More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast distributive and integrative bargaining
Advantages and disadvantages of different negotiation styles
Compare and contrast distributive and integrative bargaining
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The second approach to bargaining is integrative bargaining which looks for win-win solutions, or outcomes in which both sides benefit. In other words it is negotiations between a union and management when the parties are not in direct conflict over an issue, and when both stand to benefit from continued discussions. An example of integrative bargaining is trying to decide how to split an orange between two students. One students wants the peel the orange to make preserve and the other student would like to make orange juice. In this situation, I think both of the students can benefit without losing out.
Despite attempting to predict the eventual outcome of the negotiation, I did not anticipate the confrontations between Local H-56 and the management of Hotel Zinnia. Although they initially agreed to engage in integrative bargaining, the union and management subsequently entered an intense negotiation. When Local H-56 presented its proposal of wage increases and health insurance, management immediately responded with a counterproposal that surprised the union. Both the union and management eventually behaved confrontationally, accusing each other of bargaining unreasonably and focusing on the trivial aspects of the negotiation. Moreover, as the union and management felt increasingly frustrated, they suffered from a lack of unity in their teams. The union could not fulfill its objectives because its lead negotiator prevented other team members from contributing to the negotiation. On the other hand, several team members of management struggled to assert their authority as the lead negotiator. After observing these issues, I ultimately believe that the union and management failed to achieve their individual objectives. Moreover, by approaching the negotiation with a zero-sum strategy, I assert that the union and management failed to reach a mutually beneficial contract. At the same time, both sides of the bargaining table lacked cohesive teams and therefore struggled under the pressure of the negotiation.
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.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
The dynamic of a win-lose bargaining situation can cause negotiations to be exceedingly tense and volatile because only one side will gain at the end of these type of negotiations. This makes the concept of distributed bargaining controversial. Michael Wheeler, the author of the article, Three cheers for teaching distributive bargaining, discusses how many professors at an Academy of Management conference disapproved of distributive bargaining negotiation tactics. Wheeler explains, a huge majority of the attendees disapproved of exposing their impressionable pupils to the reality that in some negotiations, more for one party means less for the other” (Wheeler, 2012). The reluctance to teach the distributive bargaining tactic may be due to the fact that most teachings on negotiation skills are centered around the notion of all parties coming out of a deal with something they want.
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 ...
The first common theme is the importance of clear strategic intent and big picture thinking in negotiations. Before taking the Negotiation Behaviour unit, I always perceived negotiation as a fixed-pie, a zero-sum gain situation, where one party wins and the other party loses. This belief has often led me to a competitive behaviour in negotiation by trading the big picture thinking with the need to win, getting too detailed too quickly, leading to a positional approach instead of having a broad goal and explore for ways around problems to create value and get the best outcome.
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, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2006). Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin
Negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem. This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level. Negotiations typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them. The parties acknowledge that there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them. In this essay, we will compare the similarity and difference between two negotiation books namely, “Getting
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.
Collective bargaining is the process in which employers and unions undergo a series of negotiations that include terms and typical of collective bargaining where both parties concur to conditions of employment. These conditions may include wages, hours, and working conditions (Budd 229).
Negotiation is an important strategy and plays an indispensable role for people to solve the problem in our lives. It is a good way to make both parties find acceptable solution by each parties use tactics to persuade another party to approve his or her viewpoint. The application of the advanced negotiation skills definitely not only brings success in our daily life but also improve people’s work ability. This essay will show my natural preferences for different types of influence tactics which have been utilized in in-class, the understanding of the negotiation and analyze how to use proper tactics at different situations which are based on the role-play activity in tutorial.
The collective bargaining simulation was a good educational experience for me. We were able to apply the concepts we learned throughout the semester to a real life situation. I was assigned the role of Chief Negotiator for the bargaining unit. This role fit me well because I have studied unions prior to this semester and I got to meet with multiple people from different unions last year. This experience helped me get the perspective of the average member and I learned about some of the expectations they have for the union. Members of the union expect their chief negotiator to fight for all of their benefits and never settle for anything that doesn’t benefit the union. I tried my best to get all of the demands we were assigned approved. According to my notes we were able to get most of our demands and we denied the demands of the employer that we didn’t agree with. I enjoyed this role because I was able to stay engage in the activity the whole time. I think it would have been difficult for me to have a different role other than the assistant negotiator, because all of the other positions didn’t have as much responsibility. Being