Name of the simulation: Master negotiation 1Your Name: Kandarp GuptaRole you performed: AjayName of the counter-part: Swati ChopraCounter-parts Preparation: Prepared and cooperative

Q1Yes, the pre negotiation preparation was sufficient, given the duration it took to negotiate and the terms which were agreed upon, As for the counterparts alternatives, I was convinced that they would negotiate on a more competitive term as they had quite a lot of financial assets on their side, so what I expected was that they would try to keep most of them with themselves. According to what I could figure out, my opponent had way more options that what I had, maybe the leverage was not used because it was a cooperative negotiation.Q2In terms of financial terms, no my aspirations were not high enough, I could have reached out for much more and yes probably I did underplay my objectives, my main concern with this negotiation was to gain trust and maintain a healthy relationship, there I did manage to gain, a high amount of trust was placed in the counter party and it was properly reciprocated. Perhaps if I had argued more, I could have gained more tangible points but I would have lost on the relationship part.Q3No, my pre bargaining prognostics were inaccurate; I assumed it would be a tough negotiation where I would have to protect both my financial assets while trying not to deteriorate the relationship, we began our negotiation with more non-financial terms, which served us well as once they were out of the way, it became smooth sailing later on. The major reason for my miscalculation was that most of the negotiations done till now have been to maximize points and not exactly to develop a relation for later stages, this was a different thing altogether.Q4Yes, there was a statement saying that we want go for the long haul, this is however a contingency plan, and had to be taken care of. There was an initial trust that was placed was something which was banked upon the entire negotiation and that also helped in a quick outcome. We made sure that if we were to go through with this, we did need to trust each other.Q5No particular tactic was used; there was a mutual trust between us, which did not leave room for any tactic to be performed. We both understood the others needs and moved in a direction with honesty and openness.Q6The first concession was made by the counterpart stating that if she got the portrait, I could have the dog, and yes the subsequent concessions were made on an alternate basis, if I wanted something, I was happy to give something in return

Q7Both of us went cooperative I our bargaining style, by the looks of it, it was more like a, you get what you want and I get what I want sort of deal. We both expressed what was important to both of us, understood the fact that both of us cannot have it all, so both of us resorted to cooperative bargaining.

Q8No, no deceit was used and nobody tried to mislead the other, after establishing an understanding that we both trust each other, we soon found out that some things were required by both parties, we went to work with that, it was just a series of deductions of what the other required and what we wanted. So without complicating matters further we decided on what each of us needed and split the others on a 50-50 basis.Q9The offer was made on a no profit, no loss basis, it did not seem like the other party was gaining too much, as soon as I got the things I required, the rest could easily be dealt with. The final offer was that we each take the things which meant most to us, and the monetary items be split 50-50. Seeing that fact that the relation was the prime goal and not the tangible items, I feel it worked out to be a fair deal.Q10Perhaps my counterpart did receive more favorable items, but the reason for this was that I let them go, with a slight hint of a flinch, so that it makes an impression on the counterpart that it was only because of the relation that she got these items, any other case scenario, I would have bargained hard for them, but here a certain amount of positivity needed to be maintained. For that to happen, I let my counterpart gain the upper hand, so that whatever they received, they did with delight which further strengthens the relation.Q11In case of no settlement, I could have moved from cooperative to competitive bargaining since cooperative bargaining. In terms of preparation I could have checked whether there is something more I could do from my side, or is there some possible leverage I could use in order to gain the upper hand. Since this was planned to be a very cooperative negotiation from my side, could have been less considerate to the needs of the other party and could have focused upon improving my tangible gains.