Distribution negotiations

The distribution approach is based on strategic influence and the desire to withhold information. These processes prevail over dialogue and relationships during the negotiation process. The negotiators are rivals and the goal of everyone is to achieve victory. It is based on the desire to share the mythical “fixed cake” ^[4] and get most of it. Competition and conflict begin. There may be mistrust between the parties, misrepresentation, threats and bluffs. The overestimation of the initial requirements, the desire to adhere to one’s position at any cost, the asymmetry in presenting the requirements and the unwillingness to make concessions are characteristic. The application of the distribution approach is implemented in divorce proceedings, sports negotiations, international negotiations, and in sales.

According to M. A. Bazerman ^[5] , the lack of a competitive negotiating approach is that losers remember their defeat for a long time. If the negotiators again have to deal with each other, then negotiating will be much more difficult. Orientation to such an approach with a “zero outcome” appeared in our society as a result of sports competitions, it is most often manifested and supported in American culture.

Features of the distribution strategy:

• In the struggle for their interests and the desire to defend their own positions, the parties assume that the partner will suffer losses ^[6] ;
• Negotiations are conducted on the basis of initially advanced extreme positions, which each side seeks to defend;
• The actions of the opponents are directed at each other, and not at solving problems, and even less at finding a mutually beneficial solution;
• The parties try to distort or hide information about their interests, intentions, goals;
• Often, the agreement reached satisfies each of the parties to a lesser extent than it could be.

Distribution negotiations are often referred to as positional bargaining. The bidding zone is located between the minimum condition from one side and the maximum condition from the other, which are discussed in the negotiation process.

In position trading, there are two main styles ^[7] :

• hard style;
• soft style.

A “tough” approach can end with a type of “win-lose”, in which only one of the parties remains the winner, otherwise it can lead to a dead end.

A “soft” negotiation approach leads to accommodation in which one of the parties gives way to the other, or to a compromise in which each side sacrifices something in favor of the other in order to reach an agreement. Even if the “soft” distribution negotiations end with a compromise, a feeling of dissatisfaction may arise, since each side did not get what it wanted.

Disadvantages of positional trading:

R. Fisher, V. L. Yuri and B. Patton ^[8] highlight the main disadvantages of positional trading:

• Such a strategy often leads to destructive behavior and the breakdown of negotiations, and if agreed, to unreasonable agreements that to one degree or another do not meet the interests of the parties;
• The soft-sided party is vulnerable and almost always remains at a disadvantage compared to an opponent with a rigid strategy of behavior;
• Opponents see each other as enemies, which greatly affects further relations between the parties;
• Bargaining is not effective if more than two parties participate in the negotiations

The participants in distributive negotiations are characterized by excessive talkativeness, insisting on their positions and manipulation. Successful negotiators have a knowledge of the contextual factors that influence the development of negotiations. In order to achieve a favorable solution for themselves, negotiators use various components of manipulation.

The main components ^[1] :

• information hiding;
• insist on your own interests ;
• positional discussion;
• the presence of selfish goals;
• coercion ;
• dispute ;
• sacrifice of a relationship;
• strict attitude to people.

1. Disorientation of a partner - this tactic is active, it is planned in advance and implemented using the following techniques: criticism of constructive provisions, use of unexpected information, deception, bluffing, and threats. The main goal of disorientation is to force the partner to act in the direction of his own interests.
2. Ultimatum - this tactic is one of the toughest and is characterized by the presentation of an ultimatum by one of the negotiators to another at the very beginning of the negotiations. The main method of ultimatum is a threat . The nomination of an ultimatum implies an extremely unfavorable position of the opponent in the negotiations. Waiting techniques are used: delaying the start of negotiations, deliberately being late or not arriving at a meeting, and the like
3. Acceptance of alternatives - lies in the fact that the enemy is offered a choice of two or more unattractive options for solving the problem that suit your own interests.
4. Reception of the shutter implies an ultimatum effect on the enemy by way of their own weakening of control over the situation.
5. The tactics of squeezing concessions. When using it, various means of positional pressure on the opponent are used, weakening his will to resist. This tactic differs from the ultimatum in that the requirements are not immediately presented to the opponent, but in stages.

Positional pressure techniques include:

• “closed door” reception - refusal to speak in negotiations.
• Reception “access control” - involves the advancement of a preliminary assignment as a condition for the start of negotiations or for their further continuation.
• reception of “sighting” - is used when an agreement on some issues is almost reached, but it does not fully suit the initiator of squeezing concessions. Then, in order to receive a new concession, he announces the restriction of his authority to make a decision in the form in which it has been prepared, and that this issue needs additional coordination with higher authorities. This technique is designed so that the enemy can not wait and is ready to make new concessions, if only an agreement was concluded now.
• reception of “external danger” - is used as a demonstration of readiness to accept the opponent’s proposals, but at the same time statements are made that his execution is endangered due to the intervention of external forces.

Psychological tricks:

If the methods of positional pressure are based on the creation of specific conditions forcing the opponent to make concessions, then the methods of psychological pressure are aimed at weakening the will of the enemy, at encouraging him to unconsciously strive to finish negotiations faster at the cost of unplanned concessions.

Methods of psychological pressure ^[9] :

• Reception of “reading in the hearts” is a trick, the essence of which is as follows: the hidden meaning is attributed to the opponent’s words and the “genuine” motives that are hidden behind the spoken words are exposed.
• The “last call” technique is used when lengthy negotiations have reached the final stage. An opponent who is tired of heavy negotiations is offered another requirement with which he, as a rule, agrees.

The negotiation process rests on the complex foundation of culture and other factors; it is characterized by confusion due to the interference of interpersonal and group dynamics.

Typical errors in distribution negotiations:

• The myth of “fixed cake size” is a purely distributive approach to negotiating. “Pie size” can be increased or used with maximum benefit for all parties, and not just one.
• High escalation of participation, this is the beginning of negotiations with excessive requirements. Having stated the demands, the parties continue to uphold them, not wanting to back down. This can lead to an escalation of the conflict. To avoid the manifestation of this trend in human behavior, solid self-discipline is required.
• The confidence of each of the participants in the negotiations that only their position is true leads to the fact that they ignore the needs of the other side. Negotiators are unable to see the validity of the positions of the opposite side. Such self-confidence prevents agreement.
• Communication problems. The negotiation process may be disrupted due to communication problems - the parties do not actually talk to each other or do not try to speak as clearly as possible. The negotiation process may be disrupted due to the problem of perception - the parties cannot or do not want to hear and understand what the opposite side is saying.

• Bazerman, MH (1991) Negotiator judgment: A critical look at the rationality assumption. Cambridge, MA: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
• Bazerman, M. H, & Neale, MA (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York: Free Press.
• Burtovaya E.V. Conflictology. Tutorial. Library of educational and scientific literature, 2002.-587s.
• Karmin A. S. Conflictology // St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Lan", 1999. - 448 p.
• Keltner, JW (1994) The management of struggle: Elements of dispute resolution through negotiation, mediation and arbitration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
• Kuzin F. A. “Culture of business communication”, Practical guide. 5th ed. - M.: Axis 89, 2000 .-- 320 s.
• Lamanov I. A. Profession negotiator: a new approach. M: .OOO "CPI Mask", 2015- 340s.
• Mitroshenkov O. A. Effective negotiations. - M .: Infra-M, The whole world, 2006. - 322s.
• Mokshantsev R. I. Negotiation Psychology: Textbook. - M .: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: Siberian Agreement, 2002. - 352s. - (series "Higher Education").
• Robert Heron and Carolina Vandenable Effective Negotiations (A Practical Guide)
• Stolyarenko A. M. General and professional psychology: A manual for secondary vocational schools, 2003.
• Spangle M., Eisenhart. Conversation. Problem Solving in a Different Context / Transl. From English. — Kh.: Humanitarian Center Publishing House, 2009. — 592 p.
• Stephen P. Robbins. Fundamentals of organizational behavior. St. Petersburg 2000 - p. 283-284.
• Fisher R., Ertel D. Preparation for negotiations - Moscow: Eagle Owl, 1996 - 256s.
• Fisher R., Yuri W. The Way to Consent, or Negotiating Without Failure. M .: Nauka, 1992
• Shermerron, J., J. Hunt., R. Osborn, Organizational Behavior. Peter., 2004- p. 414-413
• Walton RE and McKersie RB A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiation / New York, McGraw Hill, 1965.

• Socio-economic transformations and problems. Collection of scientific papers