A multitude of data can be found online when searching for material on decision-making. Likewise, the same can be stated regarding the search for information pertaining to negotiations and decision-making. For example, a Google search of the key words “negotiations/decision-making” garnered over ten million results! Reviewing a tenth of that information would take a great deal of time and energy, so this paper will narrow the scope and focus on four negotiation/decision-making types: zero-sum game, win-win, satisficing solutions and fixed pie. In addition, a brief discussion on how each of the types has been applied will ensue.
Prior to this class I had never heard of the zero-sum negotiation type. When researching the ideology, I came across a website created by Robert Korn (Korn, 2010) called Truth Pizza, and I found his take on the subject quite interesting. He explained the zero-sum games negotiations type as one party pursuing an action that satisfies their needs while a comparable party equally misses an opportunity. Korn offered several examples to explain the method in a way that was easy to understand and relatable.
To convey a couple of scenarios Korn disclosed, he wrote about the zero-sum game as it relates to insurance companies. Each month people pay premiums to provide protection from what may come. People buy flood insurance to protect from rising water, auto insurance to protect from accidents and theft, life insurance to pay out in an untimely demise, and so forth. Society-at-large pays monthly, semi-annual or annual premiums in hopes that they will never need the services they are paying for. “For the most part, the money we get back from insurance is considerably less than what we pay in” (Korn, 20...
... middle of paper ...
... negotiation feeling as though their issues were addressed and important to the compromise. This fosters better relations and improved camaraderie for those involved.
Works Cited
Business Dictionary. (2010). Satisficing. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from Business
Dictionary: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/satisficing.html
Korn, R. (2010, April 25). Zero-sum Games. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from
TruthPizza.org: http://www.truthpizza.org/logic/zerosum.htm
Menard, R. (2009, November 17). What Does Win-Win Negotiation Mean? Retrieved November
15, 2010, from Ezine Articles: http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Does-Win-Win-
Negotiation-Mean?&id=3281520
Spangler, B. (2003, October). Positive-Sum, Zero-Sum, and Negative-Sum Situations. Retrieved
November 17, 2010, from Beyond Intractability:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sum/
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2005). Negotiation, Fifth Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New
Negotiation is a fundamental process used in resolving conflicts, making business deals, and in managing working relationships with others. Negotiations occur for two reasons: (1) to resolve a problem or dispute between parties, or (2) to create something new that neither party could do on its own.
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, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
Negotiation by Harvard Business Essentials describes negotiations as having two primary types, distributive, and integrative (Harvard Business Essentials, 2003, p. 2). In distributive negotiation parties contend over a fixed amount of value; when one takes more, the other takes less. In integrative negotiation both parties are trying to find a maximum value between each other with the goal of creating maximum benefit for both parties. Through the paperclip trade up I have learned that many negotiations are a blend of distribution and integration. While I look to maximize my benefit, I also need to maintain and create a relationship with the other party.
In conclusion, the theory of principled negotiation is very impressive, although it at times seems to be simplistic and meant for an ideal world. Nevertheless, it allows all sides of the conflict to be examined through the broadening of options. It allows disputants to maintain any relationship that they had before the conflict and negotiation. Overall, principled negotiation is meant to lead to satisfactory results for both sides, creating a win-win situation for all.
party must, in most cases give up something in exchange for getting something from the other side.”
"Effective negotiation is not about conflict. It is not about deviance or dishonesty. It is not about posturing, or bullying, or threatening. Effective negotiation is about exhaustive preparation, utter clarity, heartfelt communication, and a sincere, demonstrated desire to fully understand not just your own needs, but the needs of the other party." Leigh Stienberg: Winning with Integrity.
The most common negotiation that was used several times was voting for the majority just to get it over and done with. A few examples would ...
Negotiation approaches are generally described as either distributive or integrative. At the heart of each strategy is a measurement of conflict between each party’s desired outcomes. Consider the following situation. Chris, an entrepreneur, is starting a new business that will occupy most of his free time for the near future. Living in a fancy new development, Chris is concerned that his new business will prevent him from taking care of his lawn, which has strict requirements under neighborhood rules. Not wanted to upset his neighbors, Chris decides to hire Matt to cut his grass.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Negotiating styles are grouped into five types; Competing, Collaborating, Comprising, Avoidance, and Accommodating (Colburn, 2010). Even though it is possible to exhibit different parts of the five types of negation styles in different situations, can see that my tendencies seem to default to, Compromise and Accommodating. In reviewing the course work and reviewing my answers for Questionnaire 1 and 5, I find that the data reflects the same assumption. The accommodating profile is one where relationship perseveration is everything and giving what the other side wants is the route to winning people over. Accommodators are well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators (Colburn, 2010). When analyzing my accommodating tenancy in negations, I find often it is easier to give into the demands when they are within a reasonable range. I often consider it the part of providing a high level of customer service. It has been my experience that continued delaying and not coming to an agreement in a topic will only shorten the window in which you will have to meet the request since. The cons to this style are by accommodating highly competitive styles the accommodator can give up to much ground in the process. “Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come”. The other negations type I default to is compromising. Compromising “often involves splitting the difference; usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both parties’ opening positions” (Colburn, 2010). In the absence of a good rationale or balanced exchanged concessions, half way betwee...
Negotiations occur every day in the business and personal environments. Depending on one’s perspective, business negotiations may have more importance or personal negotiations may have more importance. However, business negotiations, and personal negotiations are intertwining. Business negotiations can have an influence on personal negotiations and personal negotiation can influence business negotiations.
Negotiations are the less costly means to resolve a dispute. They are an intermediary step that gives people or states an opportunity to achieve their goals through peaceful means. Negotiations give us an understanding of our position and that of our enemies. They make us aware of our strengths and weaknesses and they clarify the enemy’s intentions, interests and their potentials. Knowing that war is a certain outcome of a dispute, wouldn’t it be more convenient to first engage in peaceful talks and negotiations? Even though we might have the necessary resources to win the war, would we still be as better off as if we would solve our disputes through negotiations? We would still lose lives and incur material costs if we go to war, regardless if we are on the winning or losing side. Why then would we not advocate using negotiations to resolve disputes? Why do we need to go to war when there is another way to resolve a dispute? Overall, “war does not determine who is right - only who is left.” (Bertrand Russell) And “who is left” should not be the ultimate goal of our society. It is attaining justice and fairness for all that should concern us.