The process of Distributive bargaining involves the consideration of the minimum and maximum values that one can accept before walking away from the deal, and the same minimum and maximum “walk away” values of the others involved (Spangler, 2003). The trick is to obtain an idea of where the opponent's walk away value is, and try to attempt to negotiate to something closer to your own goal than theirs (Appendix B). Distributive bargaining puts a high amount of value on information in regards to gaining an advantage in negotiations. Each participant should do their best to protect the information of their walk away values while attempting to gain more information from opponents. Your bargaining power in this type of situation is dependent heavily on how clear you are with your goals, walk away value, and alternatives, as well as how much you know about your opponents. This will give the best possible position to make the best gains with the least losses, and best influence the other participants.
Integrative bargaining strategies contrast heavily to that of distributive as Integrative involves what is essentially a joint initiative attempting to find a
…show more content…
Distributive bargaining does play some role in integrative bargaining as the “pie” does ultimately need to be split up. To make the “pie” as large as it could possibly be, integrative bargaining is invaluable, unfortunately there is still only one “pie” and the value it holds must be distributed through negotiation. In an integrative process, everyone agrees on who gets what. The idea being that the last step of divvying up will not be difficult once the state is reached. This is due to the interest-based approach that creates a cooperative working relationship in which all parties feel satisfied with the outcome. Theoretically, everyone should know who wants what by the time the “pie” is
Distributive bargaining consists of two parties in competition to maximize their share of a limited resource. In distributive bargaining, the goals of one party are in fundamental and direct conflict with the goals of the other party (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011). In the negotiation over the job offer at Robust Routers, the resources being distributed were the items in the bargaining mix. As the human resources director, my goal was to gain more by giving less, and Joe’s goal was to gain more by receiving more of the company’s resources.
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1991. Print.
Distributive bargaining is a very important negotiation skill. Used as the core of the core of a negotiation, distributive bargaining is defined as, “a negotiation method in which two parties strive to divide a fixed pool of resources, often money, with each party trying to maximize its share of the distribution” (Michael R. Carrell, 2008). Within the distributive bargaining process, the two parties involved have to negotiate over a set of assets in which one person loses and the other gains. This is why Distributive bargaining is also called zero-sum. Carroll explains that distributive bargaining is called a zero-sum process because one party loses whatever amount is gained by the other” (Michael R. Carrell, 2008).
Brubaker B. and Asher M., (2007). A Power Play for Juwan Howard. Lewicki-Barry-Saunders: Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases, Fifth Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007
Negotiations styles are scholastically recognized as being broken down into two general categories and those are distributive bargaining styles and integrative negotiation styles. Distributive bargaining styles of negotiation are understood to be a competitive type of negotiation. “Distributive bargaining, also known as positional bargaining, negotiating zero-sum, competitive negotiation, or win-lose negotiation, is a type or style of negotiation in which the parties compete for the distribution of a fixed amount of value” (Business Blog Reviews, 2011). This type of negotiation skill or style approach might be best represented in professional areas such as the stock market where there is a fixed goal in mind or even in a garage sale negotiation where the owner would have a specific value of which he/she would not go below. In contrast, an integrative negotiation approach/style is that of cooperative bargaining, or win-win types ...
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2005). Negotiation, Fifth Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Principled negotiation allows disputants to obtain what they are entitled to, while enabling them to be fair, at the same time protecting against those who would take advantage of their fairness . Although the points made are logical and indeed a great approach to certain types of conflict, I found that in some cases the method did not completely come together. More than anything, I found the method altogether was simplistic and for an ideal situation. While going through the four elements, I shall illustrate these points.
Negotiation, as we’ve learned, is the process of communicating where parties can discuss problems and/or targets and attempt to solve them via dialogue in order to reach a resolution. While many individuals feel successful negotiations are due to a natural skill, the truth behind reaching a prime agreement is preparation. You need to know the issue, know yourself, and know your party. This type of preparation also includes knowing your needs and limits, understanding what the other party wants and anticipating their limits, asking the right questions, and being creative in your counteroffers.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin
The negotiation revolved around three main individuals, Terry Hardel, Josephine McNair, and Joe Abernathy. For this negotiation, my partner played the part of Joe while I played Terry. We were both given the same general instructions. However, an additional set of secret instructions were given to each of us separately.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
BUSI 2465 is an interesting course. I participated in numerous ways. I thought of this course as a bargaining process in which bargaining was used among two different business people in order to close a deal or come to an agreement. Before the first class I wondered if negotiations was only consist of winning over each other rather than for mutual gains. I only thought it would be distributive where both the parties keep their information and interests hidden and moreover it is one time relationship. But, I never thought it would be integrative where both the parties share information and interest with each other and continue the long term relationship. Another question comes into my mind was that what are the necessary skills behind winning
...w to apply these tactics into practice. Understanding the meaning of each tactics is just the first stage, flexibility in the use of appropriate tactics in future issues is more important. Besides, I need to make a detailed plan before the negotiation. Firstly, analyzing the interests, perspectives and weak points of the opposite side and selecting suitable tactics. Secondly, preparing several response strategies will help me to control the situations. Thirdly, setting the minimum level what I can agree on the issue is also essential part of negotiation.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
In a distributive bargaining approach, each negotiator’s objective is in direct conflict with the other. Looking at our situation, each party is concerned about the final price and has a limited number of resources. In starting a new business, Matt’s cash flow is low and there is limit on what he will spend for the service. On the other hand, Chris wants to ensure a high fee but also guarantee he will not lose money after buying gas for his lawnmower. The goal in distributive bargaining is not to find a mutually accepted outcome, but rather that one side gains preferential treatment. In other words, the final result is a win-lose scenario. In distributive bargaining, each party must decide before the negotiation where certain breakpoints lie. For Chris, maybe he can not afford more than $20 for the service, but is willing to pay $15. Conversely, Matt cannot accept less than $12, but would prefer $18. The spread between the resistance points, $12-$20, defines the bargaining range and where a settlement is likely to occur. If the resistance points did not overlap, a negotiation would no...