Distributive bargaining entails a negotiation style, which involves participants with fixed and limited resources aspiring to maximize their share in the deal. In this case, there can only be one successful individual regarding share acquisition. Both parties have no interest in the relationship and focus on maximizing their benefits from the fixed resources. In this regard, both parties can concur with the wish of the other party, even if it is counterproductive and costly in the long-term (Adoranti, 2003). For either party not to appear at the disadvantage point during negotiation there is concealment of mush information. Nevertheless, the parties share information regarding the risks and costs logically related to the item of negotiation. This assists in determining the negotiators perception about the item and in defining the other party’s information as much as possible. Since the other negotiator is a rival, such virtues as sentiment, disillusionment, boredom, or indifference during negotiations, are common. Considering the case of the public administrator, the intention to purchase a house involves distributive bargaining where fixed and limited resources settle the deal with an opponent (Cellich, 2004).
The initial stage of the distributive bargaining situation is to identify the fundamental strategies. This process involves pushing of the settlement to the seller’s resistance point with attractive offers and minimal compromises since the information known is little. Through this act, the seller is influence to alter his or her offer based on the value of the item. Consequently, the buyer aims to alter the resistance point of the seller to establish some relationship between the prices. In this case, the buyer wishes to influence the seller to portray that the settlement is the best (Carrell, 2008). With adequate preparation, there are high chances that the buyer would easily identify the least, target and high price offered by the negotiator. As a result, the public administrator should analyze market conditions and identify the preferred real estate company that suits his needs. Through this process, he can identify the cost and type of house available with the fixed and limited resources at his disposal. This will assist the buyer in attaining his or her goals.
With the need to alter the other negotiator’s perception, a negotiator would adopt tactical tasks in this regard (Garrett, 2005). Having identified the real estate company, the public administrator would seek to source some information about the item he wishes to buy from the company. Initially, it is necessary to evaluate the opponent’s target, intolerant point, and cost of concluding the bargain. As a result, he would be able to control and manage the opponent perception of the item in relation to one’s objective during the negotiation process. In addition, if there is such a need, he can modify the impression to streamline with one’s target of the available resources and achieving the desired item. This can be done through manipulation of the opponent’s impression in relation to the real cost of terminating the bargain. For effectiveness of the manipulation, an opponent could adopt disruptive action, coalition with outsiders and schedule manipulation.
After developing the technical tasks appropriate for the negotiations, the next challenge would be to take positions during negotiation (Moore, 1996). The effectiveness of taking positions during the negotiations includes opening offer and stance while making concessions in the process. Concerning the public administrator, it is essential to quote a price way below his target of $310,000 since his opponent does not exhibit any form of emotions or relation. At this point, his offer price should be considerate as not to suffer the benefit gain at closure of the deal. Similarly, various changes should be considered since they influence the opponent’s target value of outcomes and the range of settlement (Ghauri, 1996). Therefore, as a negotiator, the depiction that one portrays to the opponent as either a hard or moderate bargainer plays a vital role as long as there is consistency in the process. As a result, concession would be reached at the end of the process. For an extreme negotiation that leads to the winner’s course or an ultimatum, a negotiator has to reconsider the decision. This will assist him to achieve the needed item.
After the settlement of the difference through negotiations, the deal should be closed. At this stage, there are cautions that it is vital to ensure the closure of the deal is fair. Without necessarily taking the approach of filing the paperwork immediately, there is a need to consider the realism of the starting offers by the two parties (Hendon, 1996). In this case, if one opponent had started with an extremely high offer, it is essential to split the difference to gain benefits. If the offer price stipulated by the company was too high compared to that of the public administrator, he needs to gain from the split of the difference in this regard.
The last stage of the negotiation process is to establish an agreement. In this regard, there is the need to document the conclusion reached with the parties involved to ensure that no changes occur afterwards. Based on these commitments, both parties make promises to the negotiations for any further action (Marsh, 2001). Nevertheless, unless the documentation and signing of the negotiations is undertaken, they might be withdrawn as they are not validated, and could face adjustments. As a result, the agreement of the company and the public administrator regarding the purchase price of $310,000 should undergo documentation and signing to prevent future controversies.