Response to Discussions negotiation and conflicts management

Distributive bargaining strategy is a competitive negotiation strategy for fixed or limited resources. It is also called as “Zero-Sum”, “Claiming Value” or Win-Lose” bargaining. Here the goals of both the parties are fundamentally and directly conflicting to the each other. The goal of the negotiator is to maximize their share of resources.

It is necessary for a negotiator to understand and be familiar with the distributive bargaining strategy. There are few tactics one can follow, of which few are ethically accepted and few are not.

The four tactical tasks for a negotiator in a distributive situation are:

1.     Analyze and assess the target, outcome values, resistance point and the cost of terminating negotiations of the other party: This involves understanding what the information is and how did they interpret this information based on which the other party has fixed its target and resistance points.

 Indirect indicators such as observation, consulting documentation, talking to the experts might help assess the resistance points of him/her (other party)

 For direct assessment, the other party usually does not reveal the correct / accurate information regarding the above mentioned parameters - target, outcome values, and resistance point

 2.     Manage the other party’s impression about the negotiator’s target, outcome value, resistance point, and terminating cost: This involves understanding the other party’s impression about the negotiators target, resistance point and termination costs by asking question to the other party and you saying as little as possible.

 Reveal facts only required to support your case and direct the other party to form the impression as you desire and drive them to open up for new possibilities or options that are more favorable. It is also important to have control over emotional reactions to the situations, facts, proposals and outcomes. Action to change or alter the impression

 3.     Modify other party’s perception of their target, resistance point, and cost of terminating negotiation.

 4.     Manipulate the actual costs of terminating or delaying negotiations: This can involve disruptive actions such as increasing the costs of not reaching the agreement. Forming an alliance with outsiders who can influence the outcome values. Changing the scheduling which can be a considerable disadvantage for the other party and enhance your situation and guard you from the actions of the other party.

References:

Laurie R. Weingart, Leigh L. Thompson, Max H. Bazerman, John S. Carroll, (1990) "Tactical Behavior and Negotiation Outcomes", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 1 Issue: 1, pp.7-31, Retrieved from http://0 dx.doi.org.library.acaweb.org/10.1016/j.jvb.1990.08.001

MOEHLER, M. (2010). The (stabilized) nash bargaining solution as a principle of distributive justice. Utilitas, 22(4), 447-473. http://0-dx.doi.org.library.acaweb.org/10.1017/S0953820810000348 Retrieved from  https://0-search-proquest-com.library.acaweb.org/docview/761521578?accountid=9864