As you now understand, the tension between cooperative value-creating strategies (integrative) and competitive value- claiming (distributive) strategies results in a dilemma for the negotiator. If both parties cooperate they will both have GOOD outcomes. If one cooperates while the other competes the cooperative party will get a TERRIBLE outcome, while the competitive party will achieve a GREAT outcome. If both parties compete they both will get a MEDIOCRE outcome. The dilemma is that both parties are better off if they both cooperate. They will both get good outcomes, as opposed to mediocre or terrible outcomes. However, in the face of uncertainty as to the other's choice of strategy, each side's best choice is to compete. They will either get the great outcome, or avoid a terrible outcome and get a mediocre outcome. If the other is cooperating, the first side actually has an incentive to compete. Of course, when each party follows this reasoning and adopts the competitive strategy they both end up worse off, with mediocre outcomes. Thus acting on a rational calculation of their individual best interests causes the parties to forego cooperative gains, and actually leaves them worse off than they could have been.

In real negotiations these choices present themselves at each stage, and the line between creating and claiming tactics is not clear cut. Win/Lose often produces compromises that are unfulfilling and perhaps unwise, but the skills to recognize and apply of each strategy must be an integral part of a negotiators arsenal.

Discuss these 2 scenarios and outcomes;

1: Your computer just crashed. It is 5 years old and not worth fixing. You have not more than $1,000 to spend on a new computer but the lowest price that you can find either online or in a local store for the model that you absolutely need is $1,100. What would you say to the salesperson to convince him or her to sell you the computer for $1,000. Consider objections that the sales representative might make and how you would respond to them.

2. If deeply entrenched parties select "compromise" as their negotiating tactic, what are the possible downsides to such an agreement?