School Paper

Does positional bargaining ever make sense? When? How? Provide examples.

Positional bargaining can be an advantageous position for a negotiator, but only to a point. Because this type of bargaining can be viewed as a win-lose outcome, a good negotiator should always strive for a win-win result. It is often a contest of wills. When this occurs, not only are the issues at stake but emotions must be overcome to reach agreements. The focus of the negotiations often shifts from what the issues are to the people presenting them.

Positional bargaining makes sense for negotiators when both sides are operating from a principled negotiation standpoint. However, because this type of negotiation is adversarial in nature, negotiations are pitted with each opponent trying to gain from the others loss. An example of positional bargaining is when both parties are unyielding in their demands. This becomes what is termed as hard positional negotiations.

What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness? Provide an argument.

Standards of fairness are held by all parties involved in negotiations. If the opposing party believes in a different standard of fairness, then using external standards of fairness can provide a means of persuasion to the opposing party. For instance, your 16 year old son asks if he can buy a car with your financial assistance. You reason with him that he isn’t old enough to purchase a car. He points out the fact that he has kept an A-average in school as promised, even with his part-time job. He’s passed the Driver’s Education course, and since the summer he has been saving and has $1500 in his student bank account. Your 16 year old could possibly persuade you that he is mature enough to handle the responsibility of owning a car.

Should I be fair if I don't have to be? Include arguments in regards to integrity and ethics.

271070801