The set pie, or the limited available resources, is emphasized in the negotiating strategy known as distributive bargaining. It also pushes the parties to work for each participant’s most significant feasible result (Tuncel et al., 2020). In order to get the most remarkable result, this kind of competitive strategy aims to maximize one’s advantages while limiting those of the opposing side. The distributive bargaining paradigm may be used in various talks, including discussions about commercial deals and wage negotiations.
I have taken part in many discussions that fall under the category of distributive bargaining, such as salary negotiations. The most recent wage negotiation resulted in a salary of $12,000 yearly, more than I was first offered $10,000. I also employed the distributive negotiation technique to obtain the lowest price while purchasing a laptop. The laptop’s initial listed price was $400, but the vendor and I were able to negotiate on a different price, and the seller bargained based on laptop features. We tried to get the best deal possible, ultimately reaching $360, $40 less than the asking price. My desire to gain an advantage in this circumstance characterizes the distributive bargaining strategy. Because I was able to negotiate a higher wage effectively, I am confident in my ability to bargain utilizing this strategy.
An integrative bargaining approach is a form of negotiation in which all the parties focus on expanding the pie by increasing the resources available to accomplish their objectives. This cooperative technique aims to get the maximum advantage for all parties involved (Lo et al., 2018). The integrative negotiating approach may be used for various agreements, including joint ventures, supply chain issues, and group problem-solving discussions.
I have taken part in many negotiations that use the integrative bargaining technique. Agreements relating to the supply chain are only one example of these debates. I successfully obtained a better deal for the company and supplier in the most recent round of supply chain talks for stationery supply. I took part in price determination. I devised a fixed price and economical price modification, which benefitted both. I also utilized integrative bargaining to reach a win-win agreement in a group problem-solving negotiation. Some people handled money poorly and wanted the group to be disbanded, while the rest demanded financial transparency. After considering all points of view, it was determined that financial openness is required to create a win-win scenario since dissolution would not solve the issue. The suggestion was approved, and the group continued to work on its activities. I am confident in my ability to negotiate using this tactic since I reached an agreement that benefited both parties.
The integrative negotiating approach is easier to implement as it promotes cooperation and the growth of current resources rather than their removal. I feel more confident negotiating using this method since it allows for more creative ideas and flexibility (Park et al., 2019). Consequently, I feel more at ease using it but have concerns about both methods (Benetti et al., 2021). When parties participate in distributive bargaining, the situation could turn into a zero-sum game where one party gains at the expense of another. Integrative negotiations risk forcing too many substantial compromises, which might lead to a compromise that is unfair to both parties.
In conclusion, distributive and integrative bargaining are successful negotiating tactics with distinct benefits and drawbacks. Since it stresses the limited resources available and encourages the best outcome for each person, distributive bargaining is more competitive. Integrative bargaining is more cooperative than distributive since it concentrates on increasing the resources available to the parties, enabling a win-win result. I have used both approaches in various discussions and have successfully gotten the best possible outcome for myself and all parties. I am aware of the drawbacks of both strategies, such as the potential for a zero-sum game in distributive negotiating and the danger of making too many concessions in integrative negotiation.
References
Benetti, S., Ogliastri, E., & Caputo, A. (2021). Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: A comparative study of the USA and Italy. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(4), 786-808. Web.
Lo, H. W., Liou, J. J., Wang, H. S., & Tsai, Y. S. (2018). An integrated model for solving problems in green supplier selection and order allocation. Journal of cleaner production, 190, 339–352. Web.
Park, J., Rahman, H. A., Suh, J., & Hussin, H. (2019). A study of integrative bargaining model with argumentation-based negotiation. Sustainability, 11(23), 6832. Web.
Tuncel, E., Kong, D. T., Parks, J. M., & van Kleef, G. A. (2020). Face threat sensitivity in distributive negotiations: Effects on negotiator self-esteem and demands. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 161, 255-273. Web.