Integrative Negotiation Case

A1:

Bill’s following actions illustrate his use of legitimate power, which comes from his organizational role and position in the company: o He makes important decisions without considering his employee’s plans. Given his ignorance, the only thing that justifies his decision is his position of power. His unfounded decision-making illustrates that he uses his power to control the organization’s operations. o He intervened with Russ’s negotiations. Bill clearly did not know much about Russ’s operations since he was about to lose Russ’s key client. However, he used his power to take part in the deal negotiation anyways. o In combination with this strong use of legitimate power, Bill also seems to practice largely coercive power (the use of threat

A2: identify the factors, which could be a part of a win-win outcome in this situation

There is a conflict between Ned and Bill needed to be solved. In order to solve this conflict, they should collaborate; try to reach an agreement that satisfies both one’s own and the other party’s aspirations as much as possible.

Integrative negotiation is a negotiating process in which the parties involved strive to integrate their interests as effectively as possible in the final agreement. It generally strives to achieve two factors: to create as much value as possible for both sides, and to claim as much value as possible for their own interests. It does not require Ned and Bill to give in to demands made by the other party or to sacrifice any of their own objectives. It does require them to seek out creative options and not simply to focus on trading concessions. Each side has different priorities that can be traded off and the other side must win for you to win. They must work with the other side to create an acceptable agreement.

A3: what would you recommend that Ned do

To create value and discover mutual benefits, or common ground, on some issues requires them to share information and present more options than is typical of distributive bargaining, in which they share their true interests and seldom seek new options, but instead focus on exchanging concessions and reaching agreement on one issue.

Terms such as mutual gain or problem-solving or cooperative agreement might lead to a positive