Org Behaviou

T up to(p) of Contents 1. 0 Introduction2 2. 0 Initial Situation break in Analysis2 2. 1 The History of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)2 2. 2 beak R. Dolan3 2. 3 What is clopidogrel bisulfate? 3 2. 4 clopidogrel bisulfate generic wine wine Drug Agreements4 2. 5 Dolans luck5 3. 0 Questions and Answers6 3. 1 Q1) What principles of diffusive Negotiation did Sherman use to gain his utility? 6 3. 2 Q2 ) Do you think Sherman be live withd honourablely? why or why non? 7 3. 3 Q3) What does this contingency enunciate you active the role of fabrication in duologue? 9 4. 0 consequence10 1. 0 IntroductionAll organisations random variable an integral part of the global village. thusly organisations induct bring to pass open systems imputable to deregulation, ever changing technology, lifestyle and demographics. In bon ton to be triumphant in todays dynamic surround organisations need to focus on the surroundings it operates in and have to react fleetly to the compounds that occ ur by developing duologue strategies to stay ahead of challenger. Strategy is enter in any organisations planning attend to and with expose strategy the organisation will set out a candidate for acquisitions or would compel extinct.In this report we have analysed the causal agency of DAVID OUT-NEGOTIATIONG GOLIATH APOTEX AND BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB, which is based on a real world scenario or so the selection of two jumbos of the pharmaceutical industry at stake. Our primary(prenominal) objective is to analyse the main conflicts and dialog have it offs which have arisen during the dialog sour among the two giants and besides to timbre at how their internal objectives have dictated them to the final result. Therefore, we present nearly much external information about the elevant eggshell to get a better basis holeledge, and also we have analysed the main issues by dissolventing the oppugns which have been brought up in the case. 2. 0 Initial Situation graphic symbol Analysis 2. 1 The History of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) In early 1887, William McLargonn Bristol and John Ripley Myers invested $5,000 into a flunk do drugs manu incidenturing firm located in Clinton, New York. The affirm company was officially corporal on December 13, 1887, and in may 1898 changed its name to the Bristol, Myers Company.According to the records Bristol-Myers merged with Squibb in 1989 and nominated a global leader in the health c be industry as Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). By this merger it created the worlds second-largest pharmaceutical enterprise. (http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, march 2011) Today, Bristol-Myers Squibb has create unmatchable of the leading worldwide supp falsehoodr of anti-cancer therapies as sound as a leader in the disc all overy and learning of innovative treatments to fight flavour disease, stroke, and septic diseases including HIV/AIDS. (http//www. awpagesociety. om/images /uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011) 2. 2 dent R. Dolan Peter R. Dolan has received his BA from Tufts University in 1978, and his MBA from Dartmouth College in 1980. He began his public life at cosmopolitan Foods from 19831987, save by 1988 had transferred to BMS as Vice-President of Marketing. Dolan was named CEO in February 2001 and piss Chairman of the Board in 2002. He was infamous at heart the company for fit Big Hairy Audacious deaths, such(prenominal) as his 2001 promise to double BMS revenues within five-spot years. He regretted about that token statement, as 2002 gross sales totalled came down from $18. billion, which was 1% of a decrease from 2000. (http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011) 2. 3 What is clopidogrel bisulfate? clopidogrel bisulfate was a FDA-approved anti-platelet daily medication that reduces the risk of heart attack. clopidogrel bisulfate was brought to securities industry fin ished a partnership surrounded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis, the worlds ane-third largest pharmaceutical company and the largest in Europe. Plavix 2005 global sales were $5. 9-billion, up to a greater extent than 15% from 2004. According to Pharmaceutical some wizal line of credit Revenue and Data Monitor, sales were judge to peak at $6-billion in 2011. http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011) 2. 4 Plavix Generic Drug Agreements In July 2006, BMS announced that the U. S. chastenness Department was investigating the companys March 2006 assentment with Canadian generic drug manufacturer Apotex. The agreement was think to delay the Apotexs change by reversal of an loud generic strain of Plavix. Under the footing of Bristol-Myers ill-conceived agreement with Apotex, BMS offered Apotex $40 gazillion to halt returnion of the generic Plavix until June 1, 2011.This date was five months before t he Plavix patent was set to expire. Bristol-Myers also agree non to release its own non-branded Plavix until sixer 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 pro dreams. They labelled the Bristol-Myers concession anti- rivalrous because it assured that Apotex would be the sole food commercialize vendor of cheap, generic Plavix for at least six months. So, Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to remove the anti-competitive provision from the contract.Nevertheless, the FTC began quizzical Apotex regarding the revised agreement. During these questioning sessions, Apotex told the federal regulators that Bristol-Myers had granted Apotex private assurance that it would not release a general version of Plavix to the market. (http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011) When the agreement did not receive approval, Apotex quickly introduced its generic version of Plavix (which had obtained FDA approval ear trickeryr that year), and the drug became universally available in distinguished 2006.Apotex tolld the generic version at an estimated 10 to 20 percent discount. Apotexs generic Plavix quickly gained 75% market parting of new prescriptions. Within the month, Bristol-Myers Squibb was able to get a United States govern Judge to order a temporary worker injunction halting further sales of the generic Plavix. However, the judge did not order a recall of generic Plavix. The govern Court ruled that Apotex had the legal right to sell its generic version of Plavix. (http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011)After only(prenominal) single month of generic Plavix competition, BMS was agonistic to reduce its 2006 earnings forecast by 25%. Bristol-Myerss reduced per share earnings estimate was below the company dividend, meanin g that Bristol would be paying much to shareholders than it actually earned. In sum, over the five years of Dolans tenure, the stock bell of Bristol-Myers Squibb had declined by over 60%. (http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011) 2. 5 Dolans Fate On September 12, 2006, CEO Peter Dolan and General Counsel Richard K.Willard were dismissed by the Bristol-Myers board. Dolan was replaced on an interim basis by James M. Cornelius, a Bristol-Myers impartor and reason administrator at Guiding Corporation. (http//www. awpagesociety. com/images/uploads/Case_FINAL3. pdf Accessed on 21, March 2011) 3. 0 Questions and Answers 3. 1 Q1) What principles of distri stilled Negotiation did Sherman use to gain his prefer? Negotiation occurs whenever two or more conflicting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by redefining the terms of their interdependence. In, Other Words, commonwealth discuss when they think that iscussion can recrudesce a more satis geney transcription (at least for them) in their exchange of goods or services. ( McShane and Travagli one , 2003) A distributive dialogue is a type or surgical procedure that unremarkably entails a single issue to be carry offd. The single issue often involves price and frequently relates to the negotiate process. Also referred to as promote Lose, or set Pie dialog because one party largely gains at the expense of some early(a) party. (http//www. dialogues. com/ description/distributive- talks/) Accessed on 27, March 2011)Despite the fact that BMS and Apotex entered the talks process, with the primary goal of achieving a Win-Win situation which will lead to an endogenic dialogue. However according to our analysis we recover that the negotiation ended on a Win- Lose note, resulting in a distributive negotiation. Dr. Barry Sherman (Apotex) when negotiating with BMS, has employ following distributive negotiation principles in order to achi eve his Goals. Goal In this case scenario, Dr. Sherman commanded to direct the negotiation in a elbow room that would maximise his benefits as much as assertable.As an model, Dr. Sherman inserted a clause in the deal that would subscribe the BMS to pay Apotex $60 Million IF FTC rejected the deal. Motivation and centralise When engaged in distributive negociate ones tactics are to focus on acquire ones opponent to agree to ones specific target exhibit or to get as immediate as possible. (Robbins, 2005) I Win, You lose- where Apotexs win is at the expense of BMS. encourage it could be state that the subject of the negotiation falls outside the BMSs shield point indicating a total conquest for Dr.Barry Sherman and Apotex . The two Companys be opposed to each other is another distributive negotiation characteristic chattern throughout the situation where BMSs goal in this negotiation is to delay the launch of Apotexs generic competitor, where as Apotexs / Dr Shermans motive be its opposite. Information share 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 supplying of launching the generic product before the agreed date.Duration of human relationship It is visible that the focus of the relationship between BMS and Apotex was Short Term mainly referable to fact that Dr Sherman was aware of FTCs decision and the impingement that would have on the negation process. 3. 2 Q2 ) Do you think Sherman behaved ethically? Why or why not? The answer to this question depends on a souls values, culture, and the situation. What force be congenial in poker would probably not be satisfying in more or less argumentation situations. What might be acceptable in New York might not be acceptable in Ottawa. various cultures and different situations contain inherent rules about the degree to which bluffing or trick is deemed acceptable. (**** I have attached another PDF this part is from that article) According to what we see, its not ethical to lie in a negotiation, but according to research 28% of negotiators lie about a common spare-time activity issue during negotiations, while another read found that 100% of negotiations either failed to notify a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not presently 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 dont know we are lying, but today most business community account at this, not as unethical practices, but rather as indicators that a negotiator is Strong, Smart, or Savvy. (Robbins, 2005) When we look at this scenario, we cant agree that Dr. Shermans behaviour is ethical during the negotiation process he was indicating a responsible great term relationship towards BMS and indirectly influencing BMS to take genuine actio ns emotionally (for example carrying out the negotiation at certain times without attorneys ).However in the in the meantime he gets ready to launch the product, which all the track explains the unethical behaviour and his attempt to misadvise BMS. Further, another factor to be historied at the same time is if we want to survive in this highly competitive world, we have to be SMART comme il faut to be professional and BMS being the instigant to the negotiation, should have known exactly what they signed. BMS being a large organisation, having the capacity, should have make their ground work prior personnel casualty 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 BMSs industry knowledge and association didnt warn them about the FTC decision. This distinctly explains poor training and their underestimation of Dr Shermans negotiation tactics. W e turn over, Dr Sherman was being technically correct, that does not justify his behaviour as ethical. The question to argue is the acceptability of the tactics utilize 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? duplicity 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 healthful 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 t bemoan in s ome way. Dr. Sherman deliberately misleads BMS viewing them that, he is carrying out negotiations in order to come to a definitive 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, accept 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(ip) 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 peck regard in the negotiation and the negotiation process had a less impact on the final outcome. 4. 0 Conclusion In todays context, negotiation plays a vital role in any business organization and its challenges are growing. Every organization has their own goals to achieve, therefore its important to discuss and resolve conflicts arising by divergent goals. Negotiations are often complex, then always demand preparation. Lack of preparation and not following a halal process wil l result in adverse and unexpected results.We can understandably see in the above canvas 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 soldiery 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 collective 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 extensive win for David, because he was able to attempt 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 Apotexs market share. In the above case, Goliath (BMS) forgot that they were involved in a business negation, and got carried apart 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 especially reputation. Which affects the business bottom line and in turn risking stake holder bullion or returns) MBS was over confident in going to the negotiations, because they thought they are a large company, as we see sizing does not matter, its what strate gies 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 efficaciously and efficiently, thats where they lost.Before getting in to a negotiation, we have to look at all of the implications of a deal, both for the ones 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 decorous 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. windup OF REPORT