Simulations Reflection Paper

In this reflection paper, I would try to reflect on the four negotiation simulations. This paper

would explain my experiences and discuss in-class exercises and preparation strategies. I will try

to reflect on my behaviors, biases, and meetings which have gone on t

BAM Simulation:

In this simulation, I have played the role of a union member. Union (we)have planned a strategy

in the caucus meeting to start the Negotiation with a $2 hike for production and $3 for skilled

workers to get the Maximum wage increase, which was way more than our actual aspiration

point: $1 for production and $1.50 for skilled workers. Once we realized that the Management

paid $5 Million as a Bonus to the CEO, we were under WYSIATI bias, thinking the company

has funds to spend on the top Management but not on their workers. We decided to start the

Negotiation in a Distributive bargaining style based on the discussion also reluctant to accept

any offers from the Management if it is below our aspiration point, including the Pension plan.

On the 1st round of Negotiation, the Management offered a hike of $0, which was way below

our aspiration point of $1 & $1.50. This offer made the union more adamant. We started

believing that the best way to negotiate with the Management is through a "Distributive"

strategy. As the union already took a wage freeze for two years, we were not ready to take

anything below our aspiration point. Management also used their bargaining power and stressed
that the union and employees are dependent on the organization. They could move their

production to China to save the labor cost if needed. This information made union members

think that Management is exploiting their workers, and we strongly developed WYSIATI bias as

we were making decisions based on the "Known Knowns." At this step, both the parties

(Management & Union) reached an Impasse.

On the 2nd round of caucus meeting, we decided to start the negotiation. We decided to reveal

the actual aspiration points: $1 for production and $1.50 for skilled workers; at this stage, we

developed a “confirmation bias" thinking that management is unfair and does not value the

concessions made by the union during the recession, the union was making decisions based on

the information and the offer given to us by the management. We decided to go on a "Strike" if

management offers anything below our actual aspiration point.

To break Impasse, we opened negotiations in the 2nd round and played the curveball by asking

the Management to reveal their aspiration. They were not ready to share their aspiration point.

They gave us a final offer on the table: $0.33 for production & $0.50 for skilled workers, which

was way below our aspiration point, which led the union members to decide to go on a strike.

The union and the Management did not settle.

On reflection, As a union, I think we did not come to a settlement because we started "Thinking

Fast" as soon as we realized that the company had paid a $5 million bonus, we decided to start

the "Distributive Bargaining" thinking that we have more Bargaining power as we already got

88% votes in favor of the strike. Suppose given another chance to negotiate. We would have
adopted sub-processes like "Think slow," which could have helped the union to understand the

Management side and help Mitigate the "WYSIATI" bias and identify the Management

reservation point and the real bargaining interest. Also, by applying critical thinking, we should

have asked the management to provide more information about our "Known Knowns," any vital

information from the management could have avoided a "Strike." Further, if given another

chance, as a union, I would like to apply the negotiation subprocess of " Integrative

Bargaining" I would accept management offer and negotiate on other terms such as Job Security

& No contracting out the work. This would build a good relationship with the Management and

could have been a Win-Win situation for both parties. By the exchange of information, we

could have identified our "ZOPA."

Canlaumina Manufacturing (Union Steward)

My role was as a Union steward and during a caucus meeting with the Union representative.

Firstly, we spent a little time expanding our knowledge to understand High Performing Working

systems (HPWS) and their impact on workers and unions. As a union steward, my perception

was that it is a “Management Tactic” to implement the Lean manufacturing methods to reduce

the workforce and lay off the employees. However, the union representative saw it as an

opportunity for the workers to multiskilling, though we had different opinions about this change.

However, by “Attitudinal Structuring," I have changed my perception from negative to

positive rather than being reluctant to change; I adopted the "Integrative” style and identified

that our interests were common and wanted to develop a strategy that could foster a good

relationship between the employer and union also allows its members to move higher up from
production to trade. Firstly, we wanted to start the opening statement by asking what HPWS

exactly means and their impact on workers and unions. Further, we wanted to set our objectives

as our aspiration points, which are as listed below :

- If the HPWS is implemented, that should not reduce any work hours and lay off any

employees. The management should provide job security to all the employees in every

department.

- If the HPWS process involves work that is prone to risk, management should guarantee

that all the safety measures are in place, and employees are trained on it to ensure the

employees' safety and well-being.

- The union will support the management with the change, but it should ensure that the

employees are moved internally from production to trades with the paid internship. The

management should also not impose any discipline on the employees who are unable/not

ready to Multiskilled.

- Union representation on all committees and quality improvement initiatives as the union

workers work frontend; they are the ones who can identify the gaps in the process and

provide feedback to quality improvement initiatives in the production. The union has

decided that only if the management is ok with our aspiration point can the union move

ahead and possibly accept the change.

During Negotiations, Management started. They are bringing in HPWS and secure the

investment of $1 billion, and this change is to remain competitive in the market and be more

efficient in terms of production. Management also brought up the point that this change could

create more opportunities and cross-train the employees to be multiskilled. Finally, Management

threw a "Curveball" at the union, saying they also wanted to contract out few non-production

jobs like Janitorial services; this information made the union immediately change their approach

from being co-operative to "avoid" the change as the union had "Zero Tolerance" to any

concessions and contracting out the work. Hence the Union and Management reached an

"Impasse" and did not settle.

On reflection, As a union, though we had loyalty concerns with the Management, we thought

that Implementing HPWS could create more job opportunities and benefit the employees moving

from production to trades and upgrading their skills, that being one of the primary reason for the

union to adopt the subprocess of “ Attitudinal structuring” and change the approach

from resisting to engage, in fostering a good relationship with the Management by accepting

HPWS. However, when Management changed their position to “contracting out” the work,

which led to a “Negative anchoring effect” on us, we immediately avoided the change. If given

another chance during the negotiations with the Management, we would position our aspiration

point to be “reluctant” to change and set the “BATNA” or reservation point to “accept the

change," but with the agreed conditions, which includes Management clarifying "functional

concerns" of the union such as what impact HPWS will have on the union and its members and

based on the impact, we can choose the sub-process of negotiations to adopt a "Distributive” or
“Integrative” style to negotiate. Further, By positioning our aspiration point to be “Reluctant to

change” and the reservation point to be “Ok with the Change," it would give more room to the

union to negotiate from being reluctant to eventually accepting the change(reservation point),

without compromising on the interests of the workers. This would result in an " Intangible

outcome," which maintains a good relationship with the Management.

It would also give a perception to the Management that the union is stepping down to accept the

change to maintain a good relationship with the Management and build trust between both

parties.