Negotiation: Concept and Effectiveness
MGMT 7016 - Negotiations
University of Cincinnati
January 8, 2024
Introduction
Recent economic recession has led to an increased number of strikes.
This evidently raises the importance of “good industrial relations”,
especially during slump (Samuel 41). In negotiating situations, the
interests of the employer and employees are at stake and not
necessarily, both will overlap. A degree of disagreement and
discontent are expected out of a negotiation outcome. None of the
parties wants a deadlock in bargaining process; therefore, the best
option is to review the options and issues, which are common to both
the parties. For this, it is important to have knowledge of the resources
available for distribution and the best possible way it can be
distributed in. However, the nature of the value maximization would
depend on the type of negotiation strategy adopted.
Negotiation, which has obtained primal importance in order garner
competitive strategy for an organization, it is important to understand
what, is understood by the term. Negotiation may be defined as the
“means by which people deal with their differences.” (Harvard
Business School Press xi) In businesses, negotiation is a “formal
affair” in which two parties talk over prices, performance, or
partnership terms and contracts (Harvard Business School Press xi).
One of the primary issues that have been negotiated with the unions is
compensation or wages. Thus, the negotiator has a fixed pie available
for distribution and his aim may be to optimize one side’s share or
optimize mutual benefit. A discussion on different types of strategies
for negotiation must be discussed in order to understand the way it
takes place.
Negotiation strategies are said to be of two primary types of
negotiation – distributive and integrative (Harvard Business School
Press 2). This distributive theory, which is discussed in the paper, was
based on the first aim of the negotiator i.e. to maximize one side’s
profit. Distributive negotiation practice was traditionally used as a
strategy for negation and the underlying assumption of the strategy
was that only one party could get the maximum benefit out of the
process. In this paper, the advantages and disadvantages of the
strategy are discussed. The paper also discusses the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of the strategy in various business situations.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum
approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are
made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource
Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place
between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a
fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case,
one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other
side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive
negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie?
Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation
strategy is derived from the definition:
1. The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two
parties.
2. It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only
one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy
enforces a win-lose situation.
3. It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived
through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the
employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The
employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the
union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation
table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side
would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the
expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is
negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is
two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this
case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets
from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this
type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser
the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of
winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has,
greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique
example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation
is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion
Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep
Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a
match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But
IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s
previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep
Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the
match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second
game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was
convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused,
Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment
of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other
side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to
give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining
process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of
the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view
of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process
in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment
to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable
solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In
such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position
before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive
negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and
the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually
would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and
Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the
negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore,
in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor
plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range”
(Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is
because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to
set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available
about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the
bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of
use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real
interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the
issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is
more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one
party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals
of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict.
Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the
negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive
in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some
point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the
expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a
strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first
and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the
chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation
can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a
strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the
issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement
is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest
setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock,
which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose
situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling
disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the
other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual
winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.”
(Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy
are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective
cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one
wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s
position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive
strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict,
i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that
if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will
establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As
distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this
strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…
constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative)
interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with
competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore,
mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation
leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using
distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they
have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of
negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends
to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This
implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party
will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process
selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the
negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive
and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other
party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the
defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of
the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations,
rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information,
provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the
strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are
“accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-
supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality
trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that
different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation
outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the
effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator
according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of
distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of
extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346).
Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and
sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an
individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both
these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing
distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability,
meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and
conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found
to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is
suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend
on the presence of these personality character in case of real life
negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining
situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a
matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more
complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any
required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which
leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of
strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in
agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that
are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality
traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have
a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is
supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart
from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-
management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the
negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the
following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining
power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or
lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes
an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not;
and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while
the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this
availability of information for the parties plays an important role in
the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in
instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties,
distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative
effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the
evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining
can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain
from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not
provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and
therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative
negotiation process.
References
Barry, Bruce and Raymond A. Friedman. “Bargainers Characteristics
in Distributive and Integrative Negotiation.”FJournal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2F(1998): 345-359.
Dictionary of Human Resource Management. “Distributive
Bargaining.”FDictionary of Human Resource ManagementF(2001): 88-
89.
Galinsky, Adam D., William W. Maddux and Gillian Ku. “Consider
what happened when undefeated world chess.”FNegotiationF(2006): 3-
5.
Goering, Elizabeth M. “Integration Versus Distribution in Contract
Negotiations: An interaction Analysis of Strategy Use.”FThe Journal
of Business Communication, Vol. 34, No. 4F(1997): 383-400.
Harvard Business School Press.FThe essentials of negotiation.FBoston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2005.
Peterson, Richard B. and Lane Tracy. “Testing a Behavioral Theory
Model of Labor Negotiations.”FIndustrial Relations, Vol. 6, No.
1F(1977): 35-50.
Samuel, Peter. “… negotiate with trade unions.”FPeople
ManagementF2009: 41.
Sebenius, James K. “Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization And
Review.”FManagement Science, Vol. 38, No. 1F(1992): 18-38.
