Question 1: How would you characterize the N.H.L. negotiation _as distributive or integrative?

From what perspective did the parties approach the negotiation? How might the approach have affected the outcome? Answer: The N.H.L negotiation was a distributive. Neither party was bargaining at a win-win situation, every party stayed distributive bargaining (win-loss situation). Both parties approach was distributive perspective. Nobody wants to consider as integrative bargaining. For this kind of approach the outcome of negotiation was zero. As a result, N.H.L. season was cancelled which was negative for everyone. Question 2: What factors do you believe led to the lake of a settlement in the N.H.L. negotiations? How might you have handled the negotiation if you were a representative of the league? Of the players union? Answer: The following factors were lake of the settlement in N.H.L. negotiation: # Havent any specific planning and preparation for the negotiation. # Ground rules were not fully informed. # Poor clarification and justification. # No fear intensity for integrative bargaining and problem solving in any party. For all of these they can not get a positive closure and implementation. They can not find out the BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) also. If I will be representative of the league/players union Ive handled the following way: # Make integrative bargaining by offering $45 million per team. # Find out the BATNA for each party.