neg3 - Distributive Bargaining Dr. Bruce Fortado MAN 4441...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Distributive Bargaining Dr. Bruce Fortado MAN 4441 University of North Florida Distributive bargaining is often depicted as win-lose or a fixed pie, what one side gains the other side loses. Why are people so preoccupied with money? People often keep score by counting dollars. One can gauge progress in this fashion. Winning also creates a sense of exhilaration. At times, people get so caught up in the process, they forget who is an ally and who is an adversary. Distributive bargaining is frequently a highly charged process. More than money is normally at stake: one also must consider factors such as status, pride, respect, self esteem and face. Some people denigrate distributive bargaining as a lose-lose process. While both sides may suffer monetary loses, as in a strike when one side loses profits and the other wages, this stance ignores the social and psychological factors involved. This is indeed quite naive. It may, however, be a manipulative attempt to sway people toward a particular position based on selective presentation. Ironically, the critics of distributive bargaining appear to be employing a distributive tactic here. A careful balance must be struck to succeed. One should balance perceptions of firmness with those of flexibility. One must also balance perceptions of reasonableness with those of weakness. One must also balance the presentation of information, charting a path considering the need for clarity to move towards goals, and concealment of weaknesses and disguising priorities to avoid being taken advantage of. Fundamental Strategies * You should consider whether this is a long term or short term strategy. * You should also think is there are short and long term consequences. * One should not think of these strategies as mutually exclusive. You can do several at once. One might consider, however, whether the strategies are logically consistent. 1) Settle as close to your counterpart’s resistance point as possible - gather information on your counterpart - make your position seem more appealing - make them reluctant to stay at their position 2) Move your counterpart’s resistance point (or your own) What are resistance points based on? - affordability = cost-benefit in terms of difficulty, time, etc. - difficulty of going elsewhere (self and other) One can attempt to change: (a) perceptions of one’s ability to wait; (b) perceptions of the cost- benefit of breaking off; (c) impressions of outcome valuation; (d) the actual costs of delay/aborting. 3) If there is a negative settlement range, move either or both resistance points to create an overlap. One could also package to avoid an impasse on a specific issue.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
4) Create the perception that this was the best possible settlement. This does not always translate into stroking them, you could simply look tired. Also, remember the example in Cohen (1980) where the settlement came so quickly and easily, the person was unhappy because he concluded he could have gotten a better deal if he had bargained harder. Tactical Tasks
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 07/09/2011 for the course MAN 4401 taught by Professor Fortado during the Spring '11 term at UNF.

Page1 / 8

neg3 - Distributive Bargaining Dr. Bruce Fortado MAN 4441...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online