Running Head Negotiation 1 Negotiation 2 Negotiation ✓ Solved

Running Head Negotiation 1negotiation2negotiation

The two main approaches to any form of negotiation are integrative strategy versus distributive strategy. The two models of communication can be used in different contexts depending on which strategy can meet the goal set by the negotiator. Distributive bargaining can be a better strategy than integrative strategy.

Distributive bargaining is very important especially in competitive negotiations involving the distribution of fixed resources. In many situations, parties see resources as limited and the negotiation as a win-lose situation. The stakes can be high, as seen in Michelle’s case, where the dispute cannot be solved without a zero-sum approach involving limited resources.

Critics argue that integrative strategy is better since it allows creativity, enabling disputants to enlarge resources for mutual benefit. However, distributive bargaining has been criticized for its destructive nature, focusing on differences rather than common ground.

Michelle's case illustrates a distributive negotiation scenario. She works for a company that is redesigning operations and offering new shifts, but those with seniority have priority. As someone with less seniority, Michelle is left with less favorable options. She wishes to negotiate for a shift that better accommodates her home responsibilities as a single mother.

The bargaining mix includes multiple aspects. First, Michelle has home life responsibilities that conflict with her work schedule. Second, she has a daycare provider whose schedule must align with her own to ensure her child is cared for. Lastly, the creation of an option for shifts needs to consider the fact that despite being a top performer, Michelle is disadvantaged due to her seniority.

Michelle's interests revolve around finding a shift that allows her to fulfill her job duties while also managing her family responsibilities. Conversely, management wants to ensure all shifts are adequately covered to meet their operational goals.

Michelle's resistance point involves balancing her home needs with the management's criteria. Each party should strive to stick to their interests, but flexibility might be necessary for a resolution. Michelle can consider her Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) if her needs are unmet, which might include compromising her daycare arrangement, quitting her job, or finding a middle-ground shift.

Her objectives should encompass securing a deal that accommodates her family life without compromising her daycare schedule. The negotiation context is essential as it plays out in a workplace environment where stakeholders can express their interests openly.

Paper For Above Instructions

Negotiation plays a crucial role in various contexts, whether in business, politics, or personal interactions. Within the realm of negotiation, two primary strategies often come into play: distributive and integrative strategies. Understanding the nature of these strategies is vital for effective negotiation.

Defining Distributive and Integrative Negotiation Strategies

Distributive bargaining is characterized by a competitive approach, where parties see negotiation as a means to divide limited resources. The outcome is typically a zero-sum game, meaning one party's gain is another's loss. This strategy is prevalent in scenarios like salary negotiations or purchasing high-value items, such as cars, where the terms of the deal are often strictly limited.

In contrast, integrative negotiation focuses on collaboration and mutual gain. This method seeks to expand the perceived value in the negotiation process, allowing both parties to leave the table feeling satisfied. It’s common in situations where ongoing relationships are essential, such as in workplace negotiations or community-based discussions.

The Case Study: Michelle's Negotiation

Consider the case of Michelle, who works for a company undergoing a shift redesign. The new scheduling priorities favor senior employees, leaving her with less ideal options. Michelle is a single mother whose family responsibilities necessitate a shift that accommodates her home life. This case exemplifies the dynamics of distributive negotiation, where Michelle aims to shift her schedule for personal benefit, while management seeks to maintain operational efficiency.

Bargaining Mix and Interests

The bargaining mix includes essential components that Michelle must articulate during negotiations. First, she must address her home life responsibilities, advocating for a work schedule that allows for family engagement. Second, she needs to negotiate her daycare provider's shifts to align with her work hours. Lastly, the management's method of assigning shifts without employee input has generated significant discontent, highlighting the need for inclusive decision-making.

Michelle’s interests revolve around balancing her job obligations with her home responsibilities. On the other hand, management seeks to ensure that work shifts are adequately filled to meet new operational goals. This juxtaposition of interests exemplifies the inherent conflict within the distributive negotiation framework.

Resistance Points and Alternatives

Each party must understand their resistance point—the threshold below which they will not agree. For Michelle, this point revolves around meeting her family obligations without jeopardizing her employment. For management, it’s ensuring business continuity and productivity. Compromises may need to be explored to meet the needs of both parties, yet each must remain aware of their fundamental interests.

Additionally, Michelle should identify her Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), which may involve adjusting her daycare arrangements, potentially quitting her job if her needs remain unmet, or accepting a middle-ground shift that minimally satisfies both her and management's needs.

Objectives and Opening Bids

Michelle's objectives in this negotiation are clear: to secure a work schedule that accommodates her family responsibilities without compromising her professional performance. Ideally, her opening bid would reflect a significant shift change aligned with her needs, focusing on the importance of her role as a parent side by side with her professional obligations. This might set the stage for productive dialogue and potential compromise.

The Social Context of Negotiation

The negotiation took place within a supportive office environment, allowing all stakeholders to express their views and needs openly. Fostering such an environment is crucial in negotiation settings, contributing to a more collaborative atmosphere. Michelle's ability to articulate her concerns and the management's readiness to listen may lead to a more integrative outcome than initially anticipated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the dynamics of negotiation can dictate its success or failure. Understanding the difference between distributive and integrative approaches equips negotiators with the tools necessary for effective discussions. In Michelle's case, recognizing the value of mutual interests can facilitate a negotiation that accommodates both individual needs and organizational goals. As negotiations evolve, the ability to adapt and find common ground can lead to successful resolutions, benefiting both parties.

References

• Gaertner, W., & Ahlert, M. (1992). Social choice and bargaining perspectives on distributive justice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Kavanagh, K., & Nailon, P. (2007). Excellence in the workplace: Legal & life skills in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
• Luecke, R. (2010). Best practice workplace negotiations. New York: American Management Association.
• Walton, R., & Gershenfeld, J. (2004). Strategic negotiations: A theory of change in labor-management relations. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.
• Sebenius, J. K. (2002). 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
• Thompson, L. (2014). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
• Raiffa, H. (2002). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Mnookin, R. H., Peppet, S. R., & Tulumello, A. S. (2000). Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• De Janasz, S. C., Dowd, K. O., & Schneider, B. (2009). Interpersonal Skills in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.