This is the end

All things must come to an end, and this course is no exception. During the final session we had one last simulated negotiation, this time as a political(ish) roleplay between four nations of the Gaia planet. Each of the countries had certain goals and each member in a group also received an individual role. After the countries had introduced themselves to one another, we got two proposals to choose from. We got 20 minutes to lobby our proposal among the other nations. After that each proposal was presented, shortly commented and then voted.

Our group got a peace-loving non-materialistic nation, which was basically the equivalent of hippies in that planet. My personal role was to be the leader of the group. The proposal we chose was to build a temple for all of the religions so that they would be equal. Luckily another nation had a similar proposal, so it was easy to form an alliance with them. The two other groups had quite different views compared to ours, so not a whole lot could be done on that front. The lobbying was quite chaotic, but in the end we managed to get quite good results as both of the religion-themed proposals went through. The last two proposals ended up in a tie, but passed with the flip of a coin.

The roleplaying aspect made the negotiation quite fun and I could feel that everyone was a lot more relaxed during the exercise when compared to the beginning of the course. A fifth country would have made the voting and lobbying a lot more interesting, but unfortunately there really wasn't enough people for that. Nevertheless, this was a really good ending to our course. It summarized a lot of the things we have learned during the course.

Speaking of which, I think it's time to wrap up what I have gotten from this course. The most important thing during this course for me has been all of the simulations. I haven't really had to negotiate that much before this course, so getting some practice is definitely going to be useful for the future. I've also learned quite a lot about myself as a negotiator, especially after watching the video from the first assessed negotiation and getting the peer feedback. Even before the course I knew that it would be difficult for me to be aggressive in a negotiation situation, but in addition to that I also learned that I definitely should improve my eye-contact and try to get a bit more relaxed. Hopefully I can improve all of this as I get more experience in negotiating.

That's all from me. I would like to thank everyone participating in this course for making it a really fun experience. Cheers.

The second assessed simulation

The topic of team negotiations carried over from the last session before the Easter break, this time as an assessed simulation. The negotiation consisted of two parties: a truck manufacturing company and a frozen food supplier. Our team, the frozen food supplier, wanted to order six trucks from the other company. The simulation also contained a point-system, where points were obtained by getting certain parts of the deal as favourable as possible to our own company. The minimum goal was to get ten points. Once the teams had been divided, we had 30 minutes to come up with our plan for the negotiation. Our groups main focus was on the bonus points, because we knew that it would be nearly impossible to get the ten points only from the main criteria. So our plan was that we would get as many extra perks as possible by offering the other party some additional perks from our side. We spent actually quite a lot of time in thinking about what the other team would want as extra in the deal.

Then it was time for the real deal, a four-on-four negotiation between the frozen food company (me, Giambattista, Tang and Mikko) and the truck company (Nicholas, Sampo, Katri and Ferdinand). We started off with a quite cheeky offer of 75k€ per truck, delivered in 30 days to six different ports. The offer wasn't received that well by the opposing party, but at least we got the ball rolling. After some offers and counteroffers from both sides, we decided that it was beneficial to take a short break and discuss in our group how to continue. After this point, we got stuck for way too long negotiating about the price and delivery time. The tension was rising and at times it seemed that the negotiation would just fall flat on its face. After some time we managed to find an agreement on the price and delivery, and from there onwards everything was a lot calmer and easier. In the end, I think the result was quite good for both companies.

Now regarding my own performance, it can be summarized in a single word: bland. I knew beforehand that it would be difficult for me to take a turn to speak and it was. In the first part of the negotiation, before the break, I didn't say anything at all. During the break I took the initiative to present our offer, so that I would get at least something said in the negotiation. There were a couple of times where I was a bit uncomfortable because of the tension in the situation, and wanted to make a more compromising offer. However, I didn't want us to get a bad deal because of me, so I just kept my mouth shut. In my defence, I have to say that Giambattista and Mikko are really good and convincing speakers, so it was probably for the best to let them do most of the talking. On the positive side, there were a couple of things I improved from the last assessed simulation: I made better eye-contact and focused less on the paper and I didn't give in too easily (mostly because I didn't have to talk). Also, because I was silent for the most part, I could follow the conversation and negotiation really well. I made a lot of notes during the negotiation and was at all times prepared to step in to the discussion, had it been necessary.

Next time it is the last session of the course. I've definitely learned a great deal, but I'll leave summing up the course for the next blog entry.

Location, location, location

Team negotiation was the topic of the day. After a short introduction we got to experience two different team negotiations. In the first one we were divided into three smaller groups, so that each group represented a branch of a technical consulting company. Our team was located in Tampere, while the two others were in Lappeenranta and Helsinki. The topic of the negotiation between the teams was to find a better solution for the current Company Day, a monthly meeting for all of the teams held at Helsinki.

We had 30 minutes to come up with our strategy. We focused almost completely on the location aspect of the given case. We thought that the best way to improve the Company Day was to have a certain amount of the meeting somewhere else than Helsinki. We did some extreme math (!) with the cost of the train tickets, the time it takes to get from one of the cities to another and the number of people working in a branch, to justify what percentage of the meetings should held at each place. After some number crunching we got to the conclusion that out of the 12 meetings in a year, six should be at Helsinki, four at Tampere and two at Lappeenranta. Then the tactic for the negotiation was devised in a way that each of us had a certain role. However, we got a surprise twist in the form of randomly distributed character roles. All the other group members had roles which didn't affect the strategy that much, but I got the role of an older consultant who didn't like change. This meant that I dropped myself out of the previously planned tactic to pursue my on hidden agenda.

The negotiation started off with the location as the hot topic, although the Helsinki group was quite eager to talk about the content of the Company Day instead of the location. Because there were almost 20 people negotiating, it was rather difficult to find the correct timing for a turn to speak. As to be expected, most of the time the conversation was between a couple of people (one or two) from each group. After some time I finally saw my chance in the negotiation and went for it. I only took two turns to speak, but both of them were stereotypical nonsense from a senior worker who thinks change is the devil itself and that the way things have been done in the past is the only correct way. Needless to say, my input didn't have a lot of weight in the outcome. It was still good fun to go (a bit) over the top with the role that I got. I also learnt that it is really easy to just sit silently in a team meeting and let the other members of the group to take care of the talking. This is especially true if you are a quiet person, such as myself.

The second team negotiation was about the assessment criteria for the second assessed negotiation. Since that was going to be done in teams, we had to think how the criteria should be changed to better fit the new situation. The actual negotiation was rather quick: first we decided that the existing criteria were still relevant and that if anyone had any new ideas we should vote for them one by one. I proposed that a criterion for assessing the co-operation in a team should be added and the others agreed. A few other suggestions were suggested, but in the end only the original criteria and the one I proposed made the final cut. All in all, the negotiation took probably 15 minutes.

Next time the final assessed simulation is on the menu. But for now, Happy Easter to everyone!

Smooth sailing

Today's main focus was on negotiating via Skype. The backstory for the negotiation was that four different companies were working on the same project in four different countries. The budget for the projects in each country was cut down by a quarter, and we had to get together with the other representatives working in the same country. I was a representative of the roading company working in Papua New Guinea. The aim was to get as much money as possible, while maintaining a good relationship with the other companies. Our negotiation was really pleasant and everyone was willing to co-operate. We started off by each saying how much our original cut from the budget was. From there we started to slightly adjust the numbers until everyone was happy. The schedule for the project was discussed briefly as the last part of the negotiation. Overall, I was quite happy with my result, as I got 28,8% of the total budget (originally 30%). I have to admit that I was surprised to see how well we got along and how easily the negotiation went.

After we had finished all of the negotiations, the final results were discussed in the class room. The smaller companies got the best deals, but our company got a decent result as well. There was also some discussion about the technical aspect of the negotiation. In my opinion there wasn't much of a difference in negotiating via Skype in comparison to negotiating face-to-face. The connection was (most of the time) good enough so that we could communicate well and we could still see each other. The background noise was a bit annoying at times, but not a major concern. Personally I like the fact that I can have my notes with me all the time, and that I can look up information if I have to. This would be a lot harder if the negotiation was done face-to-face.

Not a whole lot to say about this one. Maybe next time I'll have more to write about. Just have to wait and see.

An overwhelming sea of presentations

Today was an interesting day, full of presentations. We kicked off with a presentation about haggling in different cultures. The shopping scenarios were a nice addition to the presentation, as well as the story-like progression of the presentation. The conversation during the presentation was fruitful, and it got me thinking as well. For example, why don't we have a strong haggling culture here in Finland? Some really good thoughts were given in the class room. Overall, a very solid performance.

The next presentation was a one man show on the topic of multilingual workplace. The topic itself was really interesting and there was plenty of really good conversation during the presentation. I have experience from a multilingual workplace when I was working on my bachelor's thesis. At the time I was working for the department of signal processing, in the audio research group to be precise. There most of the members do not speak Finnish so the majority of the communication had to be done in English. This really didn't matter since the atmosphere in the group was extremely welcoming and everybody got along really well. Since my supervisor was Finnish, I still got to speak my native language to some degree as well. One thing that I noticed when I was writing my thesis was that some of the vocabulary was surprisingly difficult to translate. There was a lot of specialized terms which didn't have any established Finnish translations.

The third presentation was presented by our group. We discussed about individualism and collectivism in negotiations and business culture. The presentation went decently well and we got the main points across. Even though we presented some of the characteristics of individualism and collectivism, it should be noted that the personality also affects the way you consider other people, not just the degree of individualism in a particular culture. This was something we probably didn't emphasize enough. The conversations in the smaller groups went in my opinion really well. In the group I was in, there was some really good opinions about how one should prepare for a negotiation if you know which culture the opposing side represents. Thanks to everyone for the active and lively conversation!

After a short break we got an exciting presentation on game theory and negotiations. I believe that I speak for all of us, when I say that the game the group organized was the highlight of the day. It was extremely good fun. It was interesting to see what sort of tactics different people employed during the game. I didn't have any tactic since I really didn't want the chocolate, so I decided to split in each round. In the second round I actually told my partner that I'm going to split and that he can make any decision he wants. It was evident after the game that the best tactic would have been to discuss with everyone in the same table and choose one person who would always get the steal. That way one person from that table would get the maximum amount of points and therefore would be in the (most likely joint) first place.

Finally we concluded the day with a presentation about cultural differences in negotiation. The presentation was well organized and the conversation was interesting. There were a lot of points to think for future negotiations. Next time we're going to have negotiations via Skype. It's going to be interesting to see how the fact that the negotiators aren't in the same physical location will affect negotiation tactics and such.

Shameless product placement.

P.S. This is the first time I've written such a long blog post during this course. Now I think it's definitely time for a beer. Cheers!

Don't you wanna know how we keep starting fires?

Today we talked about different negotiator types. Out of the five types we had to choose one that we find the most suitable for us. The avoiding type seemed to fit me in the best way. In a negotiation situation, I find myself out of my comfort-zone. This is especially true when the other negotiator party is not familiar to me before-hand. In the assessed negotiation, this was evident from the fact that I tried to get to an agreement fast and in a straight-forward manner. The sooner I get away from the situation, the better. This is something I hope to improve during this course, so that I can get more comfortable in these situations and focus on getting a better deal instead of just getting out of there as fast as possible.

After a short break caused by a fire alarm, we discussed how we would like to develop ourselves as negotiators. The competitive aspect is definitely something I should work on. Because I mostly try to avoid negotiations, this is quite tricky. I think the first step is to actually get used to negotiating and maybe after that I'll be able to do something to get my competitive side more prominent. One good advice that was said in the class, was that one should prepare some personal goals before the negotiation. I'll probably try that in the second assessed negotiation.

We also started to work on the group assignments. At the moment, the topic our group had in mind is to compare how people from an individualistic culture behave in a negotiation situation in comparison to people from a collectivistic culture. Should be interesting.

The first assessed simulation

Today we got a taste of negotiating in a medium-sized group, as we discussed what sort of criteria should be used to evaluate the Eurovan vs. Onasti simulation, as well as some one-on-one negotiating in the form of the actual simulation. The premise was that I was a representative of the Eurovan government and I was up against the representative of the wealthy oil magnate Onasti.

Unfortunately, the recording device was a bit too far away from us so the audio is a bit quiet. Also, the distance to the other pair wasn't probably enough, as the microphone seemed to pick up the other conversation as well. Sorry about that.

The negotation itself went decently. I think the end result was a win-win situation, even though I did make some compromises I probably shouldn't have done, like the 100% tax reduction. I went to the negotiation table with the premise, that Eurovan absolutely needs the oil, even if it means having to be a bit more flexible what the instruction sheet said.

We agreed upon a deal that satisfied both parties involved since we both made some compromises. Overall, I had a positive feeling after the negotiation. We both were calm and respected each other during the discussion. That being said, there are some things I could have done better. Most of the time I kept looking at my papers instead of making proper eye-contact. I also have an annoying habit of shaking my right leg (which can be seen also in the video). For the next negotiation, these two things are definitely something I need to take into account. Also, I probably should be a bit more aggresive in the actual negotiating to get a better deal. Improving these matters will definitely be a good challenge for me.