A) In the negotiation of the Federated Scientific Fund, I represented the Stockman company. The meeting began with a huddle between Turbo and me which set the tone for the negotiation. During the five-minute huddle, we realized we gained the greatest benefit from working together and decided to do a deal with United only if it benefited us. This was the main turning point in the negotiation as we came back to United with only high offers: we started with $220,000 each for Stockman and Turbo, and went down to only $200,000 each, with $80,000 for United. . United presented counter offers throughout, but all were below our $200,000 booking point. Even though United continually demanded a more inclusive deal, we saw no real benefit and reached a deal splitting $440,000 equally. B) The most important takeaway for me was that bargaining power has a really significant effect on the negotiation process. Since the coalition gave Turbo and I the highest reward, I've learned that a strong power imbalance can significantly reduce the fairness of the process, to the extent that it becomes a take-it-or-leave-it situation for United. Before the negotiations, I did not realize the scale of the consequences that an imbalance could have, because we completely ignored United's calls for a fair deal. Based on the lectures and readings, I believe this happened because the power imbalance created contrasting frames; the coalition adopted a resource-based results framework to achieve the best outcome, while United adopted a needs-based aspiration framework to achieve a more equitable outcome. This is a good reason why the final deal did not involve United, as the results framework took a win-lose approach and had a stronger effect on determining the final outcome, even though the results framework suction took...... middle of paper. .....funds should be allocated based on need. With this in mind, and after hearing other agreements in class, it is clear that United needed this grant more than the Coalition. I wish I hadn't let the power imbalance influence my decisions the way it did. F) In the future, I will change my approach by focusing on the long term. To do this, I will not enter into similar negotiations with a caucus due to the imbalance of power created. Instead, I will seek to be more open-minded by avoiding selective perception and considering an aspirational framework. I can achieve this if I envision receiving a larger piece of the pie in the long term by giving more money to a company like United in the short term. This will maintain positive relationships with the parties I am negotiating with so that we can all win in the present and conduct further negotiations to also win in the future..