MGT 445 Week 5 Learning Team Assignment Third Party Conflict Resolution Paper
MGT 445 Week 5 Learning Team Assignment Third Party Conflict Resolution Paper fin571
Popular in Department
This 0 page Study Guide was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Tuesday November 10, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to fin571 at Kaplan University taught by in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 31 views.
Reviews for MGT 445 Week 5 Learning Team Assignment Third Party Conflict Resolution Paper
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/10/15
Negotiations Third Party 1 Running head NEGOTIATIONS THIRD PARTY CONFLICT Negotiations Third Party Con ict Team Members University of Phoenix Organizational Negotiations MGT445 Instructor August 15 2011 Negotiations Third Party Con ict The Ken Griffey Jr Negotiation The Ken Griffey Jr negotiation case relates to the contracts and nature of the United States baseball major league teams Ken Griffey Jr hereinafter Griffey also known as Junior is a professional baseball player who plays as an outfielder and a superb hitter Junior was 30 at the time of the dispute and at the time of the case Seattle Mariners was the team Griffey was in The season began April to October 2000 the contract would run out with the Seattle Mariners in October and Griffey would be a free agent The Seattle ballclub would not gain anything if they lost Griffey to another team Griffey was unhappy with the Seattle Mariners and baseball teams trade players at times for various reasons some of which are that the players may not be a good fit in the team no teamchemistry expensive player baseball skills declining etc Lewicki Barry amp Saunders 2007 Learning Team A will discuss the possible negotiation interventions and analyze the strategies that took place during the case Team A will also discuss the best strategies used during the negotiation process discuss how the con icts in the negotiation process were resolved and have isolated the contingency plan for the negotiated case Analysis The intervention strategies are of significance for an effective negotiation to bring an acceptable outcome for the parties involved in the negotiation The intervention strategies are of different forms and the most effective intervention strategies are mediation and arbitration These strategies are essential in a negotiation process to make it effective as they are less time consuming with low cost These privately arranged funded strategies are by a third party to facilitate the process of con ict resolution The first possible intervention strategy used in negotiation is Mediation as it is private voluntary classified and deliberate and is arranged by a neutral party The process of mediation is essential for an effective negotiation outcome as it is under the assistance of experienced mediators to resolve dispute The purpose of involving a neutral party is that the mediation through a third party will make the negotiation on equal basis and each party will have the opportunity of a winwin situation without biasness which procures favorable results The mediator is responsible to ensure the parties involved in the negotiation are of the view to reach an agreement and performed in such a manner that does not include pressure or coercive measures to sway his or her opinions The role of the mediator is to help out the process of negotiation between the involved parties to reach mutually agreed terms and a solution and ultimately a mutually accepted settlement for the con ict by both the parties The mutually accepted agreement or deal is the significant feature and outcome of the mediation intervention strategy Moore 2003 The second intervention is arbitration which is intended to bind both parties and has a final decision as a lawsuit unlike mediation The process of formal litigation employs an Arbiter who is responsible to listen to both the party s viewpoints and evidence Finally he has the authority to construct a final choice that will be accepted by both the parties in short the arbiter has the final say in the arbitration process for strong negotiation This intervention strategy is more beneficial in terms of outcome as it does not involve courts and is to obtain a reasonable resolution for the dispute as intended This recognized and admired strategy is in business disputes because of their finality efficacy and expediency Best Strategy and Con ict Resolve Path In the case of Griffey the bottom line issues of the negotiation were 1 Seattle needed to trade Griffey prior to his contract running out at the end of the 2000 season so that they could gain monetary compensation for the trade and capitalize on the opportunity to gain several other good players to create a winning team and 2 Griffey s unhappy disposition which came from the fact that he no longer wanted to play for the Seattle Mariners as he wished to live near his family His stance was evident after Griffey made no response in reference to a previous offered contract to him by Seattle Seattle offered Griffey a new eightyear 138 million contract in July 1999 which Griffey met with indifference In review crucial to this negotiation s success was the determination of the interests and needs of the negotiating parties The goal is to understand how they are approaching the negotiation and what they are likely to want By comparing this assessment against your own a person can begin to define areas where there may be strong con ict Both parties have a high priority for the same thing simple tradeoffs since both parties want the same group of things but in differing priorities or no con ict at all as both parties want very different things and both can easily have their objectives and interests met Lewicki Saunders and Barry 2005p124 Generally in sports it is always a matter of how much money as the availability of vast amounts of money for salaries and amenities are a given Although in this case it was more a matter of the needs and interest on both sides which were followed by dollar amounts Seattle wanted key players which fell into their budget and would make the team a winning one Hence monetary compensation for Griffey and Griffey wanted to be closer to home and out of Seattle which he would do and he did settle for a salary well under that of a player of his caliber The intervention strategy used here cannot be defined very much in terms of arbitration as no third party ordered a decision mediation as no third party was employed to foster good relations and render a decision and the negotiators were directly involved in the undertaking or process consultation as the parties were not taught by a third party to remove the emotional aspect of the negotiation This negotiation took on more of a feeling of an Alternate Dispute Resolution System hereinafter ADR wherein it is left to the disputants to resolve con ict ADR has been defined by the United States court system as any process or procedure other than an adjudication by a presiding judge 28 USC 651 1998 to resolve disputes Lewicki Saunders amp Barry 2005 p 511 In this case the presidents COOs and general managers of the teams dealt directly with Griffey presenting him options and vice versa Specifically the intervention strategy employed here could be defined as part control strategy hereinafter PCS Lewicki Saunders and Barry 2005 explain it as the Manager intervenes in the dispute by sharing control over the process and outcome with the disputants ie manager and disputants jointly agree on the process of resolution as well as strive for a consensus on the settlement decision p 508 The managers Jim Bowden general manager for the Cincinnati Reds Woody Woodward general manager for the Seattle Mariners and his predecessor Pat Gillick handled and facilitated this negotiation directly with Griffey Upon using this PCS strategy it allowed the parties to focus more on each party s interest and needs for an optimal outcome wherein each made gains based on matters prioritized on importance Ultimately the Seattle Mariners gained key players and compensation for the trade of Griffey and Griffey no longer had to play for the Mariners Although he may not have been assigned to a team in the town where his immediate family resided Griffey was able to play in the town where his parents and grandparents lived Contingency Plan The intervention strategy Team A chose is part control strategy As with any negotiation strategy it is always best to develop a contingency plan in case the initial strategy of choice fails In this case both Griffey as well as the Seattle Mariners had alternative plans that may not have been the best for either party but helped to ensure the success of the primary strategy Looking at the alternatives that faced Griffey it is obvious that he could play out his current contract and test the free agency market By doing this he understood that he would stand to sign a very lucrative contract but it meant spending another full year in Seattle That year would be a very long one in that he would have to spend it away from his family playing for a noncontending franchise and would risk the possibility of an injury that would permit him to sign that very lucrative contract he anticipated from the free agent market From the standpoint of the Seattle Mariner s they realized Griffey s displeasure but wanted to be sure to receive the most they could for a franchise player such as Griffey The team realized Griffey was unhappy and wanted to play elsewhere and that was their primary bargaining tool that was forcing Griffey to be open to the negotiating process If Griffey wanted out of his current contract early he would have to make some concessions Realizing Griffey indeed wanted out of the contract enabled the Mariner s a much more stable bargaining table That said Griffey was much more open to remaining loyal to the initial negotiating strategy which in turn helped assure the success of the strategy The contingency plan in place is simply to remain true to the current contract knowing that this was not the preference for either side By doing so both sides were more likely to remain aggressive in their hopes of successfully completing a deal which would benefit all those involved Conclusion Learning Team A discussed the analysis of the different forms of the most effective intervention strategies of are mediation and arbitration A mediator helps in the process of the negotiation between the two parties and an arbiter listens to both parties evidence The contingency strategy that learning team A chose was understanding the intervention strategy as the control strategy Griffey was unhappy but he wanted to remain loyal to the initial negotiating strategy which was to remain true to the current contract Both negotiating parties were aggressive and wanted to complete the negotiation with a deal to benefit all and did References Lewicki RJ Saunders DM Barry B 2005 Negotiations 5th ed The MCGraWHill Companies NY USA Moore C W 2003 The Mediation Process Practical Strategies for Resolving Con ict San Francisco CA JosseyBass Publishing ISBN13 9780787964467
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'