Write 6 pages thesis on the topic conflict management and negotiation critical thinking mod 3 : case 2- pacific oil company. This is especially so in the case of Fontaine who was willing to give in to almost every request Reliant Company asked for, just to get the company to sign a new contract. This fact is evident in the conversation that Fontaine had with Kesley. In this conversation Fontaine says he does not care and is not guided by any principles in the negotiations because it was his job that was at risk, meaning he just wanted the new contract signed despite the clauses the Reliant Company added just so that he can retain his job. This clearly shows that the man is a poor negotiator as stated by Michael, Wheeler and Gillian (2002). This is because it seems that he did not forecast the consequences of some clauses that Reliant Company wanted included in the new contract. Styles and Effectiveness of Fonatine, Guadin, Hauptmann, Zinnser and Messrs More evidence of Pacific Oil company’s poor negotiators can be seen in the conversation Gaudin and Fontaine had with Hauptmann at the Pacific office in Paris. In the conversation, both Fontaine and Gaudin were unable to convince Hauptmann of their future projections. It could have been that Reliant Company was making conservative projections as a strategy to water down prices and minimum quantity commitment of the new contract. The Pacific men should have provided enough data from their projections in order to convince Reliant Chemical Company to revise their projections upwards and consequently raise their minimum quantity commitment. Poor negotiation strategy can also be said to be a problem that Pacific Oil had and one which Reliant Company negotiators took advantage. This is evident in the way Pacific negotiators approach the Reliant Company for negotiations. They seem to be pleading and hence give Reliant Company negotiators an impression that they are desperate for renewal of the contract. The Pacific negotiators should have asserted some sense of power and control over the talks between the two companies. This way, the negotiations would have been balanced but instead they made Reliant Company negotiators feel superior by constantly saying that Reliant played a very important role in Pacific’s VCM product market and that they did not want to spoil the relationship between the two companies. Thompson (2012), states that a negotiation outcome is the result of the interaction with the partners. Poor negotiation strategy is also extensively seen in that Pacific Oil negotiators who did not define limits of the concessions they were willing to make. Negotiators should identify limits, set targets, develop supporting arguments and have analyzed the other party (Lewicki, Saunders and Barry, 2001). Jean Fontaine was the marketing department vice president for Pacific Oil Europe. He had just been promoted to that position just 16 months prior to start of negotiations for renewal of Reliant Chemical Company contract. His approach to the negotiations was to be laid back and let the other party give their suggestions for changes that they might need on the new contract. Together with his team, he collected data and made projections and used this as the base for his negotiations with Reliant Company negotiators. This strategy proves to be a weak strategy since it was used by the Reliant negotiators to counter the proposed contract and add new clauses that disadvantaged Pacific Oil Company. Clearly the strategy almost cost him job.