Negotiation Theory

Theoretical Tributaries of Negotiation Theory

Traditional negotiation research typically has been grounded in models from game theory, distributive and integrative bargaining, and principled negotiation. Game theory emerged in the 1940s from mathematics and emphasized the way that individuals made decisions within communication situations such as negotiation. Game theory typically portrays individuals as rational actors who, when presented with various options in a particular scenario, will select those options that achieve the optimal solution or gain, allowing them to maximize the material, economic, or socioemotional rewards that they receive from the situation. Similar to games of chance like poker, actors make choices about whether to make a move—discarding a card, for example—depending on an assessment of the likelihood that a particular move will maximize their desired outcome. The theoretical language of game theory presents a picture of interdependent players with conflicting sets of interests or goals who rationally decide to use particular strategies that will allow them to maximize their gains and minimize their losses by receiving payoffs. Game theory is strongly associated with the Prisoner's Dilemma, a multiplayer game in which players make choices as to what course of action to take based on a matrix of anticipated payoffs.

The concepts of integrative and distributive bargaining emerged from Richard Walton and Robert McKersie's classic book, The Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, an extensive treatment of collective bargaining among labor and management. Their model emphasized four elements that characterized labor negotiation: (1) distributive bargaining; (2) integrative bargaining; (3) attitudinal structuring; and (4) intraorganizational bargaining. Subsequent negotiation theory and research has paid great attention to the elements of distributive and integrative bargaining.

Negotiation situations in general are characterized by interdependence, and distributive and integrative bargaining can be distinguished by the way interdependence is approached. Distributive bargaining emphasizes a zero-sum form of interdependence where a person can achieve his or her goals at the expense of the other, generating win-lose outcomes. Integrative bargaining represents a variable-sum form of interdependence that accentuates mutual gains or win-win outcomes, the notion that the accomplishment of a person's goals can also help others achieve their goals. Theory and research into distributive and integrative forms of bargaining have addressed a number of issues that shape the negotiation process including (a) the impact of initial offers, (b) the development of tough or soft approaches to bargaining, (c) the influence of bargaining power, (d) the character of the negotiation interaction as measured by such factors as the contentiousness of behavior, and (e) the nature of the bargaining relationship.

...