harvard Business Review, 3-11.