Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of Integrative Bargaining
Distributive negotiation example
Advantages and disadvantages of Integrative Bargaining
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
also lead to destructive actions. For people who wish to maintain a good relationship with the others involved, an integrative approach is better suited to long term relationships. However, if the relationship past the deal is not relevant and the negotiator is looking to maximize the value obtained in the bargain then distributive strategies are more useful.
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
…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 …show more content…
On the other hand, distributive negotiation is best used when you have a considerable advantage and are in a good position to bargain to acquire the most gains. Another factor to consider when determining the best strategy to use is whether resource being negotiated over is finite or infinite. When dealing with finite resources, a bigger piece of the “pie” is obviously beneficial and so a distributive mindset would be more advantageous. The long term relationship with the other negotiators is also a factor that needs to be considered. If a long-term friendly relationship or competitive relationship is desired with the other negotiators. If only a single deal is at stake and future help or negotiations will not be necessary, distributive is better. However, if long term dependability and help is needed, then the safest bet is
My negotiation style questionnaire indicated that my negotiation style was collaborating and accommodating. In addition, I will not avoid negotiation. I felt the result was reasonable because I like negotiation and have never avoided negotiation when I have a chance. I always try to enlarge the size of the pie to be negotiated. However, the class taught me I sometimes accommodated too much and missed a chance to create value in the end. One of the reasons is that I am afraid of getting nothing and overly cautious. This leads me to compromise before maximizing the pie. I believe I can take more risks to create value.
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.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2005). Negotiation, Fifth Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
Distributive bargaining is a very important negotiation skill. Used as the core of the core of an negotiation, distributive bargaining is defined as, “a negotiation method in which two parties strive to divide a fixed pool of resources, often money, 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 looses 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 looses whatever amount is gained by the other” (Michael R. Carrell, 2008).
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 ...
Fontaine and Mr. Gaudin were not effective for what they were trying to accomplish. The style of Fontaine and Gaudin was an integrative bargaining style. The textbook illustrates integrative negotiation as managing “both context, and the process of the negotiation in order to gain the cooperation and commitment of all parties” (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2011).
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: 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.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin
As mentioned in Part 1, I would recommend seeking to incorporate different possible course of actions as a way to expand the pie. This will not only help to satisfy the parties involved, but it will maintain the relations, create value, and build trust. Consequently, stepping away from a tough negotiation style can equally be beneficial to meeting these ends, especially if some concession is made by both parties. I would also recommend to steer away from using threats (e.g. making Joe quit). This may cause for the relationship to no be maintained.
...an agreement, in which the superior may have a final say in the matter, this too can be detrimental to the business because it only serves to lower the morale of the manager, and confidence in the work he or she is trying to achieve. Secondly the attitudes of the negotiators can greatly affect the outcome. For example, if one negotiator has a competitive behaviour rather than a cooperative behaviour then it will most likely make the other negotiator adopt a more competitive attitude and thus decrease the likelihood of inducing counteroffers that can lead to an agreement (Fisher, Fredrickson & Peffer 2000). Negotiations can also cause those involved who disagree in significant and irreconcilable ways to accentuate those differences (Hilton 1994).
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
1) The difference between distributive and integrative bargaining 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.