Two Potential Distributive Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Consider:

Two Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Avoid:

Specific Gambits That Would Advance Your Agenda:

1. Deadline

90 days to complete the PIP and bring forth positive results is a fair way to approach the negotiation. This tacit is a good way to create movement and push forward for results, especially if the goal is to retain Alice as an employee. The deadline should not come as a surprise to Alice but should be reinforced during the meeting as a reminder of the PIP extension that has already been granted and how it goes against Netflix culture.

1. Authoritarian

While Sharon can lend her experience in HR and success at Netflix as a leader, mentor and successful business woman, she also needs to positively acknowledge Alice and her 10 year loyalty to the team. A top down approach to this negotiation may have Alice feeling as if there is no room for collaboration and can heighten power differences between leader and employee.

1. Deadline

This sets the framework for this meeting and any future follow ups to discuss the PIP. Giving a clear deadline puts pressure on Alice to meet expectations. Two things can happen after the deadline- this prolongs the inevitable and Alice is let go due to poor performance or Alice kicks into high gear and accepts the pressure. Deadline is a marker of exception Netflix made to help Alice, and results are required after 90 days.

2. The Bluffer

Competition within the entertainment industry is a powerful tacit. This gambit should be used thoughtfully, in a way that expresses the rapid changing industry and the need for future talent. Sharon can make known the attractiveness and power of Alice’s current position and how in demand her role is. If Alice knows her job at Netflix is desired by others and that she is replaceable, this may motivate her to improve.

2. The Chipper

This tacit would chip away the favorable rewards of Alice’s current role as Operations Director. This could be seen as sneaky, forcing Alice to accept part of a deal that might be less attractive to her. Removing negotiated items or concealing the meeting agenda can come across as a power move by Sharon and forces Alice to possibly accept a term she is not comfortable with or disagrees with.

2. Competition

Expressing to Alice that her position is highly competitive may ignite a fire in her to keep her job. This could also highlight how the entertainment world is inundated with applicants and propel Alice to remain part of the dream team.

Two Potential Distributive Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Consider:

Two Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Avoid:

Specific Gambits That Would Advance Your Agenda:

1. Flinching – When Sharon displays a visible reaction to Alice’s hesitation or demands, it could help her gain a more positive outcome. The physical reaction would signal that what was being proposed is not expected or acceptable. This type of response should be appropriate and not exaggerated to cause adversity with the other party.

1. Nibbling – “A technique to gain a minor concession from the other party after negotiations have been finalized.” Given the circumstances of the negotiation, including Alice’s past performance, nibbling may create adversity and unacceptable circumstances for Alice. Nibling could be positive for Sharon since she could gain back concessions that were given up during negotiations.

1. Making concessions – Sharon may need to give up concessions to get the desired outcome from Alice. Sharon will have a good understanding of her BATNA and where to concede during the negotiation. If Sharon makes too many concessions, it will become evident that Netflix has a firm position to separate with Alice.

2. Good Guy/Bad Guy – “A technique to sway or counter the direction of an agreement by bringing in a third party to the process normally not present during the discussion.” Using this gambit could work to Sharon’s advantage during the negotiation. A third party could reiterate the company philosophy and double down on the appropriate severance packages for employees that were terminated under the same conditions. This may also be viewed as backhanded or manipulative by Alice.

2. Feel, Felt, Found – “Telling the other party you know how they feel, and how you once felt the same way.” Sharon Slade is a well-known HR executive with a highly successful past. Getting Alice to believe that she has endured or been through the same situation may seem disingenuous and be hard to sell. There may be aspects of the negotiation that this will work for; however, it should be avoided.

2. Propose Multiple Options (Carrell & Heavrin, 2004) – Sharon may find it impactful to offer several options to Alice in negotiation. The proposed options can lead to a win faster since they are all within Sharon’s ZOPA. Several options will also allow for the Alice to choose an appropriate offer that allow her a way to win as well (Carrell & Heavrin, 2004).

Two Potential Distributive Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Consider:

Two Negotiating Gambits for Sharon Slade to Avoid:

Specific Gambits That Would Advance Your Agenda:

1.Sharon should approach the negotiation with a win-win mindset. This mindset and process will ensure the “me versus you” mentality and attitude is squashed before the first handshake is given. The distribution may not be completely even between both parties, but the outcome ensures that both feel satisfied and are able to move forward.

1.Sharon should avoid any type of emotional manipulation. There is going to be a certain level already on Alice’s part of intimidation, as her future with the organization is potentially in question, which triggers many other emotional strains in the process. Sharon should focus on proving to Alice the value of what she is presenting to her perspective and what she has to initially offer her, rather than putting Alice in an awkward position that can give her the impression that she is backed into a corner.

1.One gambit that will advance an agenda again falls towards ethical behavior, and that is showing your cards. Being able to state what you want while also providing the justification for that want, encourages both sides to be open and provides all the necessary information pieces up front to focus on a positive negotiation that contributes to a win-win situation. Think of it as a lighthouse, and no matter how far to the left or right the conversation strays, the information laid out, is the beacon that con bring the negotiation back to center.

2. Another approach that Sharon should consider would thinking beyond the short-term. Looking beyond the short term, allows for a better aspect of negotiating terms which still ties into a win-win situation. Beyond short term is a better situation as well for the organization regarding positive reputation and continued forward thinking culture.

2.The other type of gambit Sharon should avoid deals with ethical behavior. Sharon should avoid the tactic of leaving out a specific detail(s) that may be crucial in the negotiationg process for either Sharon or Alice. This is also known as “duping”. Ensuring all details are present, accounted for, and conveyed accurately and ethically will ensure both Sharon’s and the organizaiton’s reputation for ethical behavior, and will also provide Alice with peace of mind that the negotiation process was indeed genuine.

2. The other gambit focuses more on mental health in the moment, which can be instrumental for both parties. Being able to identify when to take a timeout is important. Cooler heads will always prevail in negotiation, and sometimes it is best to take a break from the room, the table, and each other for a few minutes to refocus, breathe a bit (without duress), and return refreshed. This tactic also will help in the process in the matter of respect, because as emotions may raise, tone, words and insuations can result which may not necessary be true or intended.