| Course | MGT 445 Organizational Negotiations (MGT/445) |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Negotiation strategy comparison |
| Length | about 1,016 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 445 Week 2
Splitting the Price or Growing the Deal? Distributive and Integrative Bargaining in Harbor Point's Hospital Contract
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MGT/445: Organizational Negotiations
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harbor Point Concrete and all deal terms are composites written for a model paper.
Harbor Point Concrete, the composite Tampa ready-mix company, has prepared to negotiate a $14 million contract to supply a hospital tower. Its opening offer is $212 per cubic yard, its target $203 and its walk-away point $188. The contractor's procurement manager has signaled a target below $195. If the talks focus only on price, they will become a contest over about $15 per cubic yard. When two parties argue over one number, every dollar one wins the other loses, but most business deals contain more than one thing worth negotiating. This paper compares distributive and integrative strategies for the hospital contract.
Distributive Bargaining
Walton and McKersie (1965) described distributive bargaining as negotiation over a fixed sum, where the parties' goals conflict directly. Each side tries to claim as much of the value as possible. Tactics include ambitious opening offers, small and slowing concessions, pointing to alternatives to gain bargaining power and keeping one's own limits hidden.
A Purely Distributive Path
If both sides negotiate only price, Harbor Point opens at $212, the contractor counters at $190 and concessions move toward the middle. A likely result is around $200, within the zone of agreement. The process may be tense, and both sides may leave feeling they gave up too much.
Integrative Bargaining
Integrative bargaining aims to create more value by uncovering interests and finding trades (Fisher et al., 2011). It assumes the parties may value issues differently and that sharing information about priorities can reveal deals that are better for both.
The Fixed-Pie Assumption
Thompson (1991) found that many negotiators wrongly assume the other side's interests are directly opposed to their own and fail to ask about priorities, leaving joint gains unrealized. Harbor Point's team was guilty of this in its first plan, which listed only price.
Identifying Other Issues
Conversations with the contractor's project manager revealed several other issues: payment timing, delivery during night pours when traffic is lighter, a guaranteed minimum volume, cement price escalation, testing responsibilities and penalties for late trucks.
Scoring the Issues
Harbor Point scored each issue by its value to the company. Faster payment, net 30 days instead of the contractor's usual net 60, is worth about $4 per cubic yard to Harbor Point because it reduces borrowing. A guaranteed minimum volume is worth about $3. Night pours cost Harbor Point about $1.50 extra in overtime. The contractor values night pours highly because they let it pour large floor slabs without traffic delays, worth perhaps $5 per cubic yard in schedule savings.
Finding Trades
The scores reveal trades. Harbor Point can offer guaranteed night pours, costing it $1.50 but worth $5 to the contractor, in exchange for net 30 payment, costing the contractor little in a large project but worth $4 to Harbor Point. Both sides gain.
Building a Package Offer
Rather than negotiating issue by issue, Harbor Point will present packages: $203 with net 30, guaranteed night pours and a minimum volume; or $199 with net 30, night pours, minimum volume and a cement escalation clause. Lewicki et al. (2020) recommend multiple equivalent offers, which reveal the other side's priorities by which package it prefers.
Value Created
Under the first package, the contractor pays about $4 more per cubic yard than its target but gains about $5 in schedule savings and payment flexibility on other terms. Harbor Point gains about $4 from faster payment and $3 from volume certainty while spending $1.50 on night pours. Compared with a price-only deal at $200, both parties are better off.
Claiming Value
Creating value does not end the need to divide it. Once the contractor sees the benefit of night pours, it may try to keep the benefit and push price lower. Harbor Point will hold firm near its target, pointing to the value it provides, and will trade rather than give concessions.
Reading the Contractor's Response
Which package the contractor prefers reveals its priorities. If it chooses the lower-price package with the escalation clause, it is signaling that it fears paying a padded price for cement risk and prefers a transparent formula. If it chooses the higher-price package without escalation, it values price certainty for its own budget. Either answer helps Harbor Point refine the final terms. If the contractor rejects both and returns only to price, the sales director will ask which elements matter least, keeping the conversation on trades rather than concessions.
Contingent Agreements
Some disagreements come from different predictions rather than different values. The contractor believes the project will need about 72,000 cubic yards, while Harbor Point's estimators think the design changes will push it closer to 80,000. Instead of arguing, the parties can agree to a contingent term: a price reduction of $1 per cubic yard on volume above 75,000. If the contractor is right, nothing changes; if Harbor Point is right, both benefit from the added volume. Contingent agreements turn disagreements about the future into bets each side is comfortable making.
When Distributive Tactics Fit
Distributive approaches suit one-time transactions with little relationship and a single issue, such as buying a used truck. The hospital contract involves 22 months of daily coordination, so a mostly integrative approach fits better.
Ethics in Hard Bargaining
Tactics such as misrepresenting costs, inventing rival offers or making threats undermine trust and may be unethical or unlawful. Harbor Point will use firm but honest tactics: justifying offers with facts and declining to reveal its limits.
Recommendation
Harbor Point should open with information exchange about priorities, present two package offers built from the scoring table and claim a fair share by trading rather than conceding. The expected result is a price around $201 to $203 with terms worth more to both parties than a price-only deal.
Conclusion
A purely distributive negotiation would split a fixed difference over price. An integrative approach uncovers issues the parties value differently and creates value through trades such as night pours for faster payment. Combining value creation with careful value claiming gives Harbor Point a better deal and a better working relationship.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2020). Negotiation (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Thompson, L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90020-7
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. McGraw-Hill.
What the MGT 445 Week 2 instructions ask
The second MGT 445 assignment typically asks students to compare distributive and integrative negotiation and apply them to a case. Common requirements include definitions and assumptions of each approach, typical tactics, when each is appropriate, the risks of each, ways to create value such as logrolling and package offers, the tension between creating and claiming value and a recommendation for the negotiation at hand. Some prompts ask students to score issues for each party. Use concrete issues and numbers, show how trades create value, address ethics in hard bargaining and cite sources in APA format. Present at least one package offer.
How this MGT 445 Week 2 example is built
A concrete supplier and a hospital contractor can spend the whole negotiation arguing about a few dollars per cubic yard, or they can look at what else matters, and the paper compares both approaches. Distributive bargaining treats price as a fixed pie and relies on anchoring, concessions and pressure. Integrative bargaining looks for issues valued differently, such as payment speed, delivery windows, volume commitments and cement price escalation. A scoring table shows that faster payment matters more to the supplier and guaranteed night pours more to the contractor. Package offers that trade these issues create value for both. The paper recommends integrating first, then claiming a fair share, and shows the value created compared with a price-only deal.
MGT 445 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
Strong strategy papers explain both approaches accurately and show, with specific issues, how value can be created and divided. Instructors credit correct use of terms such as fixed pie, logrolling and package offers, a scoring table or similar tool, recognition that integrative and distributive elements coexist and attention to ethics in hard bargaining. Using research on information sharing and on the fixed-pie bias strengthens the analysis. A recommendation tied to the relationship and the stakes shows judgment. A logical structure and accurate APA references round out the work. Instructors also reward papers that show the arithmetic of value created, comparing the package deal with a price-only outcome, because the claim that both sides gain is only convincing when the numbers are on the page.
MGT 445 Week 2 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often describe integrative bargaining as simply being nice. Explain that it requires finding issues the parties value differently and trading them. Another gap is ignoring the claiming side; even after value is created, someone must divide it. Address both. Students also discuss one issue at a time, which prevents trades. Negotiate packages. Avoid treating distributive bargaining as unethical; it is appropriate in some situations. Use numbers to show value created. Finally, link your recommendation to the long-term relationship, since repeated dealings favor integrative approaches. Explain how the deal will hold up when problems arise during delivery, not only at signing.
Related MGT 445 sample papers
Other MGT 445 week samples
- MGT 445 Week 1: Negotiation Processes
- MGT 445 Week 3: Analyzing Stakeholder Interests
- MGT 445 Week 4: Conflict Management
- MGT 445 Week 5: Culture and Technology in Negotiation
More BS in Business sample papers
- MGT 418 Week 2: Analyzing Markets and Competitors
- MGT 434 Week 2: Applying the ADA and FMLA
- MGT 465 Week 2: The Marketing Plan
- MGT 498 Week 2: Building a Competitive Advantage
MGT 445 Week 2 questions, answered
What does MGT 445 Week 2 usually cover?
It usually covers distributive and integrative negotiation: their assumptions, tactics and risks, ways to create value through trades and packages and how to balance creating and claiming value.
Where can I find a free MGT 445 Week 2 sample paper?
This page shows a complete comparison of distributive and integrative strategies in a concrete supply negotiation, with a scoring table and notes. A free draft of your Week 2 paper can be requested.
What is distributive bargaining?
Negotiation over a fixed amount of value, such as price, where one side's gain is the other's loss. Tactics include anchoring, concessions and citing alternatives to gain bargaining power.
What is integrative bargaining?
Negotiation that seeks to increase the total value available by identifying interests and issues the parties value differently and trading them so both are better off.
What is logrolling in negotiation?
Trading concessions on issues one party values less for gains on issues it values more, creating joint value when the parties have different priorities.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All MGT 445 week samples · All courses