Posted: September 3rd, 2013
1. Case Incident 1
1.1 Principles of Distributive negotiations used by Sherman
Sherman used aggressive distributive principles of negotiations where he pushed for a first offer in order to be at an advantage. He knew there was a blind spot that would make the deal unsuccessful, and took advantage of the blind spot. He aim was to extract the best deal from Bristol-Myers for Apotex. He inserted the clause requiring Bristol-Myers to pay $60 million if Federal Trade Commission would reject their agreement. His aim was to get as much as he could from Bristol-Myers, and never at one time considered what Bristol-Myers would get in turn.
1.2 Behavior of Sherman
Sherman did not act ethically considering he launched their generic drug before the negotiations were done. This is not ethical considering he was only entering into the negotiation on the bet of the Federal Trade Commission rejecting the deal that would result. When he realized it might not be so, he decides to go ahead with the launching of the generic drug before the negotiations were over. His misrepresenting of facts was unethical.
1.3 The Role of Deception in Negotiations
Evidence from several cases has indicated that deception does allow short-term benefits from the negotiation. However, in this case, the deception used will put the company at a long-term advantage considering Apotex will be selling the drug for quite a long time. However, deception above anything else leads to lack of trust from the other party involved, and this could hinder future negotiations. Deceptions can also be used to get as much as one can from the negotiations, or putting the company at the best position as possible.
2. Case Incident 2
2.1 Factors determining success of mediation
Mediation can never be successful if both parties to the dispute are not willing to come to an agreement. Both parties should be willing to consider the other party’s concerns in order for a solution to be realized. In situations where there cannot be a fair agreement, it is hard for mediation to be successful considering mediations are supposed to provide a deal that is fair to both parties to the conflict. In addition, when the issue is so detrimental to one side, mediation might fail to come to a fair solution.
2.2 Seeking justice
When two parties are seeking justice from their dispute, it is hard to use mediation to come up with a solution. The purpose of mediation is to have a fair solution for both parties, one that will provide a win-win situation. However, this is not the purpose of justice. Justice seeks to make the one with the mistakes pay for them. Therefore, mediation cannot provide justice.
2.3 Mediators Should Have the Reasons the Parties Are Making Their Demand
In order for mediators to know what will be best for both parties to a dispute, they will need to know that the reasons for their claims are. I think knowing the reasons for the parties to make their claim assesses whether it will be fair for the other party. Fire instance, if workers were demanding a higher pay, it would be worth to know the reasons in order to find out whether it will be fair to the employer.
2.3 Disparity between Employers and Employees in the Use of Mediation
According to the EEOC, 85% of employees agree to mediation, while only 30% of employers agree to it. I think the disparity exists from the belief that the employees are the ones to gain from the employer, while the employer will have to part with more money in most cases considering majority of disputes will involve extra costs such as improved working conditions, pay hike among other reasons. In most cases, the employers want to maintain the status quo while the employees want improvements on some things.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.