Types of Bargaining Strategies
Bargaining strategies are needed to resolve a financial or proprietary conflict and establish communication and negotiation to resolve a problem. In the case of collective bargaining, there are two main strategic approaches, distributive and integrative. Among the factors to consider when choosing a strategy are information, timing, and power. Distributive bargaining implies that each of the opponents seeks to get the largest possible share of the resources being discussed. This type of bargaining means that it involves limited and fixed resources. Traditionally, in the case of such a bargain, one party receives the full amount, and the other receives nothing, which is why such a bargain is also called “zero-sum” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Often distributive bargaining is used in the purchase of such important goods as real estate or vehicles, when the high price, which is the main factor, is in the discussion.
With this type of bargaining, the previous or future relations of the adversaries turn out to be unimportant. However, it should be borne in mind that despite this anonymity of relations, in collective bargaining there may be cases of attempts to equalize the scores by asking for unrealistic demands next time. Integrative bargaining includes collaboration between the parties, the search for joint solutions on certain issues. Thus, new sources of value are born.
Tactics and Issues
Acceptable tactics include collecting information about the opponent, data on his contacts and associates. Manipulation of the stated requirements is also considered a suitable tactic. It makes sense to make an unrealistically high initial request, but not to communicate a lower threshold of consent when bidding. A pronounced lack of haste is also a useful psychological tactic. One should not make false promises or distort facts, try to blackmail or threaten an opponent, or collect confidential information about an opponent. One of the main problems in bidding is the prohibition of workers to negotiate in most US states. Despite the growth of the public sector of bargaining statistically, in many states this type of bargaining is eliminated with zeal. Bargaining can be capable of pitting two labor unions against each other, which is all the more exacerbated when the number of jobs is limited.
Trends in Bargaining
In modern realities, there is a whole trend of devolving bargaining at the level of an entire enterprise. While earlier the employer negotiated with individual workers, at the moment there is a bargaining with the whole group. The reason for this trend is the inability to meet the needs of individual companies and the inability to accommodate the employer. Such a trend is able to save time and finances for the management group, and also makes it possible to adapt to changing market conditions. The US private sector, for the most part, tends to trade exclusively at the level of the place of work. An attention-grabbing trend is also sectoral bargaining, which is considered the modern standard of doing business (Cohen, 2022). With sectoral bargaining, the likelihood of the worker being included in a labor union and active self-organization is much higher (Opute & Mahmoud, 2022). Among the new processes included in this type of bargaining is sectoral dialogue, the search for a collective agreement. Sector bargaining is looking for a solution that would satisfy every worker in a single sector of the economy. This trend is in sharp contrast to the entrepreneurial bargaining, in which agreements cover entire enterprises and the role of the boss is decisive.
References
Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor relations and collective bargaining. Pearson.
Cohen, L. (2022). U.S. Bargaining and organizing rights trail every other democracy. New Labor Forum, 31(1), 8-10. Web.
Opute, J. E., & Mahmoud, A. B. (2022). What sort of collective bargaining is emerging in Nigeria? Personnel Review. Web.