Final project-Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
Heybis
Week2.Assigment.docxRunning head: NEGOTIATIONS 1
NEGOTIATIONS 5
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation.
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
Florida National University
Professor: Harvey Weiss
Author: Heybis Perez
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation.
Negotiation strategies have gained a great deal of attention from management professionals due to their conflict resolution attribute. There are two main approaches for negotiations based on the position adopted by the negotiating parties: distributive and inclusive. To choose the most appropriate strategy for a particular situation, it is important to understand the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining strategies. Today we will analyze what each one of these two strategies implies and we will have a good idea of when to use each one.
Question 1
1. In business life many times presence or investment. A division that exists between the parties is called "distributive bargaining." This is a more competitive way, where the number of problems is one, and if there are several, one is analyzed at a time. This strategy is also known as "the fixed pie strategy", since it involves the allocation of actions of a finite resource among the negotiators. With limited resources for the taking, each negotiating party views the other parties as an adversary and this is well reflected in the debate over the allocation of shares. Each party tries to put their best foot to grab a larger portion of the resources. Along with that, it is important that the negotiating parties have a good idea of the competitive position of the other negotiators. This will help when the real debate about who should get how much begins. In essence, this negotiation strategy requires acting in a defensive and reserved manner.
In other hands, an integrative negotiation contrasts a lot with the integrative one, since it implies a joint initiative that will be beneficial for all the negotiating parties. Negotiators do not accumulate on how much they will receive; rather, all efforts are aimed at increasing the total payment through mutual cooperation. Given that this negotiation strategy is based on common interests and joint efforts of all the parties involved in the negotiation, each party perceives the others as friends and collaborators. (Lewicki, 2007)
In general, the distributive negotiation ends up in a situation of winning or losing, which some parts have an advantage over the others. On the other hand, integrative negotiation creates a win-win situation for all parties.
The distributive negotiation is competitive in nature and requires each party to see the other parties as a competitor, while the integrative negotiation is collaborative in nature and all parties negotiate in friendly terms, acting as allies with each other. (Peddle, 2008)
Question 2
2.1 Both parties have common and substantially justified interests because the important issues remain in negotiation, such as economic and financial problems, price and rate, and on the other hand negotiation, division and disposition of resources. In terms of shared objectives, both parties work to achieve the new project in the established time, which translates into different personal benefits. Other factors that interact in this case are the alternative costs of the parties, satisfaction and productivity per employee, stable and continuing business relationships with potential, and good will of both parties.
2.2 For the first group, vacancies are scarce; while for the second group, the importance of the apartment complex is vital because its location is close to where the project will be developed. All this means that both parties need to develop strategies that meet underlying interests instead of substituting underlying interests. (Lewicki, 2007)
2.3 As a representative of the organization I would use a general collaboration approach, and would do the same as a representative of the apartment complex. Because we have a competitive price for each other and we should maintain a good relationship for the future, the position of collaborative negotiation is the best option. Also this decision would benefit me to minimize compliance costs, because I can save the rent of the workers in hotels, and do it in the apartment complex for less price. On the other hand, as a complex representative, I could create, as an alternative solution, a 9-month contract, because this is the approximate time of the project. This contract would give me secure economic solvency for the stipulated period. (Lewicki, 2007)
Question 3
3. I believe that both parties need to use the simple versus complex strategy because for the first part it can be easy to pay half of the expenses because it has a lucrative career and a positive cash flow, but the second part can be complex because it does not have a substantial value network. They must agree with each decision and know that any monetary decision may affect the second more than the first because the second has less cash flow than the first part. All expenses must be considered by both parties so that the second part is not affected and the purchase or lease must reach an agreement where the price is fair to both.
Note that for a simple strategy, the development of unique knowledge to address a single value proposition becomes easier, as well as the development of a project compared to the second part. It is also easier to maintain a general view of commercial activities. The only concern is how to keep the cash flow, especially in the initial stages so that the second part does not feel the weight of the general expenses, which will be covered mostly by a single offer. While for the second part (complex strategy), synergies are possible between business models, such as distribution channels, marketing, etc.; as well as the possibility of a possible financing in the event of a decrease in the cash flow of a particular product. Its disadvantage is in the delimitation of marketing activities which become more complex as customers must be convinced to address the complex value proposition. (Bailey, Dunlosky, & Kane, 2011)
References Bailey, H., Dunlosky, J., & Kane, M. J. (2011, April). Contribution of strategy use to performance on complex and simple span tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 447-461. doi:920257914 Business Negotiation. (2007, April 5th). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/380379378?accountid=158399 Celino, A., & Concilio, G. (2011, March). Explorative Nature of Negotiation in Participatory Decision Making for Sustainability. ProQuest, 255-270. doi:10.1007/s10726-010-9197-3 Hahn, R.-F. (2017). THE ROLE OF THE NEGOTIATION IN MANAGEMENT AND THE RESULTS OF AN ORGANIZATION. THE FORMATION OF THE TEAM OF NEGOTIATION, FEATURES, GUIDANCE. North University Centre of Baia Mare, Vol. 1, Iss. 1,, 255-263. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2127360497?accountid=158399 Lewicki, R. J. (2007). Essential Of Negotiation (Vol. 5th). McGraw-Hill Companies. doi:978-0-07-353036-9 Peddle, M. T. (2008, Jun). NEGOTIATING AND BARGAINING IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. ProQuest, pp. 32-36. Retrieved from https://proxy.lirn.net/MuseProxyID=mp03/MuseSessionID=0008ee5/MuseProtocol=https/MuseHost=search.proquest.com/MusePath/accountingtaxbanking/docview/229765962/fulltext/DCC33ACD04054BA5PQ/1?accountid=158399
