Michael Chavez
4/12/12
Luna Negotiation Case Analysis
In the Luna pen case the parties DGG, Erika Graeper and Global Service had their own interests
and alternatives to negotiation. For DGG their interests were the increase in profits that could
result from making a deal with Global Service. DGG’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement
with Global Service would be to find another company to sell the rights to the brand name to or
to go through litigation that would force Global Service to partner with DGG. For Erika Graeper
her interests were mainly her own; she wanted to get the deal for DGG in order to make a name
for herself at the company. Global Service’s interest was maintaining the business that they had
established by using the Luna brand and they would do what was necessary to continue that
business. The best alternative to a negotiated agreement for Global Service was to continue to do
business without the approval of DGG.
When it came to dealing with Global Service what was most effective about Erika’s approach to
the negotiation was the persistence she showed in the face of constant disrespect from Alvin
Feng. What was also effective about Erika’s approach was that she attempted to find another
company that would manufacture the Luna Pens and work with DGG. What was ineffective
about Erika’s approach to the negotiation were her impersonal forms of communication; she
used only letters and faxes to communicate with Mr. Feng which could have caused him to
respond the way he did. With letters and faxes it is quite difficult for the recipient to recognize
the intended tone of the author, especially when the two parties speak different languages.
When Erika received the first reply from Mr. Feng’s secretary she seemed as if she was offended
by the fact that it was Mr. Feng’s secretary and not Mr. Feng himself who sent the fax. With her
new found authority Erika saw the reply from the secretary as a sign of disrespect; that Mr. Feng
was not acknowledging her authority over this matter and she let this influence her decision to
move ahead with the lawsuit. What Erika failed to do in this situation was go to her balcony,
“when you find yourself facing a difficult negotiation you need to step back, collect your wits
and see the situation objectively” (Ury, 1993). Erika let her emotions get the best of her and she
decided to go ahead with the lawsuit. An additional mistake that Erika made was to keep
pressing on aggressively in response to Mr. Feng’s stonewall, this created another barrier to the
negotiation process. What Erika needed to do was step to the other side, “stepping to their side
means listening to what they have to say, acknowledging their point, their feelings and their
status” (Ury, 1993). Erika wasn’t going to listen to Mr. Feng and vice versa so negotiations were
hindered from the start. In the end the two parties achieved an agreement and Erika had brought
substantial profits to DGG. Mr. Feng did not make any of his agreed upon payments so Erika
ended up selling the rights to the Luna name to Mr. Feng. This outcome was a result of the
actions Erika took toward Mr. Feng, had she been friendlier it is possible that this situation could
have had a better outcome.
When it comes to my own negotiation style, according to the matrix I have an integrating style to
negotiation. My results indicate that I have a high concern for the other party’s interests as well
as my own. When choosing my solutions to the various scenarios in this case I couldn’t help but
notice that my choices were different than those of Erika which led me to believe that my
choices could have led to a more positive outcome between the two parties. I would have been
more willing to work with Global Service to come to an agreement and I would have put off the
lawsuit until there was no other option therefore I feel things would have been different between
me and Mr. Feng. We would have been friendlier with each other and we could have reached a
better outcome for both of us.
Works Cited
Ury, William. Getting past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New
York: Bantam, 1993. Print.