Integrative versus Distributive Bargaining Negotiation Strategies.
Expanding the Pie: Integrative versus Distributive Bargaining Negotiation Strategies.
Imagine that you’re buying a used car from its original owner. Of course, you want to get the best deal you can for your money, while your counterpart wants to maximize the value of his asset. After haggling with one another, each side finally arrives at a price point acceptable to both parties.
The above scenario is common in many transactional negotiations: You hold your cards close and share as little information as needed to achieve your goal. But imagine a different scenario, one in which both parties reveal their interests at the onset of a negotiation.
An article by Katie Johnston for Harvard Business School, “The Art of Haggling,” describes the difference between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. Getting to Yes, the seminal work from Harvard Law School professor and Program on Negotiation founder Roger Fisher and Harvard Negotiation Project Senior Fellow and Program on Negotiation cofounder William Ury, advocates for integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining, each side seeks to create an agreement beneficial to both parties.
The integrative approach is taught in most professional schools because some situations that initially look like win-lose negotiations can often be turned into opportunities for mutual gain and value creation.
Of course, the integrative approach has its limits, and negotiators are often cautious about revealing too much information, but integrative bargaining explicitly relies upon revealing preferences and interests.
Required:
- Do you think integrative approach to negotiation is more effective that distributive approach? (250 words minimum)
- Critically discuss hypothetical situations where either style of negotiation would not be effective within the context of cultural, ethics and communication variables. (250 words minimum)
