Definition of Integrative Negotiation

Integrative Negotiation implies a collaborative negotiation strategy, in which parties seek a win-win
solution to settle the conflict.

In this process, the parties aims and goals are likely to be integrated in such a way that creates a
combined value for both the parties and thus results in enlarging the pie. It stresses on reaching a
mutually beneficial and acceptable outcome, keeping in mind the interest, needs, concerns, and
preferences of the parties concerned.

The technique is based on the concept of value creation, that yields substantial gain to each party. In
this type of negotiation, two or more issues are negotiated at a time.

https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-distributive-and-integrative-
negotiation.html#:~:text=Distributive%20Negotiation%20is%20the%20negotiation,to%20be%20divided
%20between%20parties.

Integrative Bargaining Elements

There are some negotiations in which it’s in your interest to find a solution in which both parties feel as
if they gained something in the deal. This is known as integrative bargaining, and the best way to think
about this strategy is that it’s a “win-win” for both parties. The idea is that you’re negotiating in such a
way that you take the other party’s wants, needs, fears, and concerns into the equation. Instead of
simply worrying about losing less than the other party, you are looking for a solution in which both
parties have to give up something to finalize the deal.

Using the previous illustration of negotiating with a vendor, integrative bargaining would seek to ensure
that both you and the vendor lost an equal amount. With that in mind, you would agree to a price of
$4,900, which means that the vendor loses $100 in the negotiation, and you also lose $100. You would
both leave the negotiation table, with both of you feeling that you compromised but took each other’s
wants and needs into consideration.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-distributive-bargaining-integrative-bargaining-
11582.html

In integrative bargaining, creativity can lead to value-creation for both parties, as each side seeks to
create an agreement beneficial to both parties. Through integrative bargaining, situations that initially
look like win-lose negotiations can often be turned into opportunities for mutual gain and value creation

Of course, integrative bargaining has its limits, and the art of negotiation lies in simultaneously creating
and claiming value, or “riding two different horses at the same time.”

One roadblock is that negotiators are often cautious about revealing too much information, yet
integrative bargaining explicitly relies upon revealing preferences and interests. However, an emphasis
on relationship building marks integrative bargaining’s approach as being oriented toward a long-term
vision for future negotiations with your counterpart.

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/tag/integrative-bargaining/
This is quite a contrast to the above strategy as this involves a joint initiative that will prove beneficial to
all the negotiating parties. The negotiators do not build up on how much they will receive; rather all
efforts are directed at increasing the total payoff through mutual cooperation. Since this negotiation
strategy is based on common interests and joint efforts of all the parties involved in the negotiation,
each party perceives the others as friends and collaborators.

https://www.brighthubpm.com/methods-strategies/114091-comparing-distributive-and-integrative-
negotiation-strategies/

Integrative or "interest-based" bargaining is a form of negotiation in which each party attempts to

understand the other's interests, on the expectation that it will achieve a better result by helping the
opponent create a solution it sees as responsive to its own concerns.

Integrative bargaining (sometimes called "win-win") depends on understanding that parties often fail to
reach agreement when agreement would have been in both parties' interests, or reach an agreement
which could have been better for both parties. In integrative bargaining, each party works at
understanding what the other really needs out of the negotiation. This, in turn, depends on being able
to question the other party about their interests, or otherwise discover what they really are (i.e. it is
possible for one party to lead into this process even if the other party initially is not cooperative). In
integrative bargaining, parties will tend to avoid taking arbitrary "positions," while still being assertive
about their needs. This approach is clearly distinguishable from "distributive" or "positional" bargaining,
in which the usual sequence is for one party to start unrealistically "high" and the other to start low,
with successive offers narrowing the difference — without either party really understanding what the
other seeks to achieve.

There is a tension between the two approaches: Many negotiators believe that keeping as much as
possible of their own side's information secret from the other party strengthens their ability to obtain a
favorable deal. In distributive bargaining, this is probably true. But in order for integrative bargaining to
work, information must be shared. This can often produce a better result than the same negotiator
could have achieved using distributive methods. The "catch" is that there is reason to believe that when
one party aggressively uses positional methods while the other seeks an integrative solution, the
aggressive positional party will get more.

One consequence is that many negotiators practice an elaborate form of "tit for tat," in which the initial
object is to find out whether the opponent is willing to play by integrative principles. If the opponent
won't play by these rules, the negotiator may feel safer reverting to a distributive approach.

https://www.beyondintractability.org/coreknowledge/integrative-bargaining

Integrative refers to the potential for the parties' interests to be [combined] in ways that create joint
value or enlarge the pie. (Watkins & Rosegrant, 2002) A pie provides the perfect classical example to
explain this. Disputing parties can work together to make the pie bigger, so there is enough for both to
have as much as they want, or they can focus on cutting the pie up, trying to get as much as they can,
individual, for themselves. Integrative bargaining tends to be more cooperative, and distributive
bargaining more competitive

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/integrative-bargaining-versus-distributive-vedant-prusty
What are Integrative Negotiations?

The interests or objectives of the parties are related and are NOT mutually exclusive. Any value claimed
by one party is not at the expense of the other party; rather, the parties negotiate to create or generate
value in the situation and both parties may achieve mutual gains beyond what they could achieve
independently. This is a potentially (win-win) scenario.

Parties must generally much some degree of tradeoffs to improve both interests from their best
alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). These tradeoffs allow each party to gain in an interest
that is important to her in exchange for the other party gaining in an interest that is important to him.
The net result is both parties being better off because of the negotiation.

https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/communications-negotiations/integrative-distributive-and-
compatible-bargaining

In the integrative (or principled) negotiation strategy, parties explore options to increase thesize of the
joint gain, before focusing on the division of payoffs (Patton, 2015; Pruitt & Rubin,1986). This tends to
solve problems jointly and to benefit all parties, as negotiators distributethe increased value by applying
objective criteria (rather than haggling, as in distributive negoti-ation) (Fisher et al., 1981). Integrative
negotiation is claimed to be superior to distributive nego-tiation because it gradually yields a more
efficient and longer term agreement, to the benefit of allparties (Brett & Thompson, 2016).

(PDF) Distributive/Integrative Negotiation Strategies in International Contexts: A Comparative Study.

Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334869326_DistributiveIntegrative_Negotiation_Strategies_i
n_International_Contexts_A_Comparative_Study [accessed May 21 2022].

the integrative process involves both concession making and a search for mutually profitable
alternatives. the meaning of “flexibility” is not always the same.  in the integrative negotiations
setting, it means in addition “readiness to engage in the search process.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716295542001004

Integrative bargaining. This type of bargaining emphasizes the importance of maximizing joint gains.

Rather than viewing bargaining from a win-lose perspective, integrative bargaining adopts a win-win
orientation where parties try to create agreements where both can prosper. Integrative bargaining
assumes

that both parties share multiple overlapping issues and that the best way to deal with these multiple

issues is to be flexible in one’s position and to engage in cooperative problem solving. By engaging in

cooperative problem solving the pie becomes expandable, as the focus becomes on developing creative

solutions that expand the pie in ways that ensure both parties can get what they need. Integrative
bargainers tend to use the following kinds of strategies and tactics:
• Integrative bargainers share their information openly and divulge their needs and objectives.
Information disclosure is viewed as facilitating the problem-solving process as it allows bargainers to
define

problems, identify causes, develop solutions, and evaluate the merits of proposed solutions.

• Integrative bargainers tend to use soft rather than hard tactics. They tend to make statements that

support the other party and use exploratory problem-solving messages.

• Integrative bargainers drop particular agenda items, separate issues, and recombine issues in creative

ways as they move through the negotiation. This opens up the room for developing novel solutions to

the problem

Use an integrative approach:

• When you and the other party have common interests.

• When the other party is willing to consider a win-win approach.

• When a continuing, harmonious relationship is important.

• When you are weaker or power is approximately equal.

• When long-term goals are more important.

Principled Negotiation under integrative negotiation

The dominant model of integrative bargaining is principled negotiation. The idea of principled
negotiation

was developed in Roger Fisher and William Ury’s classic book, Getting to Yes. In this book they
distinguish

between what they call positional bargaining and principled negotiation. Positional bargaining occurs
when

people negotiate according to their positions or statements of what they want to get out of the
situation.

Positional bargaining is a form of distributive bargaining where both parties view the conflict as a win-
lose

situation. Positional bargaining can take one of two forms: (1) soft, and (2) hard.

Soft positional bargaining emphasizes the importance of building relationships, which may mean that
the parties take a soft line toward the negotiation. This may create a win-lose outcome as they lose by

giving up too much in an effort to maintain a friendly environment and good relationship. Soft positional

bargaining is characterized by the following:

• Participants are friends.

• The goal is agreement.

• Make concessions to cultivate the relationship.

• Be soft on the people and the problem.

• Trust others.

• Make offers.

• Disclose your bottom line.

• Accept one-sided losses to reach agreement.

• Search for the single answer: the one they will accept.

• Insist on agreement.

• Try to avoid a contest of will.

• Yield to pressure.7

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08b4540f0b652dd000bca/Negotiationweb.pdf

Integrative bargaining (also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation

strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses
on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. Interests include
the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why
people become involved in a conflict.

"Integrative refers to the potential for the parties' interests to be [combined] in ways that create joint
value or enlarge the pie."[1] Potential for integration only exists when there are multiple issues involved
in the negotiation. This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for
both sides to be satisfied with the outcome

https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interest-based-bargaining