Home            Blog
Showing posts with label negotiation strategies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negotiation strategies. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Men, Women, and Status in Negotiations


Men, Women, and Status in Negotiations

EDITED BY PON_STAFF ON  / BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS
A growing body of research suggests that status concerns vary depending on the gender of interested parties.
First, men tend to care more about status than women do. Using a university sponsored fundraising campaign, researchers Bruno S. Frey and Stephan Meier of the University of Zurich examined how social-comparison information affected contribution rates.
  • Male students who learned that a high percentage of students had contributed to the campaign were more likely to make a contribution than were female students who received the same information.
In the context of negotiation, professors John Rizzo of Stony Brook University and Richard Zeckhauser of Harvard University asked a group of young physicians about their reference groups and salary aspirations.
  • Male physicians compared themselves to reference groups that earned higher salaries than the ones female physicians selected. 
  • In addition, men’s salary reference points were more indicative than women’s of how much they earned later.
  • Finally, women tend to compare themselves to particular individuals whom they know, while men tend to assess themselves according to information about typical behavior.
For this reason, when negotiating, consider offering different social comparison information to men and women. You might tell a male prospective hire that you’re offering him more than you’ll give others with his qualifications (assuming that is true).
When negotiating with a female prospect, you might be more specific:
“We recently interviewed someone similar to you, a Kellogg MBA with several years of consulting experience. To signal how much we want you to work for us, we’re offering you more than we offered her.”

To Improve Your Negotiation Skills, Learn from a Pro


To Improve Your Negotiation Skills, Learn from a Pro

EDITED BY KEITH LUTZ ON  / NEGOTIATION SKILLS
On February 16, in the midst of the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) All-Star weekend, members of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) unanimously voted to oust Billy Hunter as the union’s executive director.
“This is our union and we have taken it back,” National Basketball Players Association president Derek Fisher said, as reported by ESPN.com. Fisher said the union had been “divided, misled, [and] misinformed,” by its leader. Hunter hinted in a statement that he might contest his firing in court.
As the union’s leader since 1996, Hunter negotiated three collective bargaining agreements for NBA players, contributing to raising their average salaries to more than $5 million, the highest in team sports.
Divided Union
Conflicts between Fisher and Hunter divided union members during the 2011 NBA lockout. According to ESPN.com, “agents didn’t like [Hunter], questioning his bargaining strategies, and they were frustrated they didn’t have a bigger role in his union.”
After Hunter was accused of numerous indiscretions, Fisher pushed for a review of him. In its review, an independent law firm criticized Hunter for various conflicts of interests and poor decisions, such as hiring family members and friends and billing the NBPA for questionable travel and gift expenses. The review did not find Hunter guilty of any criminal activity, but three government investigations of Hunter are ongoing.
After the review was released, the members of the NBPA put Hunter on a leave of absence. About 35 NBA players attended the union committee’s annual meeting in February to discuss Hunter’s future.
Hunter’s Dismissal
NBA superstar LeBron James and longtime player Jerry Stackhouse reportedly took the lead in arguing for Hunter’s dismissal, according to the New York Times. James’s involvement was unusual: league superstars rarely get involved in the nitty gritty of labor negotiations and union management.
James “practically cross-examined the lawyers to prepared the report on Hunter,” the Times reports. And he and Stackhouse demanded explanations from committee members who previously had sided with Hunter rather than Fisher.
NBA players widely respect James for his business savvy and interpersonal skills. So it was not surprising, given James’s forceful arguments against Hunter, that the committee voted unanimously to release Hunter from his duties.
The situation speaks to the power of convincing influential parties to lead important negotiations. One well-respected and admired leader may be uniquely posited to wrap up a negotiation that took many behind-the-scenes players to engineer.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Successful negotiation tactic used for electric power In India


Finding the Right Process in India

EDITED BY PON_STAFF ON  / CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS
In 1995, a new government came into power in the Indian state of Maharashtra and canceled a 20-year power purchase agreement with the Dabhol Power Company, a joint-venture formed by Enron, General Electric, and Bechtel. Claiming that the deal was improper and even illegal, the government declared publicly that it would not renegotiate.
When the government recognized that it had no other options to secure power, it began to soften its position. But if renegotiations were to take place, the parties would need a process that would preserve the government’s dignity and prestige. Ultimately, the government chose to appoint a “review panel” consisting of disinterested energy experts to reexamine the project. The panel met with Dabhol representatives and project critics, and then submitted a proposal to the government that contained the terms of a renegotiated electricity supply agreement that both sides accepted.
The use of an expert panel to conduct what amounted to a renegotiation, in lieu of face-to-face discussions between the two sides, served to protect governmental dignity. The panel’s independent status also assured the public that the renegotiated agreement protected Indian interests.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

CRS finds US production grew outside federally controlled areas


CRS finds US production grew outside federally controlled areas

03/05/2013
3
Facebook
3
Twitter
0
LinkedIn
6
Share
While US oil and gas production has climbed to its highest level in 2 decades, all of the growth since 2007 has occurred outside federally controlled areas where production actually declined, a recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found.
“Private sector investment and new technologies are driving increases in oil and gas production,” said US Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee, which released the Feb. 28 CRS analysis on Mar. 5.
“Where the states have been in charge, we have seen energy development boom in a safe and responsible way, but under federal control we have seen a sharp decline in production,” he declared. “A web of red tape and a backlog of delayed permits are blocking important energy production opportunities on federal lands.”
All of the fiscal 2007-12 US crude oil production increase took place outside nonfederal areas onshore and offshore, and the federal share of total domestic crude output fell by about seven percentage points during that period, the report said.
US gas production has grown by 4 tcf/year since 2007 as output grew by 40% on state and private land and fell by about 33% on federal onshore and offshore areas, it added.
Congress may consider two different proposals to increase oil and gas production from federally issued leases, according to the report’s executive summary.
Nonproduction fee
It noted that some members have proposed a $4/acre annual fee on nonproducing tracts which they believe are not being developed in a timely fashion. US Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar imposed higher federal offshore lease rents in 2009 to discourage holding unused leases and to move more tracts into production if possible, it said.
Other members of Congress may propose legislation to streamline federal oil and gas drilling permit application processing, the report continued. It said that a review mandated by the 2005 Energy Policy Act found the average time it took producers and the US Bureau of Land Management to process a federal drilling permit application climbed from 218 days in fiscal 2006 to 307 days in 2011.
“The difference, however, is that in 2006 it took BLM an average of 127 days to process an [application], while in 2011 it took BLM 71 days,” CRS said in its report. “In 2006, the industry took an average of 91 days to complete [a drilling permit application], but in 2011, [it] took 236 days. BLM stated, in its fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget justifications, that overall processing times per [application] have increased because of the complexity of the process.”
“As [gasoline] prices continue to rise past $4/gal, American families are looking to Washington for solutions to help provide relief at the pump,” Whitfield said. “Expanding oil production on federal lands offers a real opportunity to help increase domestic supplies and stabilize prices as well as boost federal revenues.”
Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.