Members

1. Bùi Lê An Toàn
2. Trần Hoàng Mỹ Hảo
3. Nguyễn Quang Hiệp
4. Hồ Hoàng Long
5. Phan Thảo Ngọc
A formal discussion between people who
are trying to reach an agreement.
 outcomes occur when each side of
a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides
benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to
the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily.
The process of integrative bargaining aims to
achieve, through cooperation, winwin outcomes.
 situations result when only one
side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-
lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted
voluntarily. Distributive bargaining processes,
based on a principle of competition between
participants, tend to end in win-lose outcomes.
www.themegallery.com
 Type Of
INTEGRATIVE
Negotiation
 Type Of DISTRIBUTION
Negotiation

WIN LOSE
 INTEGRATIVE
 Each party not only tries to get the best deal
for themselves but also puts themselves in the
other’s position and makes sure that the deal
is mutually beneficial to both side.
 Get equal benefits.
 Parties cooperate to achieve maximize benefits
by integrating their interests.
Both parties involved in negotiation
process jointly look at the problem, try to
search for alternatives and try to evaluate
them and reach a mutually acceptable
decision or solution.
 Win/lose refers to a distributive
negotiation whereby one party’s gain is
another party’s loss. Both parties are
competing to get the most value from the
negotiation.

 Win-lose outcomes are less likely to be

accepted voluntarily.
 The participants' goal is to get the best
possible deal for themselves and they
expect the others to defend their own
position.
 It may result in a situation where each side
gets part of what they wanted, but not as
much as they might have gotten if they had
used integrative bargaining.
 Disadvantages

 The danger for win/lose negociators is that they

alienate the others
 Win-lose outcome may well damage future
relationships between the parties. It also increases
the likelihood of relationships breaking down, of
people walking out or refusing to deal with the
‘winners’ again.
 Disadvantages

 Is essentially dishonest – both sides try to hide their

real views and mislead the other.

 Reaches a compromise solution which may not have

be the best possible outcome – there may have been
some other agreement that was not thought of at the
time - an outcome that was both possible and would
have better served both parties.
 For example:
“What do you want for it?”
“I couldn’t let it go for under £2,000.”
“I’ll give you £1,000.”
“You must be joking.”
“Well, £1,100 and that’s my limit.”
“£1,900” … “£1,300” … “£1,700” ... “£1,500” …
“Done!”
An
l employers who will only hire when they feel a
candidate has negociated poorly and the salary is
below market. This can have negative consequences
such as failure to obtain the most talented candidates
by focusing on “winning”.
 Toward the individual end of the leadership
dimension, the expectation is that a
negociation will be conducted and a deal
structured in which one side or the other is a
senior partner.
They are uncomfortable with business
relationships based on equal partnerships.
They do not have the aptitude and skills
necessary for shared decision making and
accountablity
Every business negotiation should start with a
well-established plan. The team must draw
their mind map and check their objectives.

When you’re trying to seal a deal, it’s critical to

be prepared from all points of view. Watch out
for your competition, know your answers, keep
your calm even when you’re in trouble, and
always have a back-up plan.

Remember that the goal is to get the job done

and get a win-win solution.
 When faced with a negotiation, we always start with
some goal we want to achieve in mind. That goal,
somewhat abstract, will be affected by many factors
but it may change depending on how the
negotiations develop.

 That goal depends on a thin line drawn between

success and failure. In other words, expectations
evolve and it’s likely that they won’t be the same at
the end of a negotiation that we had at the
beginning of it.
Our mind is a key piece when resolving
any conflict or negotiation.
Poker OR chess ???
• Chess ( Rigid ) • Poker ( Flexible )
For many win/win Others believe that the
proponents negotiation end justifies whatever
is an open game. They means are at their
believe that a deal will disposal to get the best
be best and soonest deal.
achieved if both sides
have all the information,
share objectives, and
respect each other’s
integrity
 Tactics & Tricks
• The dividing line between tactics and tricks is
a fine one.

• Bluffing, unreasonable demands, time

pressure, spurious deadlines, artificial
stalemates, and other ploys.
Beginning
and
End
 Beginning
It is usually obvious when a
negotiation begins. The written
contract is the template for
implementation, often referred to
and meticulously followed. Trying to
change it because, for example,
market conditions have changed or
one partner discovers that there are
unforeseen costs is seen as bad
faith.
The resulting documents comprehensive and closely
vetted by lawyers.
 End
The concept of when it ends is less clear between
cultures. Toward the organic end of the dimension
negotiation is seen as a continuing part of
implementation. Practiced negotiators will be on
the alert for the “slip-in,” a concession demanded
after everything has apparently been agreed or
after the contact has been signed.
The contract is seen more (if it is
referred to at all,) and it is acceptable to
ask for changes in its terms if conditions
change.