There are two key methods for negotiations, integrative negotiation and distributive negotiation. They are both very useful in specific contexts and in what goal you are look for to achieve. (Thompson, 2011)
The first key method for negotiations is the integrative negotiation strategy.
An integrative negotiation is when the two negotiators cooperate in order to produce a greater outcome together than any of the parties would probably reach on its own. The integrative negotiation strategy is usually used when the parties have a relationship or would like to create one. Both parties wants to walk away feeling they have achieved something from the negotiation. This style is common between companies as they can gain better outcome together with …show more content…
Share the information with each other so it becomes easier to find a solution that both parties are satisfied with.
(Small Business - Chron.com, 2015)
The other key method for negotiations is the distributive negotiation strategy.
Distributive negotiation, also called “dividing the pie”, is a negotiation strategy where you divide a fixed amount of resources. What one party win the other party lose. This strategy is usually used when the parties have no relation with each other and don’t think there is no use in the future for one either. Situations when to use a distributive negotiation strategy is common when you make a purchase of something. (Brighthub Project Management, 2015)
When using the distributive negotiation strategy, try to keep as much information to yourself as you can but at the same time try to get information out from the other party. Because when you are using this strategy, your goal is most likely to go away from the negotiation with gaining as much as you can from the pie. (Brighthub Project Management, …show more content…
The bigger party then uses its status or even threats against the smaller party in order to get it the way they want. Usually in a power-based approach the bigger party only threats the smaller party until they get what they want, however if the smaller party don’t agree they would need an alternative that is similar to what they are negotiating about so the deal at least slightly increase for the smaller party. The alternative has to be similar because otherwise it is most likely that the bigger party does disagrees and threat or use its rank to get it their way. (Thompson,
The first key method for negotiations is the integrative negotiation strategy.
An integrative negotiation is when the two negotiators cooperate in order to produce a greater outcome together than any of the parties would probably reach on its own. The integrative negotiation strategy is usually used when the parties have a relationship or would like to create one. Both parties wants to walk away feeling they have achieved something from the negotiation. This style is common between companies as they can gain better outcome together with …show more content…
Share the information with each other so it becomes easier to find a solution that both parties are satisfied with.
(Small Business - Chron.com, 2015)
The other key method for negotiations is the distributive negotiation strategy.
Distributive negotiation, also called “dividing the pie”, is a negotiation strategy where you divide a fixed amount of resources. What one party win the other party lose. This strategy is usually used when the parties have no relation with each other and don’t think there is no use in the future for one either. Situations when to use a distributive negotiation strategy is common when you make a purchase of something. (Brighthub Project Management, 2015)
When using the distributive negotiation strategy, try to keep as much information to yourself as you can but at the same time try to get information out from the other party. Because when you are using this strategy, your goal is most likely to go away from the negotiation with gaining as much as you can from the pie. (Brighthub Project Management, …show more content…
The bigger party then uses its status or even threats against the smaller party in order to get it the way they want. Usually in a power-based approach the bigger party only threats the smaller party until they get what they want, however if the smaller party don’t agree they would need an alternative that is similar to what they are negotiating about so the deal at least slightly increase for the smaller party. The alternative has to be similar because otherwise it is most likely that the bigger party does disagrees and threat or use its rank to get it their way. (Thompson,