Distributive Bargain and Integrative Negotiation
Distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation are two unique strategies employed in the field of negotiation designed to ensure parties always reach mutually acceptable agreements. Both techniques attempt to end disputes and come to agreements, but they have different guiding concepts and tactics. In a competitive strategy known as distributive bargaining, which is sometimes referred to as positional bargaining or win-lose negotiation, the parties engaged view the negotiation as a zero-sum game. The emphasis in this strategy is on securing and distributing a predetermined set of assets or value.
Read also Integrative Negotiation and Its Four Key Steps
According to Lewicki (2015), the goals of each party are to maximize their own gains and limit those of the opposing side. Securing the maximum feasible share of the available resources or concessions is the main goal of distributive negotiation. Extreme first offers, high expectations, strategic bluffing, and deceit are just a few strategies that may be employed to your benefit. When parties engage in distributive bargaining, one party often comes out ahead while the other loses. Integrative negotiation, commonly referred to as collaborative or win-win negotiation, is the opposite; it places a strong emphasis on collaboration and mutual gain. In integrative negotiation, the parties collaborate to identify innovative solutions that maximize shared benefits and address the core concerns of both sides. The goal is to increase the size of the available resource or value pie by working together to solve problems and share knowledge.
Read also Plea Bargaining, Its Definition, History and Discussion
Integrative bargaining sees the negotiation as a cooperative process where both sides may achieve their goals without compromising one another’s positions, in contrast to distributive bargaining. Integrative negotiators look for win-win outcomes by considering shared interests, coming up with innovative ideas, and discussing possible outcomes. An agreement that meets the requirements and interests of all parties concerned is the outcome of integrative negotiation. While integrative negotiation is a collaborative process where parties work together to discover win-win solutions, distributive bargaining is a competitive method where parties seek to maximize their own profits at the expense of the other party. Depending on the nature of the disagreement and the desired goal, choosing the best negotiating method requires an understanding of the distinctions between these two approaches.
Read also Public Organization Budget And Collective Bargaining Processes
Differences Between Distributive Bargain and Integrative Negotiation
Today, distributive bargain and integrative negotiation are two of the most common strategies employed during routine negotiations. Both techniques strive to end disputes and come to agreements, but they have different guiding concepts, tactics, and results. In a competitive strategy known as distributive bargaining, which is sometimes referred to as positional bargaining or win-lose negotiation, the parties engaged view the negotiation as a zero-sum game. In distributive bargaining, each side aims to get the maximum feasible share for themselves out of a certain quantity of resources or value to be shared. Gaining concessions and maximizing personal benefits are the main goals. This strategy frequently employs forceful techniques such making excessive opening offers, setting lofty goals, and using authority to sway the outcome. Parties may use several strategies to outwit the opposition, including withholding information, bluffing, and others (Mnookin et al., 2017).
Read also Negotiation Techniques – Public Private Partnerships
Because the benefits obtained by one side come at the expense of the other, distributive bargaining often results in one party winning and the other party losing. Integrative negotiation is a strategy that promotes collaboration and mutual gain. It is sometimes referred to as collaborative negotiation or win-win negotiation. In integrative negotiation, the parties see the process as a way to solve problems rather than as a means of conflict resolution. The goal is to increase the size of the available resource or value pie so that both parties may realize their goals. In this strategy, the parties actively work to comprehend one another’s requirements, interests, and core issues. They converse freely, exchange information, and come up with inventive solutions to solve problems that can fulfill the needs of both sides.
Read also Conflict Management , Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Approaches and Models
Integrative negotiation aims to get to a mutually beneficial agreement that takes into account the requirements and interests of all parties. Both sides gain from the conclusion of integrative negotiation and feel as though their objectives have been met without weakening the other party. In addition to having different techniques, distributive bargaining and integrative negotiating both have different underlying presuppositions and objectives. In distributive bargaining, it is assumed that the resources to be distributed are fixed and that any gain for one side must entail a loss for the other. In contrast, integrative negotiation makes the assumption that the parties may find new sources of value and come to agreements that meet the needs of all parties by working together and creatively (Susskind, 2019).
Read also Sample Negotiation Plan For An Emerging Market – Asia
Integrative negotiation aims to establish and sustain connections as well as open doors for potential future cooperation. In real-world situations, the decision between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation is influenced by a number of variables, such as the nature of the dispute, the dynamics between the parties, and the ultimate goals. While distributive negotiating may be suitable in some circumstances when assertiveness and competitiveness are required, integrative negotiation is typically seen to be more successful in establishing long-term partnerships, encouraging collaboration, and producing win-win solutions. A win-lose situation is frequently the consequence of the competitive strategy known as distributive bargaining, when parties compete to obtain the highest possible share of a fixed set of resources. On the other hand, integrative negotiation is a cooperative strategy that aims to increase the resources at hand and arrive at agreements that are acceptable to both parties.
Read also Undesirable Tactics for Persuasion Used in International Negotiations
Best Style for Negotiation
The parties engaged, the negotiation’s setting, and the desired results all play a role in determining the ideal method to choose within the context of negotiation. While there is no one solution that works for everyone, a collaborative and integrative negotiation style has a tendency to be more successful in securing win-win agreements and fostering long-lasting partnerships. Finding innovative solutions that serve the interests of all parties is the main goal of collaborative negotiation, sometimes referred to as win-win negotiation or integrative negotiation. It promotes direct communication, attentive listening, and a proactive approach to problem-solving. This approach encourages the parties to collaborate in order to find areas of overlap, go deeper into underlying requirements and issues, and come up with solutions that are beneficial to everyone. The famous Camp David Accords, which were signed in 1978, provide a practical illustration of successful joint negotiating. Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, the prime minister of Israel, participated in the discussions, which were mediated by then-US President Jimmy Carter (Fisher et al., 2012). The objective was to bring about peace between Egypt and Israel, two nations that had long-standing disputes and opposing interests.
Read also Memo on How To be a Good Negotiator
The collaborative bargaining approach was essential throughout the whole process. By serving as a mediator, President Carter helped the parties establish trust and a culture of open dialogue. He urged Sadat and Begin to voice their worries, hopes, and fundamental wants. Negotiators were able to discover similar interests, such as regional security and stability, by actively listening to one other and looking for points of agreement. Collaboration, creativity, and compromise all played a part in the negotiating process at Camp David. The parties concentrated on developing solutions that addressed the basic interests of both sides rather than seeing the discussion as a win-lose scenario. The Camp David Accords, which contained the historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, were created as a result of this strategy. The negotiating process at Camp David was successful, which is an illustration of how productive collaborative negotiation is. The negotiators were able to reach a win-win conclusion that had an influence on the area for a long time by putting a priority on teamwork, trust-building, and innovative problem-solving. The setting and intended results will determine the most effective negotiating approach.
Different negotiating approaches could be effective in particular circumstances, but a collaborative and integrative approach frequently results in win-win agreements and the maintenance of long-term partnerships. The Camp David Accords serve as an example of the effectiveness of collaborative negotiation in resolving difficult disputes and attaining landmark accords.