New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

MGT 445 Week 2 Learning Team Assignment Case Study Analysis Part A GÇ£Power Play for HowardGÇ¥

by: NUMBER1TUTOR Notetaker

MGT 445 Week 2 Learning Team Assignment Case Study Analysis Part A GÇ£Power Play for HowardGÇ¥ MKT421

Marketplace > Phoenix College > MKT421 > MGT 445 Week 2 Learning Team Assignment Case Study Analysis Part A G Power Play for HowardG
Phoenix College
GPA 3.8

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

MGT 445 Week 2 Learning Team Assignment Case Study Analysis Part A GÇ£Power Play for HowardGÇ¥
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in

Popular in Department

This 8 page Study Guide was uploaded by NUMBER1TUTOR Notetaker on Friday November 13, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to MKT421 at Phoenix College taught by in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 33 views.

Similar to MKT421 at Phoenix College


Reviews for MGT 445 Week 2 Learning Team Assignment Case Study Analysis Part A GÇ£Power Play for HowardGÇ¥


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: 11/13/15
Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR   1 HOWARD" Case Study Analysis Part A "Power Play for Howard" Team Members MGT/445 July 24, 2011 Instructor CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  2 Case Study Analysis Part A "Power Play for Howard" Negotiation can be complex and involve a difficult process for both parties.  The  negotiation process involves the elements of relationship, communication, interests, options,  standards, alternatives, and commitments.  Both parties must have a checklist before starting a  negotiation to help to organize the flow of the negotiation process.  Juwan Howard is a 23­year­ old athlete who plays basketball for Washington Bullets.  The negotiation between the Miami  Heat and the Washington Bullets over Juwan Howard’s free agent contract was intense and  difficult.  The integrative bargaining had both parties use different approaches to the negotiation  process to reach the most profitable agreement.  Juwan Howard’s contract between the Miami  Heat and the Washington Bullets shows how Juwan Howard was the first national basketball  association player to sign a contract making over a $100 million dollars between intangible and  tangible benefits (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006).  Learning Team A will summarize and  discuss Juwan’s case by evaluating the intangible and tangible benefits, and evaluate the costs  and risks in association with negotiating the contract of Juwan Howard and both teams’ general  managers. Evaluation of Benefits  Buying and selling of sportsmen is normal in sports in today’s society. Wherever  involving buying and selling negotiations are a must. The purpose of these dialogues is to find a  way of ensuring maximum benefit for everyone. However, as an ideal scenario is impossible, so  some parties involved have to miss a few and maybe all the benefits he or she wanted from the  deal. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  3 The process of two people or groups coming to a mutual contract about different wants or thoughts is negotiation. Negotiations bring two kinds of benefits, tangible (measurable, countable like money) and intangible (feelings: loyalty, satisfaction). In the case study under observation,  involved are more than two parties, and they reaped some rewards.  The man at the center Juwan Howard did not only gain monetary security, something he  had sought from the start but also the pleasure of playing for his favorite team. He wanted to stay at Washington Bullets and wanted to cash his golden playing years to the maximum. When  pushed into a corner he chose a tangible reward over the intangible one because common  perception is money buys everything. His happiness mainly stemmed from the uncountable gift.  He did not hesitate to rejoin the Bullets overjoyed at the first chance, which shows intangible  rewards hold sway over their counterpart. Bullets received back their most valuable player, meaning pleasure of winning and as a  consequence big money. The most important made them jump at the chance of receiving him  back was the approval of their supporters. Unseld obtained a chance of saving face by securing  the opportunity to form a match winning combination, another intangible reward. Falk’s interest  was the benefit of his client and in return monetary benefits. Riley, the only one to lose made the  Heats lose face in front of fans.  All these intangible benefits indirectly led to the securing of money. Hence, securing of  tangible rewards is dependent on the gain of intangible ones. The reason, they are associated to  items more valuable than money, like love, freedom, happiness, pleasure, etc.    Evaluate Cost Associated with the Negotiation CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  4 Juwan Howard was a promising basketball player for the Washington Bullets who  became a free agent and was in the process of negotiating his contract. At the time of Juwan’s  free agency he was one of the top players for the Washington Bullets. Juwan did not initially  resigned with the Washington Bullets as he turned down their offer of $78.4 million over seven  years. Juwan Howard decided that the offer of $100 million for seven years from the Miami Heat was more lucrative and signed the contract with the Miami Heat.  Within thirty days the Miami  Heat contract was proven invalidated and Juwan Howard wind up signing with the Washington  Bullets anyway.  Since Juwan Howard did not accept their initial offer, there could have been a sense of  reputation risk as the general manager of the Washington Bullets stated that he believed Juwan  Howard decision was primarily based on money (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2007, Chapter 3).  This can give a sense of a lack of loyalty from a prior business relationship that was fruitful.  Additionally, the cost risk that can be absorbed from the Washington Bullets would be that  Juwan Howard’s performance may decrease and since his contract is guaranteed, the franchise  would still have to pay his contract. On the other hand, there were legal obstacles within the  contract negotiations with the Miami Heat which actually went to arbitration. For the owners of  the Miami Heat, the cost risk would be that they would still have to payout the contract the  Juwan Howard and not have the player at the same time which would be like giving away  money. Apparently, in the end Washington Bullets increased their contract for Juwan Howard to  $100.8 million because they wanted Juwan to stay and wanted a happy player and the Miami  Heat gave up their fight in the arbitration proceeding for the act of exceeding the salary cap by  $9 million which was against leagues rules at the time. The Miami Heat was fined $5 millions  CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  5 for violation which was additional cost to the franchise and also included a one year suspension  of the general manager (Seattle Times News Services, 1996) Evaluation of Risks Taking into consideration the exorbitant amounts of money in the negotiations associated  with the “Power Play for Howard”, the risks here will be based upon the competitive range of  salaries awarded through the National Basketball League to its players.    This is mentioned due  to the fact that as far as negotiations are concerned, risks are generally associated with  detrimental losses of tangible and intangible benefits.  Although Howard showed some  emotional inclination (his intangible benefit) to remain as a player for the Washington Bullets; as is his case as well as that of most “big­business” negotiations, it became a matter of “how much” (a monetary tangible benefit) as opposed to “why”. For simplicity, Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry  (2005) describe this concept as differences in risk tolerance, wherein they state, “People differ in  the amount of risk they are comfortable assuming.” (p. 17) In the case of Howard, the main risk to him was wagering his salary based upon the  outcome of the arbitration taking place between the league and union concerning the legalities of a salary cap as outlined in his signed contract with Miami.  Basically, the dispute concerned as to whether or not Howard’s contract with Miami, based on the definition of “unlikely” and “likely  bonuses vs. “the cap” was, in fact, legal.  Salary caps are to be taken seriously in the industry of  the NBL, Kesenne (2000) relays its importance in stating,  “This NBA­style salary cap not only imposes a maximum amount but also a minimum amount of money that must be spent on player salaries.  It follows that CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  6 the small clubs need some subsidization from the big clubs so as to be able to pay  the salaries.” (p. 423).   This left Howard in a very vulnerable position.   Howard’s risk specifically involved the  fact that if Miami (with whom he possessed the contract in dispute) lost the arbitration fight with  the league, that as a result, a limited supply of monies would be available by other NBA  organizations to pay him even close to the anticipated salary of that of an athlete with his  competitive value.   ““Howard concluded…that if he backed Miami and the team lost a  protracted fight with the league, other NBA clubs might have as little as $40  million or $50 million to offer him for seven years.  In effect, he would take a $50 million pay cut and become, he said, “a laughingstock.””” (Lewicki, Saunders,  and Barry, 2005, p. 623) In conclusion, Howard decided to, in compliance with union and league rules in reference to disapproved contracts (that as his with Miami), sign a second contract offered by the Bullets in Washington.  This act, also in accordance with union and league regulations, further determined  arbitration between Miami and the league null.   Any risk to Howard was now eliminated.  He  signed a contract of equal monetary amount as that offered by Miami.  This decision ultimately  satisfying his non­tangible benefit as well, as this is where Howard wanted to remain in the first  place – playing basketball in his same numbered uniform for the Bullets. Conclusion       In the case of Juwan Howard, the negotiation process was one that took a great deal of  evaluation by all parties involved to come to a final agreement.  Even after both sides felt they  CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  7 had come to terms on a contract the NBA found faults that sent them right back to the  negotiation table.  In this particular situation Juwan Howard was being pulled in different  directions because he wanted to remain loyal to the Washington Bullets but felt that he deserved  a more lucrative contract based off his ability and talent, and the Miami Heat were proving to be  more willing to pay him what he felt was his market value.  Unfortunately, league rules ended up getting in the way of the deal that would have made Juwan Howard a member of the Miami  Heat, and forced him to look at alternatives.  As it turned out, the Washington Bullets increased  their offer to Juwan Howard making his final decision much easier because he could play the  game he loved while receiving the monetary compensation equal to that of his talent and ability.   Thus, he signed with the Washington Bullets with a contract that satisfied both the tangible and  intangible benefits he was looking for while reducing his risk.  The final outcome proved to be a  win­win situation for all parties involved.   CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PART A "POWER PLAY FOR HOWARD"  8 References Kesenne, S. (2000). The Impact of Salary Caps in Professional Team Sports. Scottish Journal of  Political Economy, 47(4), 422­430. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). A Power Play for Howard. In J. E. Biernat,  R. Blankenship, & A. J. Belda (Eds.), Negotiation (pp. 616­626).  th Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., Barry, B. (2005). Negotiations, 5  ed. The McGraw­Hill  Companies, NY, USA Seattle Times News Services. (1996). Miami Heat Might Abandon Battle For Juwan Howard.  Retrieved from date=19960808&slug=2343229


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Allison Fischer University of Alabama

"I signed up to be an Elite Notetaker with 2 of my sorority sisters this semester. We just posted our notes weekly and were each making over $600 per month. I LOVE StudySoup!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.