WK7Assgn_Barnes_C

docx

School

Walden University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5342

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfElectron12036

1 Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Constance N. Barnes Department of Human and Social Services, Walden University Intro to Dynamics of Conflict Dr. Moran October 15, 2023

2 Compare integrative bargaining and distributive bargaining for use in the industry in which you currently work or one in which you have interest in working in the future. Integrative and distributive bargaining have many pros and cons for use across multiple settings. Made simple, integrative bargaining provides a win-win resolution that allows all parties involved in a conflict or dispute to be mutually satisfied with the proposed solution. On the other hand, distributive bargaining is a viable bargaining approach where one party advances at the expense of the other party losing something. According to Elgoibar et al., (2021), “Research suggests that integrative bargaining happens when parties share information and understand priorities—what issues are more or less important for the other party—and use that information to generate trade-offs that create value. This is a key factor for achieving integrative agreements in negotiation, which requires trust between parties” (p. 2). As it relates to the mental health industry, I believe this to mean that both parties have to be willing to be vulnerable with the other side, without oversharing on behalf of the professional, in an effort to build the patients confidence and understanding that the professional does not seek to capitalize off of their vulnerability but rather assist them learning from it. Eligoibar et al., also explains (2021), “The distributive aspect refers to how negotiators resolve differences when their interests or positions are in conflict. From the game theory approach, this is called the “zero-sum game,” or the “win-lose process” because it involves dividing limited resources—as in a fixed pie. As it relates to mental health, this could be seen through situations that deal with confidentiality. For example, a patient may share some information with their therapist that poses a direct danger to themselves or another person. They may also make a statement that is imperiling to another who does not have the appropriate means

3 to protect themselves, such as a child, someone with a disability, or an elder. In this situation the therapist would be obligated to report what was professed in the session, thus making the client feel betrayed. Distributive Bargaining is in great detail about collaboration and accepting that not all mediation can result in a win-win situation. Explain whether you believe these methods are still relevant in your industry of choice or explain one that is better suited and why. Be specific and provide examples. I believe that the method of integrative and distributive bargaining is not necessarily fitted for the mental health field, however I do assume it to be very beneficial for the arena of law. According to Korobkin (2008), “For the past quarter century, the primary normative message of negotiation theory literature has been that negotiators will achieve better outcomes by focusing their attention on the integrative aspect of bargaining rather than its distributive aspect, by which I mean the division of resources in a way that makes one party worse off to the same extent that the other party is made better off” (p. 1324). This is true in the realm of law and negotiations as the main goal with mediation Is for both parties to walk away from the conflict mutually satisfied and feeling as though they were heard and considered. However, “Negotiations generally, and legal negotiations specifically, have more distributive potential than integrative potential. For this reason, lawyer-negotiators would be better served, on balance, to think of distributive bargaining as the cake and integrative bargaining as the frosting, rather than the reverse” (Korobkin, 2008, p. 1325). This shows that the legal field has potential for both the succession of integrative and distributive bargaining techniques and is better suited to achieve such stances as opposed to mental health.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 References Mayer, B. S. (2000). The dynamics of conflict resolution: A practitioner’s guide . Jossey-Bass Publishers. Elgoibar, P., Medina, F. J., Euwema, M. C., & Munduate, L. (2021). Increasing integrative negotiation in European organizations through trustworthiness and Trust. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655448 Korobkin, R. (2008). Essay: Against Integrative Bargaining . Case Western Reserve Law Review , 58 (4), 1323–1342.