Question-1) what style was adapted in the negotiation?

And how it affected the

outcome of the situation?

In the mid-1920s Eastern Airlines began as a mail carrier for the U.S postal Service
which has been recognized as one of the first and longest-running U.S. "trunk" carriers.
After its inception and came to dominate much of the domestic travel industry the airline
grew into a passenger carrier by the 1950s. By the 1970s the airline had grown into one
of the "big 4" major U.S. airlines, and was led by astronaut-turned-CEO Frank Borman. It
was only then the relation between Mr. Borman the CEO, once very popular among the
employees and throughout the industry. After the Airline Deregulation Act, it started
struglling.The issues in question are either they were to agree to give the airline hefty
wage concessions or he would sell the airline and Mr. Borman had to negotiate with three
unions like gauntlet. It was a divisible issue because a healthy negotiation can bring
solution. The style of negotiation that was adapted between Mr. Borman and the union is
the distributive bargaining which is a negotiation method in which two parties strive to
divide a fixed pool of resources, each party trying to maximize its share of distribution.
Here Mr Borman applied a negative framing style by saying that they were going to sell
the company but in reality he was buffing them. We have also seen a style called yielding
from Dual concern model they have applied while accepting the deal by board of
directors.

The outcome was simply upsetting, because both parties didn’t consider the issues while
they started negotiation. Though Mr. Boreman tried to create a negative framing by
bluffing but trick did not work out. He ultimately lost his job after the deal was made
between the Eastern airline’s board of directors and Mr. Lorenzo. The structures of the
party was fractionized for that see none of the parties were successful in getting what
they wanted and it affected the company by bankruptcy.

By giving other party an ultimatum Mr. Boreman initiated the negotiation in very
negative way. He asked them to either agree to wage cuts or he would sell off the airline.
An ultimatum or threatening is not the solution rather it makes the deal more complex
which we have seen in this case. Getting frustrated negotiator can easily make careless
mistakes.

Both parties were stubborn to the end which leads the deal towards Lorenzo’s offer. If
we see the dual concern model as the board of directors of Eastern Airlines accepted
Lorenzo’s offer means they are yielding towards him. They understand Lorenzo’s deal
and accept it. Otherwise both parties were making mistakes by withdrawing the deal.

Question-2) Explain a better technique or process to handle the situation.

As Mr.Boreman knew the company was in a serious financial crisis, and the employees
are his biggest support system. Without them he would have not been able to run his
business. In a situation like this, he should have thought about a win-win situation where
both the party will get something out of it which is called integrative bargaining. They
should sit together and explain the whole situation and then proposed the wage-cuts. This
would have proved very useful as when the employees would see that the company is
discussing with them the crisis situation and asking them to consider and accept a wage
cut for the betterment of the company.

As threats and ultimatum always creates negative impacts they should not use the style
threatening. Instead of giving threats, he could have sit and mutually negotiate with them.
As threats hardly work in negotiation, rather it ruins the

whole scenario. Mr.Boreman also should have considered that the employees to needed
to be adequately paid in order to run their family. It was about considering the employees
problems and come up with a solution which would make the employees that they are not
losing anything.

We have seen that both the party was concern about their own interest no one cares about
the company. The other party who were not happy with the wage-cut they were told to
follow, would not calm down and only work when 5% more would be given to them. If
they have been accepted the offer thinking about the company they might not have to
face such day. The consequence of their action was that they all lost their jobs and so they
had nothing to negotiate anymore. It proves frustration make people to intense to take
wrong decisions.

Both parties were stubborn to the end which leads the deal towards Lorenzo’s offer. They
were sticking on their point which is not a solution. There has to have a willingness of
participation of both parties. Continuous refusing to negotiate was a bad idea especially
when they knew that company has more power and they might lose their job.

While starting their negotiation they should make a collaborative atmosphere. Respecting
each parties offer and discussing with a mutual understanding could have brought better
outcome for them.

Mr. Borman and employee maintain a long term relationship because the company can’t
loose their employees. The most important thing they forgot to realize is the relationship
that they had with each other. An argument like this would not help them at any cost as
both the parties would be affected by their decisions. Mr. Borman could have settled
these issues with other two groups. Without making negative framing he could have
frame this in such a way that the employee got convinced. At the very beginning Mr.
Borman set a wrong framing which ultimately tends him to a biggest failure. So, holding
the whole negotiation and implementing it is a biggest challenge for all.