What are the differences between distributive negotiation and integrative negotiation?
In the realm of negotiation, there are two distinct approaches to negotiation scenarios, each with their own specific strategies and desired outcomes. Integrative negotiations are commonly referred to as “win-win” negotiations that take a collaborative approach to finding mutually beneficial solutions to all parties involved. On the other hand, distributive negotiations are considered “zero-sum” negotiations that typically involve limited sources where one party’s gain is another’s loss. Both methods have their place depending on the situation and surrounding nuances. These negotiation styles can also be explored further through workshops or a professional certificate in negotiation. Deciding when to use a distributive or integrative approach depends on an assessment of the parties involved and the desired outcomes of each. Whatever strategy is used, it’s important to have it in place before negotiations begin or you run the risk of settling for less than what was originally sought.
Integrative Negotiations Take a Collaborative Approach
When thinking about integrative negotiations, remember that win-win negotiation strategies focus on achieving outcomes that meet the interests and needs of all parties, enhancing mutual benefits and fostering enduring positive relationships. In integrative negotiations, the parties involved seek mutually beneficial solutions by addressing the underlying interests of both sides. The goal is to create value and expand the available resources, making it possible for all parties to achieve their objectives. Examples of integrative negotiations may include business partnerships, conflict resolutions, trade agreements or joint ventures – where each party holds a stake and wishes to land on a mutually-beneficial outcome. One of the chief characteristics of integrative negotiations is the belief that through cooperation, the number of resources or benefits involved in the negotiations can increase. This approach is especially powerful for businesses negotiating with suppliers, distributors and partners. Done properly, all parties can leave feeling like they achieved their goals. Integrative negotiations can also build loyalty between parties. The emphasis is on building and maintaining relationships for future cooperation, with parties considering the interests and needs of all parties rather than sticking to fixed positions.
Distributive Negotiations Involve Situations That Are Inherently Competitive
Sometimes negotiations involve fixed resources and are focused on dividing those resources between the parties involved. These distributive negotiations are, by their very nature, competitive. They often involve more aggressive tactics and lead to a win-lose approach where one party attempts to come out ahead of the other party. Examples of situations where distributive negotiations may be used include salary negotiations between employers and employees, price bargaining, and situations where a single issue is the focus, such as buying a car or a house. In distributive negotiations, the assumption is that there are limited resources to divide. In many cases, those resources are money, property or items of value. Each party takes a competitive approach, seeking to maximize their share of the resources. Unlike integrative negotiations, the focus is on short-term gains, not long-term solutions. A common tactic in distributive negotiations is positional bargaining, meaning a party stakes out a position and is less likely to budge in the scenario based on the scarcity of the resource.
Finding Ways to Diffuse Adversarial Negotiations
In some cases, negotiations can unnecessarily turn adversarial. In this case, one of the parties may attempt to make negotiations less distributive and more integrative. If faced with an adversarial negotiator, one strategy is to use the TACTIC approach.
Take a deep breath: When faced with an adversarial negotiator, it’s important to maintain your composure and not react impulsively. Taking a step back allows you to assess the situation objectively, understand the underlying issues, and avoid being drawn into emotional or confrontational exchanges.
Acknowledge the disagreement: Analyze the adversary’s position to understand their interests and motivations. This assessment helps you identify potential areas of compromise and prepares you for their tactics.
Clarify the concern: Ask open-ended questions to clarify the concern or nature of the adversarial situation. Often just asking a few questions and then listening can diffuse the situation and create an atmosphere of collaboration instead of conflict.
Transfer the focus: Focus on substantive issues at hand rather than personal attacks or antagonistic behavior. By concentrating on the problems that need solving, it’s possible to steer the conversation towards productive solutions.
Investigate mutually beneficial alternatives: Think creatively about how to resolve the differences and find solutions. By working to understand the other side’s perspective, it’s possible to find more than one way to resolve a sticking point.
Confirm next steps: This involves getting confirmation from the other party that the best solution has been found and that the negotiations can proceed from this point. This is done to get a commitment from the other party that they are willing to work together in a productive way rather than falling back into one-sided attacks.
It’s helpful to consider these tactics in case to avoid becoming an aggressive negotiator, which can lead to an impasse or deadlock in negotiations, damage to long-term relationships, a sullied reputation and reaching agreements that are less than optimal.
Distributive and integrative negotiations are two of the topics covered in the online Negotiation Fundamentals Certificate offered through Kelley Executive Education in the Kelley School of Business. Learn how to increase your skills and confidence in the art of managing successful negotiations by registering for a course designed to make you rethink what you know about negotiation.
Leave a Reply