Negotation
Negotiation
1. Which are the types of negotiation?
These two approaches align more or less with the two main types of negotiation:
Distributive – Distributive negotiation is a way of dividing up a single, fixed quantity where a gain to one side results in a loss to the other. While both sides may benefit from the deal, one side will definitely benefit more than the other.
Integrative – Integrative negotiation involves a more collaborative approach, where both sides work together in the hopes of achieving the greatest possible benefit for both sides.
2. Main differences between the types of negotiation
Distributive and integrative negotiation is used by people on a regular basis. Distributive negotiation is fixed in nature. Limits are placed on ""giving out."" Distributive techniques are used in many cases such as purchasing a car or house. These are great examples of distributive negotiation technique. The buyer wants the best interest rate and greater benefits in the purchase. The seller wants to make a sale to his advantage as well. Negotiations continue until both parties are satisfied or the negotiation is resolved. In using integrative negotiations usually all parties will benefit from the final results. Cooperation plays a huge role in this scenario. One example of integrative negotitons would include college English students being placed on a team to accomplish a common goal. Each must negotiate and cooperate until the given goal is reached together. They will all benefit from the final grade on the project at hand.
3. Which type of negotiation will you prefer to use?
There are pros and cons for each type. The most common analogy for these two types of negotiations is the pie. In the case of distributive negotiation, the pie represents the whole of what’s available, and each side fights to get as much of it as possible. Integrative negotiation looks to enlarge the pie so that both sides get what they need.
Integrative negotiation may seem
1. Which are the types of negotiation?
These two approaches align more or less with the two main types of negotiation:
Distributive – Distributive negotiation is a way of dividing up a single, fixed quantity where a gain to one side results in a loss to the other. While both sides may benefit from the deal, one side will definitely benefit more than the other.
Integrative – Integrative negotiation involves a more collaborative approach, where both sides work together in the hopes of achieving the greatest possible benefit for both sides.
2. Main differences between the types of negotiation
Distributive and integrative negotiation is used by people on a regular basis. Distributive negotiation is fixed in nature. Limits are placed on ""giving out."" Distributive techniques are used in many cases such as purchasing a car or house. These are great examples of distributive negotiation technique. The buyer wants the best interest rate and greater benefits in the purchase. The seller wants to make a sale to his advantage as well. Negotiations continue until both parties are satisfied or the negotiation is resolved. In using integrative negotiations usually all parties will benefit from the final results. Cooperation plays a huge role in this scenario. One example of integrative negotitons would include college English students being placed on a team to accomplish a common goal. Each must negotiate and cooperate until the given goal is reached together. They will all benefit from the final grade on the project at hand.
3. Which type of negotiation will you prefer to use?
There are pros and cons for each type. The most common analogy for these two types of negotiations is the pie. In the case of distributive negotiation, the pie represents the whole of what’s available, and each side fights to get as much of it as possible. Integrative negotiation looks to enlarge the pie so that both sides get what they need.
Integrative negotiation may seem