Negotiation
I purchased five used books from a third-party seller, Mr. M, on a renowned online retail store. On this site, once potential buyers have identified the items they wish to purchase, they need to select and save as a show of interest. The buyer then follows a series of prompts such as providing personal details in exchange for a summary of the billing information. The next step involves haggling with the seller by making a series of offers and counteroffers. The deal is successful when both parties reach an arrangement to trade.
Negotiation Details
I used distributive bargaining to negotiate a suitable price for my books. According to Miles (2010), distributive bargaining follows a process where the objectives of one player are in sharp contrast with those of the other player. In this case, we both wanted to win and end up with the best possible deal. Now, Mr. M’s used books had attractive features such as “Like New,” and “excellent quality.” Notably, however, Mr. M has attained the “master” status as a third party seller on this platform. His profile shows that he has over three years of experience of active buying and selling. In this position, he is knowledgeable in handling negotiations and building a profile that best suits his interest.
Based on my personal experience, such dealers have a way of overvaluing the condition and status of products in a way that sways the purchase results in their favor. I recognized that I was facing a win-lose situation in this transaction. I did not want to spend excessively buying products whose condition would disappoint upon delivery. On his part, Mr. M wanted to get the best deal possible out of his books. If this was the case, then we both had to maximize the negotiation and not worry about lying to each other. For instance, I had to lie about my financial situation and that I was in the process of making a similar deal with an equal rival on the site. Eventually, we settled at a price way lower than his initial asking price.
What if..?
Contrarily, integrative bargaining is a negotiation approach that focuses on the win-win situation. That is, every member in the conflict allows the either party access to information that would be mutually beneficial. The following procedure would have described my purchasing process had I used integrative bargaining. Given this case, I would have been as truthful as possible so as to reach a good business deal with Mr. M. On his part; M would have utilized this approach so as not to destroy our business relationship (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002).
Thus, we would have taken to lengths discussing the pros and cons of our deal. For Mr. M, his best option would be to share pictures of the real books and state what he wanted in the negotiation. Nonetheless, either part had to follow a set of rules detailing each move in an appropriate manner. The end process would have been a price equally suitable in a win-win situation (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002).
Would it help?
However, the situation would not have been better had we used integrative bargaining compared to distributive bargaining. Unlike distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining best happens in cases that show a possibility of producing better results for all parties. The approach is also effective when parties want to develop a long-term relationship. However, this process is complex and time-consuming. It would only have worked if we both wanted future deals with each other after the sale. Also, none of us thought of the other as an equal partner (Trötschel, Bündgens, Hüffmeier, & Loschelder, 2013).
Ideally, integrative tactics could have identified our list of priorities and made a guess about the other person’s priority. In the real world, it was almost impossible to share information as well as being honest about our needs. Furthermore, we would have to find and offer solutions that benefit both parties. For instance, Mr. M would have to provide suggestions on other sellers who offer attractive pricing and so on. This strategy happens with both us recognizing that future deals will call for additional compromise (Kersten, 2001).
Making a Choice as the HR Manager
As the HR Manager, I should favor integrative bargaining over distributive bargaining. According to Beersma and De Dreu (2002), this approach respects the need for cooperativeness when seeking solutions to employee related issues. Unlike distributive bargaining, the approach goes beyond concessional agreements and considers solutions that are mutually and logically beneficial. This characteristic shows an expansion to the terms and conditions that define contemporary employment. Furthermore, unlike their distributive counterparts, integrative-oriented HR managers search for appropriate proposals as opposed to obvious and selfish ones. The approach considers inclusiveness, openness, joint explorations, and cooperation. The result is a community that achieve maximum utter benefits for its stakeholders.
Integrative bargaining, under my terms, would refer to the negotiating process in which the workers and I focus on the integration of our interests as effective as possible. According to Kersten (2001), HR managers that work as integrative negotiators look at achieving two objectives as follows. First, they look into the creation of as much value as possible for the company as well as employees. Second, they consider a claim that would best fit their personal interests. The approach, however, does not consider giving into demands or sacrificing objectives. Instead, it should require that both employees and the HR departments seek for creative options. The result of such a move is the creation of common ground for the controversial issues (Kersten, 2001).
That said, I would consider using four primary elements to successful bargaining outlined as follows. First, it is vital to use a willing participation channel during negotiations. In such an environment, it is obvious that the employees are seeking a platform to air their problems. Thus, it should be helpful to have my team reach an initial agreement to have a discussion aimed at finding sustainable solutions. Second, it would be worth thinking about finding an appropriate package for the issues in question. Packaging here means finding a perfect combination for a series of issues to offer some solution to value for both parties. In the HR line of duty, unbundled issues may lack adequate resolution (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002).
Third, the negotiation process thrives in collaborative environments. According to Kersten (2001), this provision establishes a friendly environment to allow for constructive talks. As the HR manager, I will first start by addressing all vital factors and inviting suggestions. Finally, an exemplary HR manager recognizes and appreciates the mutual relationship shared among the main stakeholders. Their focus should show value on the existence of a sustainable relationship. Negotiations that happen in such environments are substantially more productive than their distributive counterparts (Kersten, 2001).
References
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. (2002). Integrative and Distributive Negotiation in Small Groups: Effects of Task Structure, Decision Rule, and Social Motive. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 87, Issue 2, 227–252.
Kersten, G. E. (2001). Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation, Volume 10, Issue 6, 493-514.
Miles, E. W. (2010). Gender differences in distributive negotiation: When in the negotiation process do the differences occur? European Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (7), 1200-1211.
Trötschel, R., Bündgens, S., Hüffmeier, J., & Loschelder, D. (2013). Promoting prevention success at the bargaining table: regulatory focus in distributive negotiations. Journal of economic psychology, 38, 26-39.
