Negotiation

Optimally Distributive and Integrative

When the average person envisions negotiation, they see what is referred to in negotiation literature as the distributive dance. The field of negotiation stresses distributive bargaining, a simple linear model, with what is termed a fixed pie, or limited resources to be divided, such as water. Negotiating the price of a good further exemplifies straightforward distributive dynamics. The buyer or seller begins with an opening offer or position. The other party responds with a counteroffer or demand. Through a series of moves and countermoves, the parties proceed to split the difference—the distance between the two offers, with a predictable dance of proportional and responsive concessions until they reach agreement through compromise.

Most negotiations, however, do not merely involve a fixed pie to be divided. They encompass complex layers of interests and needs to be explored, identified, and satisfied, rather than split. Integrative in contrast to distributive bargaining assumes interdependence. It is designed to handle complexity. It expects that different stakeholders will define desired outcomes in their own subjective ways. It does not equate such difference in frameworks with distributive positioning. Instead, diverse perspectives are mined and reframed in search for options maximizing satisfaction, without requiring change in mandate. Negotiating different perceptions of risk and value, for example, such as the worth of endangered species and thousands of jobs or reduced infant mortality versus tons of ore, requires integrative bargaining. Integrative parties might ask: How can we generate ore and protect infants simultaneously?

Roger Fisher, founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project, introduced and popularized interest analysis as an alternative to positional, or power-based, bargaining. Rather than expecting political leaders to abandon their postures, they are analyzed. The principals' underlying interests provide an explicit framework for stimulating creative problem solving.

In contrast, framing a complex conflict with linear logic as a simple either/or, win-lose paradigm can polarize. Overly confident distributive moves risk escalating hostility, eroding trust, and otherwise inciting unproductive moves, particularly with conflict involving groups. A seminal study of U.S. lawyers described the least effective lawyers with words like arrogant, stubborn, unethical, and egotistic. A recent study of multicultural leadership of conflict process in four parts of the world likewise described the least effective leadership as closed minded, judgmental, insensitive, negative, and indifferent. Even if a party succeeds in forcing its desire, the agreement is unlikely to last. The risk of public scrutiny and negative publicity is high.

Distributive bargaining in the international arena makes most sense with true fixed pies. Even then, it must be exercised with skill and strategy to avoid incurring the costs previously described.

United Nations and other international case studies evaluating negotiation indicate that integrative approaches as a whole generally result in superior outcomes. Simple logic advocates that agreements reached by consensus are more sustainable and easier to implement than those imposed. Mediators, or facilitators of negotiation, are increasingly recognized as contributing sophistication when parties lack knowledge and experience with integrative bargaining. In the global study of multicultural leadership previously mentioned, careful listening alone was instrumental to progress, particularly with cross-ethnic negotiation.

...