NEGOTIATION ESSENTIALS FOR MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS

Negotiation Experience Diary

Exercise 7.3: GCI

Your Name: Ishika Priya

Role You Played: Jiten ( Chief Financial Officer of NC)

Please be critical but constructive in the feedback you are giving your opposing part. By being critical
here, you will be in a position to give your batchmate feedback that he would never receive otherwise.
Remember, it is better to learn in a safe environment like a classroom and get critical comments from
a batchmate as opposed to learning through the hard knocks life doles out, and never learning from
your opposing party as to what went wrong. Be constructive, be mindful of not hurting your opposing
partner. Frame your feedback in such a way that can inform him about the steps he could have taken
to improve his behavior. Please remember this feedback will be shared with your opposing partner
and as most exercises are one on one, it will not be anonymous. Please submit this feedback to the
instructor and email a copy of it to your opposing party by the end of the day (23:59:59) that the
exercise was conducted.
When you receive the feedback, please take the feedback constructively. Try and analyze the thoughts
of your opposing party, and try and introspect to see what you could have done to make the
negotiation better. Try to consciously incorporate the suggestions for your next negotiation exercise.

Please reflect on the negotiation you were just a part of and answer the following briefly:

Name 1: Manish Karoor ( Krishna)

What mark would you want to give your opposing party with respect to the effectiveness of
strategy/ tactic on the negotiation (5 being the highest, 0 being the lowest): _ _ 4_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Justify the reason behind this mark:

The opposing party was accommodating and reasonable and negotiated the deal strategically by
putting forward his own points systematically as well as listening to my concerns. The negotiation
was towards finding a solution and did not have a feeling of hostility. The opposing party genuinely
seemed interested in reaching a solution that benefits both parties. The opposing party listened
attentively to my proposed solutions, and responded after careful and thoughtful consideration.

State three things you really liked about your opposing party’s handling of this negotiation:

 Accommodative and solution finding approach

 Active listening, considerate response and even thou he was outnumbered in the
negotiation (3 to 1) he maintained a calm demeanor
 Confident in presenting his strategy and well informed about the market (other vendor rates
etc ) as well as the opposing party ( rightly identified that the increase in SLA from 95% to
97% won’t help the company improve its financial health)
State three things you would like your opposing party to improve with respect to the handling of this
negotiation:

 Seemed formal in the informal discussion.

 Acknowledged but did not reciprocate the likability tactic used to build repo.

Anything else you would like her/him to know about this negotiation?

Name 2: Manish Chandra (Ravi)

What mark would you want to give your opposing party with respect to the effectiveness of
strategy/ tactic on the negotiation (5 being the highest, 0 being the lowest): _ _3.5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Justify the reason behind this mark:

In the discussion he listened actively on the strategic for the final negotiation and positively
influenced the key decision makers (Amit and Krishna). He understood the power dynamins and role
played by key decision makers in the final negotiations. Pointed a relevant point of providing
uninterrupted services to patients

State three things you really liked about your opposing party’s handling of this negotiation:

 Active Listening
 Receptive of the information and reasoning
 Positively influenced the decision making for a favorable deal

State three things you would like your opposing party to improve with respect to the handling of this
negotiation:

 More proactive in putting forward his points

 Seemed lightly confused about the facts of the case
 Easily influenced without prompting questions/explanations

Anything else you would like her/him to know about this negotiation?

NA
Name 3: Prachi Kaul ( Amit)

What mark would you want to give your opposing party with respect to the effectiveness of
strategy/ tactic on the negotiation (5 being the highest, 0 being the lowest): _ _ _ _4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Justify the reason behind this mark:

Very clear and effective in the way she communicated the thought process. She was accommodative
and reasonable. Her initial stance in the negotiation was unreasonable however she was not
adamant on them and leveraged that tactfully to get a favorable deal.

State three things you really liked about your opposing party’s handling of this negotiation:
 Communications Skills : Listening and speaking
 Considerate and accommodative approach she was not to adamant on her initial stance
when the overall situation was brought to her notice.
 Solution Finding approach rather than escalating past issues , more focused on resolving the
issues and making contingents for future issues.

State three things you would like your opposing party to improve with respect to the handling of this
negotiation:

 She was not true to the role of Amit described in the case ( The case describes Amit as
unreasonable and adamant on his demands with little room to influence his decision)
 Easily influenced without cross questioning and explanation.

Anything else you would like her/him to know about this negotiation?
NA

Name 4: NA

What mark would you want to give your opposing party with respect to the effectiveness of
strategy/ tactic on the negotiation (5 being the highest, 0 being the lowest): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Justify the reason behind this mark:

State three things you really liked about your opposing party’s handling of this negotiation:
State three things you would like your opposing party to improve with respect to the handling of this
negotiation:

Anything else you would like her/him to know about this negotiation?