According to Boulware, the position would be locked in and would not be modified unless new material facts or considerations came to light. It was commonly used to refer to "take-it or leave-it" bargaining tactics. Before making the offer, the offering party would check all relevant details of the labor dispute, such as competitors' policy on similar problems and industry standards. In the 1950s, negotiations with labor unions, Boulwarism was an offer which was ultimate and to which no further revisions would be made. It may unintentionally cut off negotiations if the offeror was bluffing about the offer being bottom line, or the tactic may result in parties walking away from the negotiations. (Using the above example on car sales, statistics show that buyers want a discount off the advertised price.) Experts say statistics show that while those using Boulwarism may think a take-it-or-leave-it offer shows that they are negotiators or tell all concerned that "the client means business," Boulwarism may instill resentment, bitterness, or someone taking offense. Nevertheless, most negotiation experts describe Boulwarism as detrimental. In contrast to its use in collective bargaining, Boulwarism is a lawful negotiation tactic between private parties. One example of Boulwarism is a car dealership advertising "Bottom Line Pricing" on its cars, and enforcing that policy. It was named after General Electric's former vice president Lemuel Boulware, who promoted the strategy. Boulwarism is the tactic of making a "take-it-or-leave-it" offer in a negotiation, with no further concessions or discussion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |