U04A3 - Case Analysis – Vanessa Abrams

1407 Words6 Pages
In the case of Vanessa Abrams, Jerome (Jerry) Bailey and Swanton & Gardner (S & G), this case involves various strategies that end with the distributive bargaining. Explain whether you agree with Vanessa Abrams when, at the end of the non-compete negotiations, she says, "I ended up giving in." I don’t necessarily agree that Vanessa gave in, but do agree that Vanessa ended up giving in for the betterment of saving her job. In all due respect, they could have just fired her and moved on. With all her accolades, a person of her stature should have felt more confident as it clearly states that she served as Executive Vice President who brought in between 30-40 percent of the office revenues each year. Her compensation package consisted of a base salary plus commission on top of receiving 2 percent commission on any new business and 12 percent commission on any accounts managed. In addition, she could receive a 2 percent override commission on all new business generated by her sales team. Hypothetically speaking, out of the 4.7 million grossed in 1989-1990, using the 16 percent commission rate, in addition to her salary, Vanessa would roughly receive $75,200. That’s another person’s middle class annual income. Pressure from her boss, who was pressured by his, disclosed to Vanessa that he had been written up because she refused to sign. Instead of seeing it as a part of a business deal, she personalized the situation as she found in her way of thinking that she didn’t need to sign it primarily because it was her bargaining chip over Jerry. She remained adamant using hard ball bargaining tactics which was the reason why the company did not allow her to have privy to management decisions causing much embarrassment. In addition, her performances which were exemplary, what was she really going to lose as she was not winning the war she started? Upon realizing
Open Document