Org Behaviou
All organizations form an integral part of the global village. Therefore organizations have become open systems due to deregulation, ever changing technology, lifestyle and demographics. In order to be triumphant in today’s dynamic environment organisations need to focus on the environment it operates in and have to react swiftly to the changes that occur by developing negotiation strategies to stay ahead of competition. Strategy is embedded in any organisations planning process and without strategy the organisation will become a candidate for acquisitions or would become extinct.
In this report we have analysed the case of “DAVID OUT-NEGOTIATIONG GOLIATH: APOTEX AND BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB”, which is based on a real world scenario about the survival of two giants of the pharmaceutical industry at stake. Our main objective is to analyse the main conflicts and negotiation issues which have arisen during the negotiation process between the two giants and also to look at how their internal objectives have driven them to the final result. Therefore, we present some more external information about the elevant case to get a better background knowledge, and also we have analysed the main issues by answering the questions which have been brought up in the case. The History of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) In early 1887, William McLaren Bristol and John Ripley Myers invested $5,000 into a failing drug manufacturing firm located in Clinton, New York. The company was officially incorporated on December 13, 1887, and in May 1898 changed its name to the Bristol, Myers Company.
This date was five months before the Plavix patent was set to expire. Bristol-Myers also agreed not to release its own non-branded Plavix until six months after Apotex began to sell its generic version of the blood thinner. When asked to approve the agreement, the U. S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorneys General objected to these provisions. They labelled the Bristol-Myers concession anti-competitive because it assured that Apotex would be the sole market vendor of cheap, generic Plavix for at least six months. So, Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to remove the anti-competitive provision from the contract.
Order custom essay Org Behaviou with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
Nevertheless, the FTC began questioning Apotex regarding the revised agreement. During these questioning sessions, Apotex told the federal regulators that Bristol-Myers had given Apotex private assurance that it would not release a general version of Plavix to the market. When the agreement did not receive approval, Apotex quickly introduced its generic version of Plavix (which had obtained FDA approval earlier that year), and the drug became universally available in August 2006.
Apotex priced the generic version at an estimated 10 to 20 percent discount. Apotex’s generic Plavix quickly gained 75% market share of new prescriptions. Within the month, Bristol-Myers Squibb was able to get a United States District Judge to order a temporary injunction halting further sales of the generic Plavix. However, the judge did not order a recall of generic Plavix. The District Court ruled that Apotex had the legal right to sell its generic version of Plavix. After only one month of generic Plavix competition, BMS was forced to reduce its 2006 earnings forecast by 25%. Bristol-Myers’s reduced per share earnings estimate was below the company dividend, meaning that Bristol would be paying more to shareholders than it actually earned. In sum, over the five years of Dolan’s tenure, the stock price of Bristol-Myers Squibb had declined by over 60%.
Willard were dismissed by the Bristol-Myers board. Dolan was replaced on an interim basis by James M. Cornelius, a Bristol-Myers director and former executive at Guiding Corporation. What principles of distributive Negotiation did Sherman use to gain his advantage? Negotiation occurs whenever two or more conflicting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by redefining the terms of their interdependence. In, Other Words, People negotiate when they think that iscussion can produce a more satisfactory arrangement (at least for them) in their exchange of goods or services. Distributive negotiation is a type or process that normally entails a single issue to be negotiated. The single issue often involves price and frequently relates to the bargaining process. Also referred to as ‘Win – Lose’, or ‘Fixed – Pie’ negotiation because one party generally gains at the expense of another party.
Despite the fact that BMS and Apotex entered the negotiation process, with the primary goal of achieving a ‘Win-Win’ situation which will lead to an integrative negotiation. However according to our analysis we feel that the negotiation ended on a ‘Win- Lose’ note, resulting in a distributive negotiation. Dr. Barry Sherman (Apotex) when negotiating with BMS, has used following distributive negotiation principles in order to achieve his Goals. Goal – In this case scenario, Dr. Sherman wanted to direct the negotiation in a way that would maximise his benefits as much as possible.
As an example, Dr. Sherman inserted a clause in the deal that would require the BMS to pay Apotex $60 Million “IF” FTC rejected the deal. Motivation and Focus – When engaged in distributive bargaining one’s tactics are to focus on getting one’s opponent to agree to one’s specific target point or to get as closer as possible. (Robbins, 2005) “I Win, You lose”- where Apotex’s win is at the expense of BMS. Further it could be noted that the outcome of the negotiation falls outside the BMS’s resistance point indicating a total victory for Dr.
Barry Sherman and Apotex . The two Company’s being opposed to each other is another distributive negotiation characteristic seen throughout the situation where BMS’s goal in this negotiation is to delay the launch of Apotex’s generic competitor, where as Apotex’s / Dr Sherman’s motive being its opposite. Information Sharing – In this negotiation process information sharing was low. This was evident through the clause inserted in the deal, and also by Dr. Sherman not disclosing the preparation of launching the generic product before the agreed date.
It is visible that the focus of the relationship between BMS and Apotex was “Short Term” mainly due to fact that Dr Sherman was aware of FTC’s decision and the impact that would have on the negation process. Do you think Sherman behaved ethically? Why or why not? The answer to this question depends on a person’s values, culture, and the situation. What might be acceptable in poker would probably not be acceptable in most business situations. What might be acceptable in New York might not be acceptable in Ottawa.
Different cultures and different situations contain inherent "rules" about the degree to which bluffing or misrepresentation is deemed acceptable. I have attached another PDF – this part is from that article. According to what we see, it’s not ethical to lie in a negotiation, but according to research 28% of negotiators lie about a common interest issue during negotiations, while another study found that 100% of negotiations either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue. Therefore we have an issue to recognize, when is a lie a lie?
Some argue, when exaggerating, downplaying negatives, ignoring flaws, or saying “I don’t know” we are lying, but today most businessmen look at this, not as unethical practices, but rather as indicators that a negotiator is Strong, Smart, or Savvy. When we look at this scenario, we can’t agree that Dr. Sherman’s behaviour is ethical; during the negotiation process he was indicating a trustworthy long term relationship towards BMS and indirectly influencing BMS to take certain actions emotionally (for example : carrying out the negotiation at certain times without attorneys ).
However in the meanwhile he gets ready to launch the product, which clearly explains the unethical behaviour and his attempt to misguide BMS. Further, another factor to be noted at the same time is if we want to survive in this highly competitive world, we have to be SMART enough to be professional and BMS being the initiator to the negotiation, should have known exactly what they signed. BMS being a large organisation, having the capacity, should have done their ground work prior going for the negotiations.
Further, they could have appointed a negotiation panel rather than a one person, which would have increased the chances of winning. The question arisen is why BMS’s industry knowledge and experience didn’t warn them about the FTC decision. This clearly explains poor preparation and their underestimation of Dr Sherman’s negotiation tactics. We believe, Dr Sherman was being technically correct, that does not justify his behaviour as ethical. The question to argue is the acceptability of the tactics used by Dr Sherman in improving his chances of winning.
We believe that winning a business negotiation is important, but winning by deceiving the other party is unethical. 3. 3 Q3) What does this incident tell you about the role of deception in negotiation? 'Deception' is the use of false arguments that leads the other person to an incorrect conclusion. We can see these types of scenarios every day in business world, because when doing these types of important negotiations, we have to make sure, that we have our goals in the sight and work towards achieving it with a well planned process, without getting carried over with emotional bonds or friendships.
The BMS vs Apotex negotiation shows misrepresentation occurring in a negotiation, where a person deliberately takes a position on something which is not true in some way. Dr. Sherman deliberately misleads BMS showing them that, he is carrying out negotiations in order to come to a conclusive decision of delaying the launch of the generic product. However, while negotiations are being carried out, Dr Sherman plans to market and launch the generic product deceptively. By use of false arguments and providing not rue information, Dr Sherman misguides the other party in negotiation for a settlement offer. While showing an objective of achieving a “Win – Win” solution, indicating a trustworthy relationship (which leads the executive of BMS, Bodnar keeping their attorneys out of the discussion in many instances during the negotiation process). Further Dr Sherman including a clause in the deal that would require BMS to pay Apotex $60 Million if FTC rejects the deal, believing that FTC would, further explains the deception in this negotiation process.
A point to be noted is certain practices carried out by BMS was not professional (example Bodnar keeping the attorneys out of the negotiation) which might lead to further deception. BMS objective was to create a favorable position for themselves by trying to make Dr. Sherman agree to their conditions. Deception plays a major role in this negotiation process. Even though BMS and Apotex entered into negotiation with an objective of coming into a conclusive decision of delaying the launch and the settlement offer.
However, the outcome of the negotiation was totally dependant on the deception played by the people involved in the negotiation and the negotiation process had a less impact on the final outcome. In today’s context, negotiation plays a vital role in any business organization and its challenges are growing. Every organization has their own goals to achieve, therefore it's important to discuss and resolve conflicts arising by divergent goals. Negotiations are often complex, hence always demand preparation. Lack of preparation and not following a proper process will result in adverse and unexpected results.
We can clearly see in the above analyzed Apotax vs BMS case, how important is to pay attention and how well we have to know the rules to play well in the field of negotiation, because even a small mistake can change the end result to a greater extend. We can see lot of similarities between this case and the story David vs. Goliath. As we know David was just a lad, representing the Israeli army and was confronted by a giant Goliath, representing the Philistine army. David managed to strategically defeat and destroy the giant Goliath.
When relating the case and the story, Apotex (David) was approached by a corporate giant - BMS (Goliath) to delay the launch of a competitive substitute. Goliath attempted to negotiate an agreement to hold back competition in the market. To be successful, David had to not only get their product into the market, but also to outnumber the giant. This deal brought a huge win for David, because he was able to examine the issues and identify the opportunities he could gain from this negotiation and also he always had a clear goal and a vision to reach it.
So in the end, David successfully launched Plavix generic product and capitalized on the downfall of Goliath to build Apotex's market share. In the above case, Goliath (BMS) forgot that they were involved in a business negation, and got carried away with emotions and wanted to have a long term business relationship with David (Apotex), which David used to his advantage. As professional business people we should always predict the worst possible outcome as well, before getting into this type of an immense business deal which involves lot of money, market share and specially reputation. Which affects the business bottom line and in turn risking stake holder funds or returns) MBS was over confident in going to the negotiations, because they thought they are a large company, as we see size does not matter, it’s what strategies you use to negotiate and you attentions to details and how well you prepare, that matters. BMS had the resources to win the negotiation but was not prepared to use them effectively and efficiently, that’s where they lost.
Before getting in to a negotiation, we have to look at all of the implications of a deal, both for the one’s self and the related party. To be successful, a deal has to make a ‘Win – Win’ situation to the both the parties. But here, Goliath never considered about the economic reality, planning or preparing a negotiation agenda and also entered to the negotiation processes even without carrying out a proper background research. Today, we all go through negotiation in day-to-day life, because it has become a technicality which we use in a daily basis.
So, when it comes to these types of immense deals, we have to make sure we follow a proper negotiation process which involves major steps of negotiation such as, preparation and planning, definition of ground rules, clarification and justification, bargaining and problem solving, closure and implementation. And also at the same time we should ensure that we make no mistake on our way forward achieving our objective. Further a factor which needs to be kept in our mind throughout our negotiation process is to achieve our goal in an ethical manner making sure we keep no space for others to deceive us. -- END OF REPORT - -
Cite this Page
Org Behaviou. (2017, Dec 12). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/org-behaviou/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
