Just paraphrase

Just paraphrase

 OUTCOME:
During this negotiation, I was playing the role of Peru, in the second South American Conference on the Environment. The three parties involved (Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru), we all agreed on a cooperation agreement in which we all saved a significant amount of money, in order to build a water treatment plant together. By constructing one water treatment plant, rather than two or three, Colombia will be saving $605,000, Venezuela $363,00, and Peru $242,000 dollars. For me, Peru, this was a satisfactory agreement since I needed to join with either one or both countries in order to save any money.

 PROCESS:

1. Each party present themselves
2. I started by describing the importance, benefits, and the great environmental impact that the water treatment plan will have in the country. I also mention my wiliness to reach a cooperation agreement between all of us
3. Followed Colombia and Venezuela exposed their wiliness as well
4. I mentioned that our main concern was to protect the environment so that we all should work together in order to do so
5. Since we all agreed the same, we decided to divided the savings ($1’210,00) evenly
6. Venezuela suggested that it would be more fair if the savings were divided according to the percentage that was contributed, and we all agreed with that
7. We all shared our satisfaction with the agreement reached and also shared our wiliness for future negotiations between the countries.
 LEARNING:
In order to prepare for this negotiation, I carefully read all the information available to me, and I imagined all the different scenarios available in any situation. Once I was assigned to represent Peru during the negotiation, I had a clear knowledge that my main goal was to consider any proposal in order to be involved in a two-way or three-way coalition. That was the only way that I had in order to save money. Since Colombia and Venezuela could be better off without me, because they could save more money if the two of them reached an agreement between themselves, on the building of the water treatment plant. By having that clear, I decided to list all the benefits that the water treatment plant will have in Peru, as well as the benefits that the other countries will received if we did it together. I decided to focus a lot on the intangible fact that throughout this negotiation we could established a solid and reliable relationship that could be the base for future negotiations or further agreements.
I decided to start the negotiation, since I wanted them to take me in account during the negotiation, and that way I could influence on their behaviour and their analysis of the situation. During the negotiation process, I wanted the other parties to have a good understanding on how convenient the building of the plant between the three of us will be. I drew a map of South America, in which I showed them the location of each country and how close we were from each other. This allowed us to agree on the convenience of a three-way coalition.
The sources of power can vary during the negotiation. Seemingly, Colombia was the strongest party in the table, since it had more money for the project than the other two. But everything roots in the way that the power is used. For this case none of us saw each other in a higher position than the other, or as a threat. Instead, we all were more concern about the idea of a cooperation agreement with no winners or losers.
It is important to notice, that even though I wasn’t the strongest party, in economic terms, I could also disturb the three-way coalition. By, proposing to one or the other party to just agree with me for the building of the plant, leaving the other party aside. That wasn’t my goal since I wanted to establish trust and good relationships through a cooperation agreement.
Apparently this negotiation was an easy one, since there were not many constraints, or hidden benefits. But during the debriefing process, I learned that there were other outcomes available and also very beneficial to all of the parties as well. The fact of looking at the big picture, like some of the groups did, allowed them to gain greater economical and intangible benefits. Some of them went beyond the money issues, and agreed on the construction settings of the plant and even the workers that they will be hiring, which implied a greater benefit for one (or even the three) of the countries. I should never forget of the importance that the deliverables play in a negotiation and how I can use them to my own benefit.
During this negotiation, I learned that it is very important and beneficial for me, to strategically apply the accepted social norms and principles of the culture that I am working with. As an example of that, in the Latin culture, building relationships is very important and it could take a long time. But it is worth to invest the time to do so, since the benefits in the long run could be greater than expect it ones.

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!