Page 215 - DMGT519_Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Unit 10: Integrative Bargaining

Notes
relationship. As their current three-year contract is about to end, they begin negotiations
for a new agreement. In general the company, the union, and the workers have experienced
prosperity in recent years and certainly expect to continue their positive relationship. In
their first meeting they openly share several important sources of information. Management
provides the company’s financial data for each of the past three years as well as sales
projections for the current year. The union negotiators provide copies of contracts
negotiated within the past year within the industry and for similar regional employers
within other industries. The union shares the results of a recent survey of its members that
indicates the issues that are important to them and their rank priority. Management lays
on the table a copy of the ground rules that they adopted three years ago, and both sides
quickly agree to adopt them for the current negotiations. One ground rule provides that
both sides will bring a list of all economic and noneconomic issues they want to negotiate
to the next meeting.

Integrative versus Distributive Bargaining

The integrative bargaining process is different from the distributive process in many aspects,
although both are broad, not exact, concepts—and therefore in practice a negotiator might
utilize aspects of both in a given negotiation situation. However, it is helpful to recognize that
the two methods begin with distinctly different strategies. In distributive (or win-lose) bargaining
both sides view their own goals as being in direct conflict with those of the other side.
The negotiators approach each issue as a “fixed pie”—the larger one piece is, the smaller the
other. Each side wants to maximize its share of the resources, or pie.
Generally all negotiators must be prepared to use distributive bargaining, because many
negotiators use the method—and if one side uses it exclusively, then the other is usually forced
to adopt it as well. Negotiators who wish to triumph over the other party, or maximize their
outcome at all costs, often choose the distributive or win-lose approach. In integrative bargaining,
on the other hand, both parties begin with a spirit of collaboration and seek to identify mutual-
gain options (to “expand the pie”) as well as gain their share of the resources (or claim their
share of the pie). To help recognize the differences, consider the factors and common strategies
of the two methods, as presented in Table 10.1.

10.2 The Integrative Negotiation Process

Complex negotiations such as collective bargaining between management and union
representatives, supplier–buyer contracts, agreements between employers and health care
providers—as well as some personal negotiations such as building a new house, dividing an
estate among heirs, or reaching a divorce settlement—often involve multiple issues. Novice
negotiators sometimes utilize the single-issue distributive process described for each of the
10, 20, or more issues—settling each separately, one at a time. By comparison, an alternative
method would be to consider all the issues simultaneously, and reach agreement on all issues at
the same time—but that can easily become unwieldy. Thus, most experienced negotiators try to
divide the issues into general groups—such as “highly important,” “somewhat important,” and
those “of little value.” Usually negotiators prefer to start negotiations by quickly resolving a
few of the issues of little value, which creates a positive atmosphere and a sense of progress.

Did u know? Using Win-Lose or Win-Win Metaphors
Should negotiators think in terms of “win-lose” or “win-win” bargaining? Are these
metaphors appropriate in the context of negotiations? Leonard Greenhalgh, in a classic

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 209