Strategic Negotiations in Business: A Win-Win Outcome Between AccelMedia and GTechnic - Essay Example

Negotiations are an integral part of business deals and relationships. As such, it is crucial for businesses to embrace robust and sound negotiation strategies to grow their consumer base at a friendly price and favorable conditions through a set of agreements (Bhasin, 2019). Typically, compromised negotiation skills and strategies are a significant threat to an organization, considering their intense ability to cripple the entity while rendering it irrelevant in its respective market space.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In this case, two companies, AccelMedia and GTechnic, engage in a negotiation as buyers and sellers to fill and bridge the existing gaps in their respective production lines. Upon meeting, I, as the director of component sourcing for AccellMedia, briefed GTechnica’s vice president of sales on AccelMedia’s need to source for processors. As the buyer, I also pointed out the features and specifications of the processors the company is sourcing, including the quantity needed. Besides, I also stated AccelMedia’s financial position, which would be the focus of our negotiation. Similarly, GTechnica’s vice president of sales started by saying that this company has enough processors that were ready for shipping if we both struck a deal. During this time, GTechnica’s representative also highlighted the features and specifications of their GT-7 graphic processor chip and the company's markup price.

While AccelMedia was willing to buy the GT-7 graphic processor chip for $30, as the company director of component sourcing, I offered to source the processors for $15. GTechnica’s representative was quick to dismiss that offer on the grounds that it was relatively low, and it had not covered the production cost, not to mention that his company would not ship chips at less than $30 per unit (Nierenberg & Calero, 2009). In return, he stated that the company was only willing to sell the processor chips at $37 per unit. On quoting the price, I told him that AccelMedia could not source the processor at that cost, considering that GTechnica is a new company in the market, and there were no reviews on the performance of their processor chips.

Also, I reminded Gtechnica’s vice president of sales that while their company is offering a product that AccellMedia is sourcing, the entire process was risky, particularly because GTechnica was a new company and lacked a profound way of assessing the chips’ performance. In other words, AccelMedia’s reputation was at stake should the processors fail to meet the consumers' expectations. On that note, I offered to buy the chips at $18 per unit. The GTechnica’s vice president of sales countered the $18 offer by claiming that their GT7 graphic processor chips were advanced than those of its competitors.

Further, he also stated that GT7 was a quality product whose performance was unmatched. Through research, they understand that AccelMedia sourced its AM Pro50 for $21, which is not as advanced as the GT7 graphic processor chips. Finally, considering the graphic processors’ urgency at AccelMedia, the processors’ availability at GTechnica, and the risk involved in trying a new product, AccelMedia would buy the processors at $25 per unit. The price was also determined by the fact that the venture was short-term and, more importantly, by the advancement of the GT7 graphic processor chips.

From the negotiation, the two entities agreed on terms that were not biased. The outcome was guided by reasonable arguments and considerations whose focus was to facilitate continuity in the distinct production lines. In other words, the result of the negotiation based on the markup prices highlighted by both entities was a win-win situation. Notably, both companies, AccelMedia and GTechnica, are victims of an unforeseen contract suspension. At the time of contract suspension, both entities were actively involved in their production activities hence the need to bridge the created production gaps. The negotiation outcome is a win for AccelMedia, mainly because it urgently needed to source the graphic processor chips to protect its consumer reputation. Also, the company, in its budget, anticipated a graphic processor unit price of not less than $30. Therefore, a $25 unit price was favorable and reasonable, considering the deal was short-term. On the other hand, the negotiation’s outcome was a win for GTechnica chiefly because, being a new company, it had not established a robust consumer base, not to mention that the production cost of a single unit was $16. Therefore, an extra $9 in a significant profit on a single unit.

Typically, course materials have been useful in pursuing and influencing the negotiation process, particularly by enlightening me about a sound negotiation's fundamentals. Further, the reading materials played a significant role by describing the different negotiation types and the diverse ways of engaging in each. Besides, the reading materials expounded on the effective strategies suitable for fueling a negotiation while highlighting the appropriate method of selecting a suitable negotiation strategy. Ideally, the reading materials have been instrumental in shaping and guiding the negotiation hence a win-win outcome. Based on the win-win outcome, it is evident that my partner and I employed the collaborative negotiation strategy to push our opinions while settling on a solution that is favorable and reasonable for both entities.

In our case, there is an equitable share in the degree of success chiefly because we employed a collaborative strategy to assess and examine our positions. Unlike in most negotiations, we chose to employ a collaborative approach because we both understood the fundamentals of negotiation, which requires one to understand their partners and their stand (Lewicki et al., 1996). In addition, we also understood that negotiations are not defined by emotions, thus creating a favorable space to brainstorm and address issues with utmost professionalism (Ury et al., 1988). By understanding the fundamentals of negotiation meant that we could identify a suitable strategy to guide our negotiation (Lewicki et al., 1996). In this case, we analyzed our stands and opinions in close consideration of the negotiation's contextual issues, hence identifying the collaborative strategy as the preferred choice.

Ultimately, in the future, I would want to engage in more collaborative negotiations, which are critical to establishing a win-win outcome. However, to engage in collaborative negotiations, it is important to engage the other entity politely while demonstrating the importance of a collaborative strategy. The focus on collaborative strategy is mainly influenced by the need for long-term relationships between companies (Kolb, 2004). Also, in a collaborative negotiation, it is manageable to change the terms or even renegotiate if an unlikely situation could cripple the joint venture (Salacuse, 2001). In other words, a collaborative strategy nurtures a favorable work environment, which in turn facilitates market relevance and increases productivity.

References

Bhasin, H. (2019). The importance of negotiation and the reasons to learn it. Marketing91. https://www.marketing91.com/importance-of-negotiation/.Kolb, D. (2004). Negotiation context.

Lewicki, R., Hiam, A., & Olander, K. (1996). Implementing a collaborative strategy.

Lewicki, R., Hiam, A., & Olander, K. (1996). Selecting strategy.

Nieremberg, G., & Calero, H. (2009). Effective negotiating technique: From selecting strategies to side-stepping impasses and assumptions.

Salacuse, J. (2001). Renegotiating existing agreements: How to deal with " Life Struggling Form".

Ury, W., Brette, J., & Goldberg, S. (1976). Negotiation fundamentals.