Description
Pacific Oil Company Read the Pacific Oil Company case study.Prepare an analysis of the case study that addresses the following objectives: 1.Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Fontaine’s and Gaudin’s negotiating strategy in their deliberations with Reliant Chemical Company. 2.Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Hauptman’s and Zinnser’s negotiating strategy. 3.What action should Fontaine take at the end of the case?Why? Conclusions must be well reasoned and supported with at least 5 citations from the course readings.The analysis should be a minimum of 750 words in APA format, excluding the title page and references.Be sure to follow the guidelines outlined in the grading rubric below. Requirements: Prepare a quality, substantive paper that addresses the objectives of the assignment and the expectations set forth in the grading rubric. A minimum of 750 words. Use APA format – Refer to APA Style and the Online Tutoring Center resources in Academic Resources for guidance on paper and citation formatting. conclusions must be well reasoned and supported with at least 5 citations from the course readings All external cited sources must have been published within the 5 years. I have provided a copy of a sample paper that you can use to better assist you.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1
Pacific Oil Company Case Study
Jaquinthia Warren
Southwestern College
Negotiation and Conflict Resolution
Dr. J. Rattler
9/3/2023
2
Pacific Oil Company Case Study
Evaluation of Fontaine’s and Gaudin’s Negotiating Strategy
There are definite strengths and weaknesses to Fontaine and Gaudin’s negotiating
approach in the negotiation between Hauptman and Zinnser from Reliant Chemical Company
and Fontaine and Gaudin from Pacific Oil Company. One of their main advantages is their
importance in keeping a long-term partnership with Reliant Chemical. They appreciate the value
of this relationship for future business opportunities and collaboration in addition to the current
negotiation. Given that it builds trust and goodwill, this long-term perspective can be useful in
negotiations.
However, their approach to negotiations also reveals flaws. Their apparent lack of
negotiation preparation is perhaps the most important. They were already at a disadvantage
because they needed to prepare for Reliant’s request for a price cut. To foresee the other party’s
moves and be better prepared to respond, adequate preparation is crucial during negotiations
(Fells& Sheer, 2019). Fontaine and Gaudin quickly accepted Reliant’s demand for a price cut
without presenting any counteroffers. This eagerness to give in without considering alternatives
might suggest a lack of assertiveness.
It is clear from evaluating Fontaine and Gaudin’s negotiating tactics that their focus on
upholding a long-term partnership with Reliant Chemical is commendable. It demonstrates a
forward-thinking outlook to acknowledge the strategic significance of this partnership beyond
the ongoing negotiations. This long-term perspective promotes goodwill and positions Pacific
Oil for future partnerships and synergies (Mirza&Datta, 2019). Additionally, Fontaine and
Gaudin’s flexibility in being open to negotiation and willing to modify to accommodate Reliant’s
concerns is a plus. It fosters collaboration and shows a willingness to reach an understanding.
3
However, weaknesses such as a lack of planning and a propensity to give up too easily balance
out these strengths. These flaws highlight the necessity of a more thorough and strategic
negotiation approach.
Evaluation of Hauptman’s andZinnser’s Negotiating Strategy
Concerning Hauptman and Zinnser from Reliant Chemical Company, their negotiating
approach also has strengths and weaknesses. By taking a tough stance and demanding a price
cut, they can be seen as attempting to safeguard Reliant’s interests and increase their company’s
profit (Breuer et al., 2020). As they demonstrated during the negotiation, their steadfast stance
can be a source of strength, especially when backed by information and data from rival
companies.
However, their combative attitude might endanger their long-term partnership with
Pacific Oil Company. Such a tactic might strain the relationship and close the door to additional
business partnerships, which could be harmful in the long run. Their apparent lack of flexibility
is another flaw. Hauptman and Zinnser did not seem open to bargaining on any terms, which
might result in a deadlock and missed opportunities. To find consensus and agree during
negotiations, some flexibility is frequently needed.
The evaluation of Hauptman and Zinnser’s negotiating tactics reveals that they were
committed to defending Reliant Chemical’s interests and maximizing profitability, which is a
legitimate and admirable negotiation goal. This aspect is demonstrated by their firm stance in
demanding a price reduction. Furthermore, the credibility of their position is increased by their
reliance on competitive data and information to support their pricing claim. They strengthen their
case for their demands by providing data and facts (Gates, 2022). It is crucial to understand that
their aggressive approach may be fraught with danger despite being effective in some ways. The
4
benefits of collaboration beyond this particular negotiation could be undermined by their
unyielding attitude, which could stress the long-term relationship with Pacific Oil. They might
make reaching a mutually beneficial agreement more difficult and look for areas where
compromise might be possible because of their apparent inflexibility(Gates, 2022). A more
balanced strategy considering immediate benefits and long-term alliances might produce more
favorable results in difficult negotiations like these.
Recommended Action for Fontaine
Fontaine should think about a fair and wise course of action when the case is over. They
must first carefully review the agreement, ensuring they are aware of its terms and ramifications
(Lewicki et al., 20201). Fontaine should subsequently actively resume talks with Reliant
Chemical. Fontaine should stress the potential drawbacks of not coming to a compromise and the
mutual advantages of doing so in this communication.
Fontaine should suggest a compromise that considers both companies’ needs during
negotiations. This initiative could entail offering Reliant additional benefits or guarantees and a
smaller price reduction than Reliant’s initially requested. Fontaine should keep hammering home
the importance of preserving a solid business partnership throughout the negotiation
process(Lewicki et al., 20201). They ought to look into additional opportunities for cooperation
and mutual benefit beyond the current contract’s terms. Fontaine can work toward a more
beneficial outcome for both parties and ensure the ongoing success of their business partnership
by employing this diplomatic and strategic approach.
5
References
Breuer, J., Bishop, L., & Kinder-Kurlanda, K. (2020). The practical and ethical challenges in
acquiring and sharing digital trace data: Negotiating public-private partnerships. New
Media & Society, 22(11), 2058-2080.
Fells, R., & Sheer, N. (2019). Effective negotiation: From research to results. Cambridge
University Press.
Gates, S. (2022). The negotiation book: Your definitive guide to successful negotiating. John
Wiley & Sons.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2021). Essentials of negotiation.McGraw-Hill
Education.
Mirza, M. S., &Datta, S. (2019). Strengths and Weakness of Traditional and Agile Processes
Systematic Review. J. Softw., 14(5), 209-219.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
