Analysis Of Within-Company Negotiations Experience

Negotiation Background and Outcome

In my previous company, which was a major hedge fund firm that was acquired by a leading global bank, our team in India provided the technical expertise by building and managing the core ecosystem of the technology platform. All the work was managed coherently by the head office in New York and we used to hold regular discussion with the head office to decide on product roadmaps. At the start of 2017, I was involved in one such negotiation on a new product that we were planning to build to increase the security of the core banking platform. During this negotiation we had to agree on the features of the product, the timeline and manpower required for implementation. The head office had high regard for the efforts and talent our team brought in, but their primary focus on increasing profits and keeping up with the market trends made the negotiations difficult. I had to lead a team of 8 people from multifunctional roles also making me the lead negotiator.

The people in the head office handled all the market related information, such as consumer preferences and the value add of product features. In addition to this they were also responsible for managing funds during different stages of product releases. Being a part of the technology team, my contributions were limited to the technical expertise, research on competitors and technology trends to recommend the optimal timelines, effort, and key features that the product required. We agreed on the features of the product in the first discussion as the business team concurred to our technical justifications. Assuming a timeline of 6 months, which is the standard development duration for a work of this scale, we agreed to create a team of 9 people, including me. But in the second discussion, the business team suggested an aggressive timeline of 3 months.

This would mean that every member of the team would have to work extreme hours to meet the deadline and it was unacceptable. It was clear that they wanted a major release completed in the period of a patch release. In spite of our efforts to convince them on our limitations in completing the development in 3 months, the business team continued to push back reiterating the significance of customer satisfaction and cited examples of other banks that had pushed a new complex change in a similar duration. These discussions lasted for hours and it was tasking for me to remain calm even when some of our concerns weren’t being heard well. After the third call, I gathered some support from the senior management in my office to get concessions on the timelines while maintaining the same team strength.

Finally, during the fourth call after extended discussions we decided to complete the release in 4 and half months by speeding up certain processes. The product release was completed successfully in the agreed timeline and the head office celebrated our team. But, the entire process was very stressful for most of us.

Differences between Within-company and Outside Negotiations

Negotiations are not just about dollars anymore In comparison to outside negotiations, where the most important factor is generally taking a larger share of the dollar pie, the negotiations within a company are about strategic objectives, resource allocations and organization norms. Reaching mutual agreements on such factors is much more difficult as the teams of various functions have a different take on what suits their internal team best. Often, lack of alternatives makes walking away out of question, and this further complicates the negotiation dynamics.

Relationships to be Maintained

There is a need to maintain reasonably cordial and cooperative relationships as we will need to work with the other colleagues on a daily basis despite the differences we may have. The degree of close association that we have with the other party within the company may be beneficial in outside negotiations, but it is not usually requirement (Karrass, 2012). Negotiations suffer from long-term perceptions When we have spent a few years in a particular organization, it is natural for us to have some history with our colleagues. These perceptions could possibly create rigid images of our colleagues. It is essential to be able to work beyond these differences and create new opportunities as a team. Zero-sum mindset In internal negotiations, there is often a zero-sum mindset that stems from negotiating parties perceiving that they are fighting over limited internal resources (Falcão, 2017). This could lead to people forgetting that we’re working for the same overall objective and creates an us versus them mentality. Such a mentality would prevent parties from reaching a win-win situation as they believe there can be just one winner. Ways to improve within company negotiations The standard negotiation tactics would definitely work in such scenarios, it’s just that the environment is much more complex. Careful planning of approach In a company, some people fail to see that some internal meetings are negotiations over some issue or resource. Going to these meetings underprepared will result in one losing out on his end of the bargain. In some scenarios, people working in the same function could have conflicting interests. It is imperative to do the groundwork before stepping into a negotiation.

Deeper Discussions

Asking open-ended questions to understand more about what the other party needs and the importance of these requirements. This is important because what’s visible on the surface may not fully portray the complete offerings and complexities of a situation. Leave perceptions out of the room The impressions formed of someone from the past shouldn’t be a hindrance to creating new opportunities that would prove beneficial. Although this may be difficult, negotiations work better when none of the parties are holding perceptions or assumptions about each other. Asking for favours This tactic works when we get the first ‘no’ for an exaggerated favour. During the second meeting offering something of interest to the other party, completely separate from the initial favour, and reintroducing the original request would get us what we wanted.