Team Negoitation
Team Negotiation “UpFront” Paper
The UpFront Negotiation was a challenging and rewarding experience for our group. Our original approach to the exercise was to select an acceptable range for each of the four issues and then not stray from those selections the best we could. Clarissa took the lead as she began talking about ranges of outcomes. Once mentioned, the rest of the team generally agreed as everyone was thinking relatively similarly. We originally decided that on issue one, founders equity split, we were willing to work with no change or a one percent change. As for issue 2, Phuc’s salary, our group felt comfortable with $70,000-$90,000 range. The third issue, seed equity split, we were willing to accept three outcomes, no change, 10% to Phuc and 45% to Michael and Georg, or 25% to Phuc and 37.5% to Georg and Michael. The final issue, Warren’s founders equity, was the least important to us; we were willing to accept 0.50%, 0.75%, no change, 1.25%, or 1.50%.
Our goal for the outcome was to try to lose the least amount of points possible in order for Michael to obtain the best outcome. Our goals were rather general, because our strategy did not require Michael to have a specific outcome for any individual issue. This left us the ability to have multiple outcomes as several combinations within our preselected ranges had the ability of resulting in a point loss we were willing to tolerate. Our team was comfortable with the outcome as long as we were within the range we had originally selected. In the beginning of the negotiations between Michael, Phuc, and Georg, Michael initiated the conversation to see what issue was on the table for discussion first. Initially we proposed changing absolutely nothing, which was expectedly not met with any acceptance. After generally speaking on a few issues, we eventually ended up discussing issue one (founders equity split) first. All three characters kicked around the topic and no one could come
The UpFront Negotiation was a challenging and rewarding experience for our group. Our original approach to the exercise was to select an acceptable range for each of the four issues and then not stray from those selections the best we could. Clarissa took the lead as she began talking about ranges of outcomes. Once mentioned, the rest of the team generally agreed as everyone was thinking relatively similarly. We originally decided that on issue one, founders equity split, we were willing to work with no change or a one percent change. As for issue 2, Phuc’s salary, our group felt comfortable with $70,000-$90,000 range. The third issue, seed equity split, we were willing to accept three outcomes, no change, 10% to Phuc and 45% to Michael and Georg, or 25% to Phuc and 37.5% to Georg and Michael. The final issue, Warren’s founders equity, was the least important to us; we were willing to accept 0.50%, 0.75%, no change, 1.25%, or 1.50%.
Our goal for the outcome was to try to lose the least amount of points possible in order for Michael to obtain the best outcome. Our goals were rather general, because our strategy did not require Michael to have a specific outcome for any individual issue. This left us the ability to have multiple outcomes as several combinations within our preselected ranges had the ability of resulting in a point loss we were willing to tolerate. Our team was comfortable with the outcome as long as we were within the range we had originally selected. In the beginning of the negotiations between Michael, Phuc, and Georg, Michael initiated the conversation to see what issue was on the table for discussion first. Initially we proposed changing absolutely nothing, which was expectedly not met with any acceptance. After generally speaking on a few issues, we eventually ended up discussing issue one (founders equity split) first. All three characters kicked around the topic and no one could come