V Abrams Case

At the conclusion of the noncompeting negotiations, Vanessa Abrams said "I ended up giving in "Do you agree?

Vanessa gave herself no choice put to end up with the outcome that was achieved due to her lack of negotiating skills. She did give in from her original terms however as discussed below these were an unrealistic benchmark to begin with and not inline with overall corporate policy.

Vanessa Abrams was a successful and relatively happy employee of Swanton & Gardner (S&G) Her stand on the non disclosure issue was driven by the fact the company were expecting her to sign the agreement where she had seen herself as someone that was generally above normal procedure and saw the fact that she has to comply with this policy as a insult to her value to the company. It appears that she felt undervalued by the company and her negotiations were coming from this perspective rather than the really assessing what the non disclosure agreement meant to her working conditions.

Her anchor point in the negotiations was unrealistic and driven by emotion. Her involvement of a third party in these negotiations which at times can be beneficial only exacerbated the negativity of her situation as the advice she received from Nick was solely based on the information Vanessa had advised. It did not at all take into account the perspective of Swanton & Gardner and their reasons behind the importance of Jerry in getting the agreement signed. Her own opinion of her self worth and the feeling that this was not a direct reflection of managements views lead her to go against her natural negotiation and operational style which immediately worked against her.

The lack of communication between Jerry & Vanessa in regards to the reason for the immediate need for the signing of the agreement lead to confusion and eventually to conflict. Jerry was advised by corporate that this was not up for negotiation and had to be done and he inturn had the expectation that Vanessa would comply solely on this basis. I don't think he was aware that she felt that she was undervalued for her achievements and that forcing her to sign the agreement was questioning her loyalty and commitment to the company which as a member of the management team she felt went without saying. The expectation that Vanessa was to sign leads her to go against her natural style of appeasing Jerry in order for them both to get the outcome best for the company. Her emotional reaction and lack of information regarding Jerry's perspective along with her feelings that she perhaps could receive a better deal in the market place ensured that her negotiations were destined for failure.

Vanessa's introduction of Ben (the lawyer) without advising Jerry of her intention to do so was interpreted by the company as an attacking style. As Vanessa's usual style appeared to be one of collaboration to achieve outcomes this tactic was interpreted by Jerry to be unacceptable. Her anchor for her negotiations was immediately dismissed without full consideration as emotion immediately compromised their negotiations. Jerry as a CEO of the company natural style would have been of a competitive nature and this was accepted as his normal practice. Vanessa in the past was always confident in nature and well versed in all activities of the business was also always eager to achieve an acceptable solution without major conflict. The way she was going about this negotiation was completely different from what had constituted normal. The lack of a suitable information exchange only compounded a potentially volatile situation. "What one negotiator perceives as a legitimate defence the other party might see as an unwanted attack"(Lewicki,Saunders,Barry & Minton)

Ben's advice to Vanessa was based on the BATNA that she was willing to leave her current employment if her terms were not met. Vanessa went into the negotiations with this perspective however her personal BATNA was not to leave but arrive at a solution which would allow her to continue her management position in her current employment and fulfil a further monementary requirement that she felt entitled to for the performances that she had previously delivered. As these two perspectives were contradicting each other her negotiations were destined to fail. She never wanted to leave the company and valued her role - although she felt undervalued playing unrealistic hard ball was never going to get her the outcome she required.

Negotiations completely came to a stand still and Jerry reacted in an aggressive manner by disregarding Vanessa's requirements and removing from the management team. This caused her a confident person to be embarrassed in front of her peers and her self worth, the element that had lead her to the negotiation in the first place, was now far less than prior to the beginning of discussions on the non disclosure agreement. She felt that she has given in however, the way Vanessa handled the whole negotiation ensured she had no choice but to sign the agreement. She was however slightly compensated regarding the fact she received the consideration if she was fired that she would get one years salary. Corporate and Jerry still would have seen this term as a valuable to any employee and to have a monementary value however as Vanessa anchor point was so unrealistic any achievement seemed low in her eyes. The achievement of this consideration however will be of benefit to her if the "feeling in her bones" of and economy down turn comes to light and will enable her to be in a better place if forced to find alternative employment. As per the previous 2 months results this is looking interment which infers the negotiations were not a total loss for Vanessa after all.

How did Vanessa Abrams get herself in this position?

Vanessa got herself into this situation mainly from deviating from her normal communication/conflict resolution style. She decided that she going to play "hard ball". Vanessa did not usually play hardball and in the past had always achieved the outcomes that she required. Her natural style although always confident was from a psychological perspective. She always listened and took notes to ensure she could reflect and always have the facts at hand. She generally was always non- threatening and collaborating in nature. Jerry on the other hand was a CEO which generally indicates a competitive style. Vanessa always used her collaborating skills to enable her to understand where he was coming from and was aware of his emotional outbursts.

The signing of the agreement which was mandatory for all company employees should not have if handled correctly caused such a huge issue. What Jerry was requesting Vanessa to do was not unfair it was