Negotiation is something that managers have to deal with frequently within the course of their jobs. A good knowledge of beneficial negotiation techniques is undeniably a useful skill to have. Knowing this it’s important to outline the differences between two commonly used strategies that will in turn have two separate outcomes. Mainly the greatest difference is noted between these two strategies; Distributive Negotiation and more integrative bargaining techniques like Getting to Yes. The central difference between these two methods is how the resource pie being dealt with is perceived. With distributive, it’s understood to be fixed, as opposed to integrative techniques where it’s thought that it can be expanded for communal gain.
It is important to understand the full concept of distributive negotiation in order to grasp how much benefits can be available using communal negotiation methods. The philosophy of distributive negotiation resides behind the assumption of a fixed resource pie. Since the resource pie is fixed it is in both parties best interest to compete with each other in order to gain the larger slice of the pie. With competitive techniques being used there’s no question that unconstructive behavior will result, setting up a sequence of distrustful events. Parties will compete to win the most economic value, and in some cases try to prove who can be the better player. With all this being said, trust of one another’s true motives is diminished, leaving both sides highly suspicious thinking that each others true purpose is taking them for all they’re worth. With this method, virtually no positive long-term business relationships can result.
Keeping this in mind, and relating it to an example of how managers can use negotiation in their everyday practices it is evident what the better choice for reaching an agreement. For instance, the manager and owner of a gravel producing quarry are in the midst of negotiating a contract with a newly established...