MINI CASE WIN-LOSE NEGOTIATION TACTICS LEAD TO CORPORATE HUMILIATION Conflict that takes place within

Question: MINI CASE WIN-LOSE NEGOTIATION TACTICS LEAD TO CORPORATE HUMILIATION Conflict that takes place within an organication can quickly make its way outside the organiza tion, leading to public embamment and fond dminshment. This reality hit home for Premier Tech (PT) and in controlling shuncholder Gestion Bemund Belanger (GBB) in July 2015 when the Quebec CourtAsk an expertAsk an expertAsk an expert done loadingWhat are the negotiation process for the Case Study?
What is the influences in negotiation process?Who could have started the negotiation and when?What could the negotiation process have looked like?
Show transcribed image textTranscribed image text: MINI CASE WIN-LOSE NEGOTIATION TACTICS LEAD TO CORPORATE HUMILIATION Conflict that takes place within an organication can quickly make its way outside the organiza tion, leading to public embamment and fond dminshment. This reality hit home for Premier Tech (PT) and in controlling shuncholder Gestion Bemund Belanger (GBB) in July 2015 when the Quebec Court of Appeal domised their appeal and suppomed an earlier court decision related to their fomer executive Christian Doll Cherian hal engged in a lengthy and ulti- mately succedal legal battle to win hack $2,000,000 worth of stock options. The options had been lost when he was terminated, a temination deemed unat and problematic by the courts The situation developed in early 2001. Christian Dollo was a senior executive in a IT subsidiary and his compensation package included significant stock options. Between 2001 and 2010 he was granted and he voted over 200.000 options. In 2007, the company reverted from a publicly traded to a private corporation, however, this did not impact his options. In fact, it seemed like a wise decision The company succeeded as a private entity. The mock tripled in value in the three year (between 2007-2010), such that Christian’s shares were worth almost $2,000,000 by 2010. He expected the trend to continue and intended to hold onto his options for the long term, seeing them as contributing to his eventual retinement. Christian’s financial future was top of mind for him in 2010, he was going through a divorce and focused on division of amets. As part of that process he reviewed his stock option plan, and was surprised and chagrined to find a clase stipulating that termination for any reason would result in a low of all stock options even if the termination was not for 284 Part 6 Leading. Understanding, and Transforming the Organization System case. Concerned, Christian contacted PTV CEO and CFO, to whom he reported. Both provided asurances they would never fire him without abo permitting him to keep his options. But the fact that the written regulations stated something different continued to make Christian very uncomfortable. Weeks later, he made a formal mace to have the written clause changed. Once again, his concems were dismissed. The regulations remained unchanged. Christian left for a brief vacation still very worried On his return he was called into another meeting with the PT CEO at which he was fired and offered a severance package. When he asked about stock options, the CEO would not answer him. He later discovered that his options had been recinded. He wrote to the board of directors to make a formal complaint and request that the options be reinstated They flatly refused without making a counteroffer or engaging in negotiations However, this decision represented a clear conflict of interest it had been made on the basis of legal advice provided by the law firm representing GBB, the majority shareholder in PT. Paying out the options would have significant financial repercussions for GBB Upset by what he perceived an unfair treatment, Christian launched a suit before the Superior Court. He argued that he was terminated without cane, that the provision with drawing options upon termination was abusive, and furthermore that he had been inten- tionally misled about its applicability to his situation. Christian abo argued that the board members had acted in had faith in relying on a legal opinion that they should have known was biased. Justice Clement Samson agreed, on all counts. His employer was required to allow Christian to sell his stock options and take his profits. He was abo awded interest on the sales price, since the court proceedings had delayed the sale. Both GBB and PT filed appeals, neither succesful. In fact, all the appeals did was highlight the many procedural emoes they had made along the way, most notably at the bound-of-directors level It is too early to fully assess the costs of this fianco for GBB and PT. There are direct costs associated with providing the stock options and paying court costs, but there are also indirect costs. The company has gotten a reputation for being abusive and unterworthy This reputation will impact everything from consumer perceptions to the calibre of candi- dates they can attract for future executive roles. They have also acquired a reputation as manipulative and unwilling to negotiate in good faith. The ramifications of that image in the public eye remain to be seen. The Negotiation Process Exhibit 14-5 The Negotiation Process Preparat Preparation and planning: Delision of ground rules Borgain problem solv Cosure assess what you think are the other party’s goals consider your relationship with the other party develop a strategy. know how the other party will respond to any given situation determine your and the other side’s best alternative to negotiated agreement, or BATNA BATNA: the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, the least the individual should accept Definition of ground rules: – define with the other party what the ground rules will be, the procedures of the negotiation itself. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints will apply? The parties will exchange their initial proposals or demands Clarification and justification: – opportunity to explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands opportunity to educate each other on issues, explain why they are important, and explain how you arrived at your initial demands. provide documentation to support your position Bargaining and problem solving: give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement both parties need to make concessions/compromises Closure and implementation formalize your agreement and develop procedures for implementing and monitoring it Formal: hammering out the specifics in a formal contract Informal: handshake