Compare and contrast integrative and distributive approaches to negotiation.
Stoshikj (2014) quotes Rubin and Brown (1975) stating “negotiations as the process whereby people attempt to settle what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction between them”. The two key strategies in negotiations are: distributive negotiation and integrative negotiation.
Distributive, or ‘fixed pie’, negotiations occur when there is a finite resource among negotiators with limited resourced for the taking, every party views the other party as a competitor and this is well reflected in the negotiation process. Each party tries to claim a bigger piece of the resources, but must have knowledge about its competitors’ position. This strategy requires acting defensive and reserved as it is important not to let your competitor know your position. Most negotiators in this situation believe that whatever is good for one party must be bad for the counterparty. Integrative negotiation contrasts the above, it involves a joint initiative from both parties, that will prove beneficial to all. Both parties focus their efforts towards increasing the total payoff through mutual collaboration. This strategy involves forming a relationship with the other party, as it is based on a joint effort and the common interest of all parties involved.
Thakur (2018) highlights the key differences between distributive and integrated negotiation strategies:
· Distributive negotiation ends up in a win-lose situation, where one party stands at an advantage and the other as a loss. Whereas, integrated negotiation results in a win-win scenario for all parties involved.
· Distributive negotiation is competitive in nature and requires each party to view the other as a competitor, while integrated negotiations is a collaboration where a relationship and a trust is formed between the parties.
· Integrative negotiation works as conflict management; on the other hand, distributive negotiation intensifies conflict.
· In distributive negotiation every negotiator focuses on meeting personal needs, regardless of the consequential loss the other party may have to face. On the contrary, integrative negotiation focuses on mutual needs of the parties and finds a solution that will benefit all parties involved.
As outlined above, there are several key differences between the two strategies, as distributive focuses on situations where there is a limited supply of resources offered between two or more parties, integrative is about making the best of the situation for all parties involved. Distributive negotiation focuses on meeting personal needs without considering the negative effects competitors will face, this approach suits best when the two parties have never interacted before, and will not in the future therefore there is no reason to build a relationship. In contrast, integrative is focused on mutual needs of all parties involved, it forms a stronger level of trust and a long last...