Part 2 Directions:
React to your group mates’ responses from parts 1a and 1b by commenting on their posts. In reading the responses from part 1b, how are the plans and responses outlined similar to or different from your leadership style’s response?
Your responses to others' posts are due 5/1 by 11:59 pm.
Part 1a:
1. Who are the main stakeholder groups involved in the negotiation, and what are their primary interests?
· San Diego Zoo Global (SDZG) – primary interest is to secure the pandas on loan to increase attendance and revenue at the zoo, and to support conservation efforts.
· Chinese Wildlife Conservation Association (CWCA) – primary interest is to ensure the safety and well-being of the pandas while on loan, and to maintain positive relations with SDZG.
· US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – primary interest is to ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing the importation of endangered species, and to protect the welfare of the pandas.
· Animal Protection Organizations (APOs) – primary interest is to ensure the humane treatment and well-being of the pandas during and after their loan period, and to ensure that SDZG is held accountable for their welfare.
· The Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens (CAZG) – primary interest would be to represent and protect the interests of Chinese zoos and promote the conservation of endangered species. They would likely be concerned with the welfare of the pandas during their loan period and ensuring that the loan agreement benefits both SDZG and Chinese zoos. Their bargaining position could be to negotiate for a more favorable loan agreement that includes opportunities for Chinese zoos to participate in conservation efforts and promote Chinese wildlife, as well as to ensure the welfare of the pandas during and after their loan period.
· more Stakeholder Groups:
· Zoological Society of San Diego (ZSSD) – Obtaining pandas to attract visitors and improve revenue, while fulfilling their mission of conservation and education.
· American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) – Ensuring that the pandas are properly cared for and managed in accordance with AAZPA guidelines, and that the program benefits conservation efforts.
· Conservation and Research for Endangered Species (CRES) – Advancing scientific knowledge about pandas and promoting conservation efforts for the species.
· World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Promoting conservation efforts for pandas and other endangered species and ensuring that the pandas are not exploited for commercial gain.
· Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) – Ensuring that the trade of pandas is regulated and does not contribute to the decline of the species.
· International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – Promoting conservation efforts for pandas and other endangered species and providing guidance on the management and conservation of species.
2. What are the main agenda items for negotiation? Which items would be the highest priority for each side? What issues will be toughest for Myers to resolve?
The terms and conditions of the loan agreement, including the length of the loan, fees, and responsibilities of each party.
The care and welfare of the pandas during their loan period, including medical care, housing, feeding, and enrichment.
Compliance with laws and regulations governing the importation of endangered species, including those related to animal welfare and conservation.
The involvement of APOs in monitoring the welfare of the pandas during and after their loan period.
The highest priority for SDZG would be to secure the pandas on loan and ensure their well-being, as this would increase attendance and revenue at the zoo and support conservation efforts. The highest priority for CWCA and USFWS would be to ensure the safety and well-being of the pandas and compliance with regulations. The toughest issues for Myers to resolve would likely be related to ensuring the welfare of the pandas during their loan period, as this is a shared interest among all stakeholders but may require significant resources and oversight.
3. What is each respective side’s bargaining position? In other words, what are their points of leverage?
The bargaining position of SDZG is that they are willing to pay a high fee and comply with regulations in order to secure the loan of the pandas, which they see as a key opportunity for increasing attendance and revenue at the zoo. SDZG's leverage is their ability to offer financial compensation and their expertise in caring for and exhibiting animals. The bargaining position of CWCA is that they are willing to loan the pandas to SDZG but only if their safety and well-being can be ensured, and they have leverage in their ability to withhold the pandas if they are not satisfied with the terms of the agreement. USFWS has leverage in their ability to enforce regulations and withhold permits if SDZG and CWCA do not comply with regulations. APOs have leverage in their ability to bring negative publicity and legal action if they feel the welfare of the pandas is not being adequately protected.
4. What are viable alternatives to each of these groups’ interests (their BATNA-Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)? Does each group have a relatively favorable BATNA?
some potential alternatives for each group's interests could be:
SDZG: They could focus on obtaining other high-profile species to attract visitors and fulfill their conservation mission, or they could explore other partnership opportunities with other zoos or conservation organizations. However, obtaining pandas from another source may not be a feasible alternative since pandas are highly sought after and few zoos have them.
CWCA: They could explore other loan opportunities with other zoos or facilities, or they could focus on promoting and preserving other endangered species that are native to China. However, obtaining the exposure and publicity that comes with loaning pandas may not be possible with other species.
USFWS could deny permits for the importation of the pandas if regulations are not met or could require additional safeguards to ensure the welfare of the pandas.
APOs could engage in public education and advocacy to raise awareness about the welfare of captive animals or could seek to bring legal action against SDZG if they feel the welfare of the pandas is being compromised.
Each group's BATNA would depend on their specific interests and resources. SDZG may have a less favorable BATNA if they are unable to secure pandas or other high-profile species for loan. CWCA may have a less favorable BATNA if they are unable to find suitable facilities to loan the pandas to. USFWS's BATNA could be to maintain the status quo and deny the permit, although this would likely not be a desirable outcome for either SDZG or CWCA.
Part 1b:
As a Humble leader, my primary stakeholder group is the CWCA. My communication strategy with them would focus on building a relationship of trust and understanding. I would start by acknowledging their interest in pandas and expressing gratitude for their conservation efforts. Then, I would emphasize the mutual benefit of a successful loan, both for the pandas and for the public. I would listen carefully to their concerns and needs, and work collaboratively to find a solution that meets both of our interests.
To persuade my counterpart in negotiations, I would focus on building a relationship of trust and understanding. I would listen actively to their perspective and show that I understand their interests and concerns. Then, I would emphasize the benefits of a successful loan for both sides, and work collaboratively to find a solution that meets both of our interests. I would also be open to compromise and flexible in my approach.
My counterpart in negotiations may react positively to my Humble approach, appreciating the relationship-building and collaborative nature of the negotiation. They may be more willing to compromise and find a mutually beneficial solution.
The costs of my strategy may be that it takes longer to reach an agreement, as I prioritize building trust and understanding over speed. However, the benefits include a stronger relationship with the CWCA, increased likelihood of future collaborations, and a more successful and sustainable loan.
If the CWCA demanded that San Diego pays for the entire conservation program and has unfettered control over the use of those funds, as Myers, I would need to respond assertively while still being respectful and collaborative. I would explain that this demand does not align with San Diego's interests and that we need to find a solution that meets both parties' needs. I would ask questions to better understand their perspective and needs, and try to find common ground for compromise.
My response to the above two questions would not be significantly different from how I would actually respond, as a Humble leader. I would still prioritize building relationships and finding mutually beneficial solutions. However, in the scenario where the CWCA demands unfettered control over funds, I may need to be more assertive and clear in expressing our interests and needs.
,
Instructions: Part 2 Directions:
React to your group mates’ responses from parts 1a and 1b by commenting on their posts. In reading the responses from part 1b, how are the plans and responses outlined similar to or different from your leadership style’s response?
Your responses to others' posts are due 5/1 by 11:59 pm.
SundayApr 23 at 1:36pm
1. Who are the main stakeholder groups involved in the negotiation, and what are their primary interests?
There are many stakeholder groups involved in the negotiation.
· Douglas Meyers, the executive director of the Zoological Society of San Diego – ongoing
strategy of attracting zoo visitors, education of the public, and protecting endangered species.
· China – the sole source of pandas who can choose very selectively where to have panda exhibits in the world
· CWCA (China Wildlife Conservation Association) – sustainable development, panda protection
· Ministry of Forestry in China – worked with CWCA, an official source of pandas
· Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens (CAZG) – an official source of pandas
· San Diego Zoo – wanted to build a reputation as one of the greatest zoos in the world, needed a new exhibit every two years to boost revenue
· City of San Diego – positive economic impact from the Zoo by creating jobs, increasing tax revenue, and marketing purposes
· American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) – promote values of public education and animal conservationism
· AAZPA’s Species Survival Plan (SSP) – breeding of certain endangered species
· ZZSD – nonprofit who runs the Zoo and Wild Animal Park, attracting visitors and driving revenue
· World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) – to protect pandas
· S. Government – Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1969 protects endangered species, also the Fish and Wildlife Services
· International Union for Conservation of Nature – nature conservation and animal rights
2. What are the main agenda items for negotiation? Which items would be the highest priority for each side? What issues would be the toughest for Myers to resolve?
The main agenda items for negotiation are loan fees, selection of pandas, duration of the panda's stay (Myers wanted a 14-year loan), ownership of cubs, training of the San Diego Zoo staff, and transportation from China to the San Diego Zoo. The CWCA's standards of care had to be considered, as well as specifications for accommodations, and ZZSD’s liability if a panda has an injury. The CWCA demanded that China’s National Conservation Project for the Giant Panda and Its Habitat be funded by the ZSSD. They also insisted that the U.S. does not need to know how funds provided for conservation are managed in China. They also “suggested” that ZSSD sponsor five Chinese officials for a Disneyland and Grand Canyon trip.
The highest item for Myers is a 14-year loan of a breeding pair of pandas and a long-term working relationship with the CWCA. The highest items for the CWCA are that the U.S. finance their Conservation Project, that they do not have to report on how money provided for conservation is managed and spent, and that five members of their team be sponsored on a trip to Disneyland and the Grand Canyon.
All three of the items are tough for Myers to resolve. 1) Paying for China's National Conservation Project for the Giant Panda and its Habitat would be cost-prohibitive. The first five years would cost approximately $56 million or 70% of ZSSD's entire 1991 budget. 2) The ZZSD is concerned that they cannot tell their shareholders how the Chinese use the funds for conservation. 3) Gifting this trip would violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
3. What is each respective side’s bargaining position?
Myers' position of requesting a long-term visit (14 years) shows concern for the conservation of the pandas rather than a short-term visit for commercial purposes only. The previous shorter visit showed that the San Diego Zoo is a viable partner. However, compared to China, his position is weak.
China's bargaining position is strong because they are the only source for the pandas. If one Zoo does not give in to their demands, there are plenty of other zoos all over the world that will.
4. What are viable alternatives to each of these group’s interest (their BATNA)? Does each group have a relatively favorable BATNA?
Myers has several BATNAs. First, he could negotiate a better % or sharing of the Conservation Project, negotiating for a 70/ split. Second, he could ask the Chinese to give him a non-detailed account of their programs or projects where they are using or may use conservation money. Third, he could move on to hosting a Big Cat or other exhibit to bring in visitors rather than Pandas.
The Chinese BATN is to negotiate for a short-term visit instead of the longer 14-year period or move on to negotiating with another zoo.
The Chinese definitely have the upper hand and the more favorable BATNAs.
Part 1b
1. Develop a communication strategy (point of departure, talking points) for your assigned stakeholder group.
2. How might you persuade a counterpart in negotiating this situation?
As a Deliberate Leader, I would prepare and have the facts and figures available to counter their arguments. I would also use the "awkward pause" technique since my leadership style is more introverted. I would work with my team to make my communication crystal clear. Deliberate Leaders work best under processes and procedures, so I would ensure I understood the parameters under which I could negotiate and why.
I would go into this negotiation knowing that the Chinese are "tough negotiators.” They negotiate with large teams and invest in "endless bargaining ." Patience is key when negotiating with them. I would also assume that they have a higher bargaining power in the negotiation because they have the pandas. They also have a wariness towards foreigners and an aversion to the press. All negotiations should be kept away from the media. I would also prepare to give a best offer and walk away if necessary for a specified period of time.
Regarding talking points, I would have the facts and figures available about the costs of the Conservation Program compared to other panda exhibits in the U.S. Many other countries have pandas and should share in the cost. Explain how we understand that the Chinese government wants to know how its money is spent, and the U.S. feels the same way. The U.S. government and the ZZSD shareholders would like to hear about the magnificent conservation programs they have devised for the pandas so we could use some of what they have learned for the species. I would explain the law that prohibits gifts to foreign governments and see if there is something we can do that does not involve money spent as gifts on officials.
2. How might they react?
So far, the Chinese have only made compromises after a very long impasse. The Chinese seem to make financial demands based on how much money they think Americans have, rather than on the cost of the program. They are not transparent as evidenced by their reluctance to talk about how they are spending conservation funds. I cannot see them being transparent about how much the Conservation Project costs. Plus, the Chinese are likely negotiating with other cities that may be more willing to compromise on their demands. I do not see the Chinese negotiating "in good faith", especially at the beginning of the process.
3. What are the costs and benefits of your strategy?
The benefits of increased visitors to the bottom line of the Zoo and to the whole city of San Diego are tremendous. It will add to the reputation of the Zoo as one of the best in the world. Not giving in to the Chinese demands could cost the Zoo and the city millions.
The costs of the Conservation Project (70% of the whole budget) definitely need to be taken into account, and a decision be made as to whether the increased revenue from the panda visit outweighs the cost of the Conservation Project. Under no circumstances should a trip for five Chinese officials to Disneyland and the Grand Canyon be paid for by the Zoo.
2. Pretend the CWCA demands that San Diego pays for the entire conservation program and has unfettered control over the use of those funds. If you were Myers – and using the perspective of your primary style-, how would you respond?
As a Deliberate Leader, I will know exactly what my parameters are for negotiation. If there is a situation where we accept these terms, I would have the processes and systems already worked out. I would state our position and explain with details if necessary. If my team felt that the added expenses of the Conservation Project and the unfettered control of those expenses were worth it, I would agree after negotiating a predetermined list of requests from the Zoo.
3. How would your responses to the above two questions be similar to or different from
how you would actually respond?
The importance of the panda visit to the Zoo's reputation and the impact on the whole city of San Diego cannot be overstated. I would also like to know how another type of exhibit compares. Perhaps another exhibit without the additional costs would be just as good.
I would negotiate to learn the actual cost of the conservation program, which may be an exercise in futility since they want control over those monies. With all the facts and figures and the assurance that the city and Zoo would benefit financially from the panda visit, I would give in to the demands after stepping away from the table a few times for specified lengths of time.