Salt Harbor Case

season Harbor Exercise The Salt Harbor exercise was a substantive domain dialogue exercise that added m all(prenominal) factors into the decision making. In this exercise, Lukas and I were partners. Lukas was the buyer and I was the seller. In this talks, I had recently purchase some property that I hopeed to framing into a coffee pasture. The neighbor, who is withal the buyer, did not want me to build the coffee shop and instead wanted to purchase the property. Lukas stopped me from creation able to build the coffee shop through with(predicate) legal channels.I was given the option to retreat my chances in court or attempt to articulate the property to Lukas and open my coffee shop at another(prenominal) location. - This exercise was ch all toldenging beca economic consumption, kindred any real world situation, there was varying degrees of cultivation asymme experiment that make negotiating challenging. We were both(prenominal)(prenominal) looking to bestow mor e(prenominal) information off of the other some atomic number 53 in company to be in a snap off position to carry off. What make this exercise until now more interesting is that it simulated a real world situation that two people would muss with e genuinely day.This make it easier to take care the underlying deduction of the exercise as opposed to the jump exercise. - My dodge My initial outline was to see what Lukas would expand first before I made a bid. plain though I risked being anchored, I want to gather as much information almost him and the decisions he is making before I made my bid. I similarly made sure to understand the implications of my costs and tolerate a reasonable reticence price that would meet my needs.I understood the military reserve price as the bare minimum I would ever take for the property and therefore sit it at atomic number 6. I suppose in my mind, I understood the reservation price to include all possible situations. At 100, this wo uld cover the price I paid for the property and al unkept me to look for another without losing notes. My purpose value was one hundred sixty-five. I chose this because 165 were in a higher place the range that I could sell the property to a third party and would also allow me to build my coffee shop at a more expensive location without take overing an extra dime.My schema to come out as up to now as possible from the exchange and in some(prenominal) ways, I think I ended up cock-a-hoop my opposer the upper hand when I failed to subscribe that Lukas might want the property even more than I want to get rid of it. My skid My mistake came when I became anchored by the initial offer. When Lukas offered $100 as the initial offer, I thought he was indicating that his limit was in reality now. I never really imaged that he would offer me such a low value considering how high he authorize to pay for it.Obviously, had Lukas offered a much higher value, I would have most likely a djusted my numbers and strategy to reflect a much higher merchandising price. However, given his initial offer, I decided to bother with my strategy and attempt to get $165 out of him. My strategy worked to the exact specifications that I originally wanted. I get exactly my target and in many ways was successful in my negotiation. However, I failed to hear the value that the property had for Lucas and how much higher he would be go awaying to pay for it.I was anchored by his initial offer which subsequently affected my offers. At the same time, had I gone first, I intrust a similar issuance would have emerged. I most likely wouldve offered 180 in the hopes of getting it down to 165. I believe the reason I was able to so easily come across my target or what I wanted is because my price was localise too low and it became an easy bargain for Lukas. Behaviors During the negotiation I tried to gather as much information as possible. It was important to me to understand my opponen t as best possible.In these exercises it was easy to negotiate downwards given the friendly nature of the negations. I wanted to find a win-win situation where we were both able to come out of the negotiation quality good about it. On the other hand, I think Lukas just wanted to maximize his outcome and had no desire to help me win as well. This isnt necessarily bad in a situation where we would never likely encounter each other gain. I noticed that he was really determined to get the most out of the negotiation.He made a very low offer which made me think that he had a bring down reservation price. In general, the mood of the negotiation was very light hearted and open. We were able to discuss our positions and able to pay an agreement. Lukas and I were able to negotiate an agreement that made me satisfied with the outcome. It was a pleasant negotiation overall. If we were to negotiate again in the afterlife, I would keep the lessons I versed in mind and fight harder to touc h a better than optimal outcome, knowing that Lukas will likely attempt to anchor my offer downwards.Lessons The prime lesson that I learned is to watch out for anchors and also to fight harder for my position. This is especially true if a future negotiation is unlikely to happen. I need to try and maximize the negotiation. An anchor is a powerful jibe that affects the negotiation. In future, I will consider harder use the anchor effect to my advantage. Another lesson I learned is that how someone qualitys following a negotiation is amazingly relative. In other words, a person may feel happier having gained less money than if they gained more money but felt like they couldve gotten more.I experienced this phenomenon. I felt very satisfied with the negotiation afterwards, but when I learned that he had a much higher limit and that he made it seem like it was much lower, made me very upset. In a way, I felt like I was lied to or in deceived, even though Lukas did nothing wrong. Ha ving information is only one of the many tools a good negotiator uses to achieve a better result. - Grades Henrique 9, Lukas 9 I feel strongly that Lukas and I did a good argument negotiating.I was able to reach my target of 165 and Lukas was able to get a better come up to than what he felt was good (200). Overall, it was a mutually beneficial negotiation. The reason I am fully grown Lukas and I 9s is due to the fact that theres always room for improvement. We both couldve gotten a better deal if we were better negotiators. We both tried to follow out the tools we learned in class in order to achieve the outcome we wanted and needless to say, we both learned the material well. Lukas used an anchor and I gathered information to understand how much hes willing to negotiate.