Integrative and Distributive Bargaining
Whether a negotiation involves working together toward a goal or working against one another to win, each party must use a strategy to reach a solution. The differences of distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining are parallel. The ways in which one method is competitive and the other is cooperative is described and related to a well-known case involving basketball player Juwan Howard. Distributive Bargaining
In a competitive bargaining situation, referred to as distributive bargaining, resources are fixed and limited. Both parties want to maximize their share of the resources with each party’s goal conflicting (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). During a distributive bargaining, each party will have a plan and tactics to maximize their own benefits in the outcome. There is a limited resource to divide out between the two parties and the way in which they are divided depends on the negotiation. Distributive bargaining is useful if “the negotiator wants to maximize the value obtained in a single deal, when the relationship with the other party is not important, and when they are at the claiming value stage of negotiations” (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). This describes a con of using this type of negotiating; the relationship with the other party may be negatively affected. In the case of Juwan Howard, Howard likely severed his relationship with Pat Riley of the Miami Heat by walking away from the Heat’s contract. To enter a distributive bargaining situation, each party should have established their starting, target, and resistance points. The starting point is each party’s opening statement. The target point is learned throughout the negotiation as the party makes concessions between their starting point and target point. The resistance point is where the party would rather stop negotiations than go past that point. In a successful negotiation, neither party will have reached or revealed the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document