Distributive Bargaining
Distributive bargaining aligns with the Biblical worldview since most of the disputes are inherently solved in zero –mind terms. The zero-sum has deeper cultural roots primarily when traced back from the Biblical stories in the book of Genesis (Rosen, 2016). In this case, most conflicts can be resistant to a solution when the stakes are higher. For instance, if a 30 per cent budget can be cut from the government agency, people’s jobs would be at stake; thus, it would be challenging to decide what to cut. However, distributive decisions can be made more accessible when the cuts are lowered enough to minimize employee’s impact. Besides, an interplay of one’s walk away value is often involved in distributive bargaining. In this case, a higher or lower party can agree to quit from the deal, while the opponent would consent walking away from the fixed value. Distributive bargaining work under a trick of acquiring a skill from an adversary’s walk away value. The obtained idea is further to an outcome, which is often closer to the goals of a specific party. Attainment of goals in distributive negotiations always depends on the strategies and tactics used parties. Conversely, in distributive bargaining, information is regarded as a critical strategic advantage. Therefore, both parties do their best to guide their data from their adversaries. On the contrary, the clarity of a party’s goal, walk away values, and ideas from the opponents are some of the critical factors that contribute and strengthen a party’s bargaining power. These factors will enable parties to know on when to hold firm and when to concede to the other side’s response.
Nonetheless, in zero-mind terms, I learnt that the negotiation is used in making a decision on the ways of distributing a fixed source such as money. Both parties, however, assume that they cannot expand the ties since there are minimal resources for circulation (Rosen, 2016). This further means that the more one side acquires resources, the lesser the other side gains. I also learnt that the negotiations often depend on party’s trick to outdo an opponent. This is based on one party acquiring information and incorporating the ideas for a party’s gain.
Moreover, distributive bargaining and zero-sum negotiations are used in creating harmony between both parties since the distribution of assets is often made to be fixed. This means that both parties will acquire maximum shares from the resources or assets that are supposed to be shared. Also, each party in a distributive bargaining approach is made to figure out or to know other parties’ walk-away values. This helps in decision making. Both parties later transpire to make deals, which are much close to their goals. The parties are further made to adjust their measures of resources to their competitors. Such an equal distribution of resources and money often leads to harmony among both parties in the distributive bargaining approach. Also, harmony is created through distributive bargaining, and zero-sum disputants expand their ties by working together. In this scenario, the involved parties often make their decisions together, even when their ties have been cut. This is done to achieve a possible outcome from both parties. Eventually, distributive bargaining inherits a zero-sum term in which any gain of a competitor is assumed to be a loss to the other party. Thus, both harmony is attained from both parties.