Introduction
The recent development in the Perigee Advanced Design Program (PAD) has been thrown into a circus of confusion occasioned by the recent developments regarding the capability of the major subcontractor to deliver a critical part within the initial timelines and cost. It is projected that the unanticipated obsolescence of the critical part will push the delivery period ahead by 6 months and increase the initial quote by 30 per cent. In effect, the program is on the verge of failure with the consideration that there is no other subcontractor with the capacity to deliver the critical part of the design unless a middle ground is reached between the two parties. The current developments from the subcontractor coupled with the poor working relationship in the past require urgent reconsideration of the terms of engagement without jeopardizing the success chances of the program. Thus, it is absolutely necessary to embark on a spirited negotiation with the subcontractors to ensure that the positions of the two parties in the contract are well understood by the other party and necessary adjustment to the current working conditions implemented. Based on the previous negotiation experiences of a standoff between the two parties, it is evident that the next phase of engagement requires a different approach that would yield a different set of solution. In the design of the new negotiation strategy, it is imperative that the most appropriate business negotiation style between the two existing ones is adopted to help improve and foster a cordial working relationship between the two parties.
Negotiation Styles
Approach to a negotiation situation exist in two ways: it is either through distributive or integrative strategies. Each of the two negotiation styles is useful and productive in specific contexts. Depending on the prevailing circumstance, a negotiator may choose either of the two as long as it favors their objectives (Lewicki, et al., 2011). In order to develop the most effective negotiation style for the PAD context, an understanding of the definitions and principles of the two styles is important. The most notable difference between the two types of negotiation strategies is that is that whereas distributive style is motivated by the sharing of limited resources or conditions, integrative roots for a win-win situation, where a person get rewards for ceding a position or accepted the proposal of the other party.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation as the name suggests is motivated by the giving out or distribution of things or benefits to the parties. The things being distributed are of finite quantities, or there exists a limit. During this time each party strives to get the best of the limited ‘fixed pie’ without necessarily caring for the welfare of the other party. This is a classical nature of negotiation whereby the parties confront each other with a hope of getting what favors them as much as possible in the process. An ideal example is when a seller engages the buyer by going for the best price, whereas the buyer pushes for the lowest possible price. Usually, the people who are involved in this type of negotiation style do not have a previous rapport nor do they anticipate interacting in the future. The nature of circumstances around the one-time interaction between the parties does not require much decorum because the only interest informing the relationship is the issue being negotiated and nothing else.
The guiding principles include limiting the amount of information being shared with the other party to the minimum possible because the less information one party knows about the other, the better for them to exploit the uninformed decision. Secondly, the emergence of information that had been withheld previously may be counter-productive to the withholding party because it may be used to negotiate a higher stake. Thirdly, the negotiating parties in this type of style have no commitment, and they are willing to easily walk away as long as it does not favor them ( Thompson, Peterson & Brodt, 1996) . Notwithstanding the need to pursue the personal interests, the negotiators remain realistic because, without it, the agreement is never reached.
Integrative Approach
The other style of negotiation is an integrative approach which is motivated by the need to incorporate the needs of each party and strike a middle ground where everyone wins something on the least. Thus, the core concept in this type of negotiation is that there are deliberate cooperation and convergence of views to ensure that each party achieves something. In this circumstance, a high degree of trust is required, and it calls for the establishment of a cordial relationship. Although in the business setting it is not possible to strike a win-win situation in all negotiations, there are numerous advantages which both parties derive from a negotiation process when there is a deliberate cooperation on the side of parties. This type of negotiation is ideal for parties who are committing to have a prolonged relationship because the search of a solution is of mutual cooperation.
The first of the four key principles in integrative negotiation style is that there are multiple issues to be considered during negotiation. During the negotiation, the parties consider several issues including those they are willing to trade off in order to gain what is of higher value to them. Secondly, there is unlimited sharing of information with the other party cognisant of the fact that it would result in mutual benefit. The third attribute of integrative negotiation skill is the commitment to solving the problem of the other party by acknowledging that yielding something of lesser value could be the much the other party needs. The fourth principle is a commitment to build and maintain a good business relationship ( Tanya & Azeta, 2010) .
Choice of the best Negotiation Strategy
Considering the circumstances of the problem of the poor working relationship between PAD and the subcontractor and the attributes of the two negotiation styles outlined above, it is clear that the integrative approach is the most appropriate in ironing out the outstanding issues. Through this strategy, each party will not withhold the information regarding the supplies or design parameters to the detriment of the other. Further, either party will benefit the more from the success and stability of the other because the task at hand requires a good working relationship. It has been pointed out that there has been a stand-off in previous negotiations, probably because of lack of commitment by both, either party, or one has been withholding critical information. It is desirable that an agreement with mutual benefit to the program and the subcontractor is arrived at, and the only way to achieve this is through integrative negotiation ( Pruitt & Lewis, 1975) . Therefore, the preparation for such talks should start in earnest and with deliberate assurance to the subcontractor that the Integrated Program Team is very keen on the welfare and stability of all its suppliers including the subcontractor who supplies the critical component.
Once the subcontractor has accepted to join the negotiations table, the I ntegrated Program Team should cede some ground by accepting the extension of the delivery period and part of the initial quotation in the expectation that the other side will revise the current work plan and commit to it in totality. In order to prevent future stalemate on issues that could emerge in the future, and addendum should be included in terms of reference to provide guidelines in the event of such exegesis as unforeseen obsolescence or delays in supply. This will ensure that the current tense relationship will not re-emerge because the road map is anticipated to the benefit of both parties.
References
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Minton, J. W., Roy, J., & Lewicki, N. (2011). Essentials of Negotiation . Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 31 (4), 621.
Tanya, A., & Azeta, C. (2010). Negotiation Theory and Practice: A Review of the Literature. Fao Policy Learning Programme. Easypol-Module , 179 , 6-16.
Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Brodt, S. E. (1996). Team Negotiation: An Examination of Integrative and Distributive Bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 (1), 66.
