Adil I. Khan Professor Stuart Pardau Business Law (Negotiation and Conflict Management) Work Assignment #1 September 3, 2015 There are two main approaches to any negotiation situation: distributive and integrative strategies. Each is useful in specific contexts, and the same negotiator may use either strategy depending upon their goal. We encounter distributive negotiation every time we buy a car or ask for a discount on an as-is item. Integrative negotiations happen on an ongoing basis, such as agreeing to let our children go to bed an hour later in exchange for cutting the lawn. My friend and I live together in an apartment. We share utilities; food, etc. One fine morning we wake up and get ready for our breakfast. We both have a habit of making juice just to remain charged for the day’s activity. We notice that there is only one orange left and one of us has to sacrifice it for the other. Also, we don’t have enough time to run to the store and buy more. Our class starts in a while. How can we resolve the situation? The alternative to the distributive approach is integrative negotiating. Integrative negotiations require both parties to understand what’s important to them, what their priorities are, and what trade-offs they’re willing to make. The overall negotiation can be disaggregated into individual issues than can be negotiated separately. In the best cases, there will be issues that are critical to one party but less important to the other, and vice versa.
“Instead of approaching the problem in a competitive as distributive bargaining (claiming value only for one), the integrative negotiation the parties adopt an attitude aimed at solving the problem and seek a favorable outcome for both” (Business Blog Review, 2011).
The negotiators in these situations should mainly on the integrative bargaining. It means that negotiator should arrange a face to face meeting for both the parties by motivating them to practice integrative barging so that they can use the conflict strategy management to innovate positive solutions rather than dysfunctional conflicts. The negotiator should focus mainly on problem solving, compromising, smoothing and finding solutions. Motivating both the parties for a face-to-face meet is done so that, they can identify the problem and resolve it by an open discussion. Each team should give up something so that they can come to an agreement. The negotiator should use smoothing technique by reducing the conflicts while stressing common interests between both the teams. By compromising and smoothing both the parties should know about their common interests and goals and should create a shared goal. Once the negotiator make them realize that they need each other for achieving their goals, integrative positions solutions will be obtained instead of dysfunctional
Negotiations are something that everyone experiences and does at some level. Even if informal, people negotiate and barter using what they have to offer to get what they want all of the time. However, there are times in life where the negotiations are much more serious and the stakes a lot higher. Whether official or unofficial, there are negotiation tactics and conditions that should be watched out for because they are a sign of potential problems.
Consequently, negotiation is a process that can be approached in many ways. No matter what strategy we choose, success lies in how well we prepared. The key to negotiating a beneficial outcome is the negotiators’ ability to consider all the elements of the situation carefully and to identify and think through the options. At the same time, negotiators must be able to keep events in perspective and be as fair and honest as circumstance allows. Because a common ground or interest has brought the parties to the negotiating table, a negotiator can benefit by trying to capitalize on this common
Reading the bargaining tactics, I find classic integrative helpful to improve my bargaining strategies. Classic integrative is more a positive way to build for long-term relationship, while classic distributive is more a negative way to get to your point right away. In chapter 4, it talks about the two steps for a bargaining tactics such as determining which issues are more or less important. Also, it talks about determining whether the issues are linked together or separate. I find this steps helpful in a negotiation because it guides me to know which direction I should go.
It occurs in profit or non profit organizations, government sectors, dealing among nations and also in our personal situations such as salary package, house purchase, marriage, divorce and etc. The strategy to use can either be distributive or integrative depending on the situations and the outcomes that the party want out from the negotiation.
Getting to YES, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is an excellent book that discusses the best methods of negotiation. The book is divided into three sections that include defining the problem, the method to solve it, and possible scenarios that may arise when using these methods. Each section is broken down into a series of chapters that is simple to navigate and outlines each of the ideas in a way that is easy for any reader to comprehend. There are also several real life explanations for each issue that make the concepts easier to apply and understand. These ideas are reflective of a method developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project called “principled negotiation”. This method combines the two ideas of soft and hard negotiation
Whether or not we are aware of it, each of us is faced with an abundance of conflict each and every day. From the division of chores within a household, to asking one's boss for a raise, we've all learned the basic skills of negotiation. A national bestseller, Getting to Yes, introduces the method of principled negotiation, a form of alternative dispute resolutions as opposed to the common method of positional bargaining. Within the book, four basic elements of principled negotiation are stressed; separate the people from the problem, focus on interests instead of positions, invest options for mutual gain, and insist on using objective criteria. Following this section of the book are suggestions for problems that may occur and finally a
Conflict or disagreement over the range of issues has become inherent aspect of modern organisational life. People from different cultural and education background work in an organisation. People working in an organisation may possess different goal and interest. People working in organisation may tend to different over a range of issues including organisational politics, organisational procedure, personal preference or political preference. It is also argued that conflict is essential characteristics of organisational life. Role of manager is paramount with regard to negotiating the conflict that arises in organisational life (http://www.sagepub.com/). Often lack of
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).
A ruthless, aggressive and cold blooded negotiation style is the framework approach most people have when it comes to negotiation,[6] a theoretical example of that is Adversarial Approach Style Negotiation.[6] But in reality, as mentioned by experts and researchers such as Fisher and Ury [3] it doesn’t have to be that way. As the world moves to more sophisticated platforms of communication, negotiation follows the trend and Problem-Solving Approach(citation) is in a way, the “antidote" of Adversarial Approach Style Negotiation. Getting to YES[3] suggest an Interest-Based Model for the use of Problem-Solving Approach. Interest-Based Model focus on separating the person (positional) from the problems (resolution) and then concentrate on the resolution. This way allowing for both parties in a distributive way to get the results they both want.
Roy J.L, David M.S, and John W. M, 1999 say that in integrative negotiation both parties try to find out solution which is beneficial for both parties.
In trying to resolve the conflict between Reece and Patel, Edwards used an avoidance strategy. Instead of speaking directly about the root causes, or sources, of the conflict, Edwards focused on the behaviors and treated Reece and Patel like children. Edwards scolded them, and sent them off without bothering to find out what was bothering the two. Of course, this type of conflict resolution is ineffective because it fails to address the underlying issues. As Anderson (n.d.) points out, addressing the problem is key to conflict resolution. "When a conflict does happen, a manager needs to focus the conflicting parties on the issue and have them leave out any personal problems they may be having," (Anderson, n.d.).
In life there is always some type of give and take amongst others. Some exchange may be beneficial and some can be regretful. This is all the same with negotiation, either is to negotiate a divorces decree, price of a new home, or a NFL or NBA contract deal. The world today is full of negotiating situation in and can be executed at any given time. There two common characteristic of a negotiation or bargaining situation. Negotiating parties have separate but conflicting interest.
1) Was this a Distributive or Integrative negotiation?- was it the optimum approach and why or why not.