Distributive Negotiating in an Integrated World

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,286
This is a really smart piece by dhonig, who teaches negotiating at a law school.

Distributive Negotiating in an Integrated World

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

It's not a long piece, it's well written, and it's worth the less than ten minutes it'll take you to read it.
 

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
12,861
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Not where you last saw me.
An informative article well worth the read—and not just because I didn't know the correct nomenclature for the two negotiation types or methods.

Thanks, Lisa.

(I just tweeted the link.)
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,522
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
*sigh* That article just makes me feel more hopeless. It's such a stupid technique.

I was a claims adjuster for high-value cases in my pre-now life. I'm also married to a commercial litigation lawyer. These negotiating flaws have been super-apparent to us from the beginning.

There's a saying in my old business, and in mediation in general: If each side comes away feeling both satisfied and a little disappointed, that's a win. I always wanted the other side to feel they squeezed me as hard as they could, while at the same time I knew I had room to offer a bit more. And I knew I could probably have squeezed them for $1000 less, but a settlement is a win. There's a lot to be gained by allowing the other side to save face.

I worked with the same lawyers on many cases. They knew I recognized the needs of both sides and we settled a lot of cases, to the benefit of *both* sides.

My husband's favorite negotiation saying is "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Trump is vinegar, pure and simple, and the US will be the sole harmed party.