Page 217 - DMGT519_Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Unit 10: Integrative Bargaining

Notes
Table 10.1: Common Differences Between Distributive and Integrative Bargaining Techniques

Experienced negotiators of multiple-issue situations will usually utilize one of three proven
negotiation strategies: (1) distributive bargaining; (2) integrative bargaining, possibly using a
categorization method; or (3) interest-based bargaining (IBB). Of these three strategies, the
integrative process is more commonly utilized because it can generate deals that are more
beneficial to both parties, and also because the parties today do usually have some continuing
relationship and therefore are not solely interested in maximizing their gain in the current
negotiation.

Self Assessment

State whether the following statements are true or false:
6. Active listening is perhaps the single most useful integrative bargaining skill because it
indicates that you are genuinely interested in understanding what the other person is
thinking, feeling, and needing.

7. Contract between parties who place value on their relationship will be substantially
different from negotiations between parties that do not value their relationship.
8. The parties strive to find mutually agreeable solutions to issues of concern and commit to
not using their perceived power or leverage to sway the other party.
9. Distribution generally refers to the process of combining two or more issues into one
proposal that provides something of value to each party.
10. Unethical considerations tend to be subordinated when sports metaphors are applied.

10.3 Thompson’s Pyramid Model

Integrative negotiation, according to negotiation researcher Leigh Thompson of Northwestern
University, can be described as both a process and an outcome of negotiation. The parties
involved seek to integrate their interests and therefore produce negotiated outcomes that exceed
those normally achieved through distributive bargaining. Thompson further suggests a pyramid
model of integrative agreements, as illustrated in Figure 10.1. In the model, Level 1 agreements
are those in which both parties achieve an outcome that is better than their reservation point,
and thus is within the ZOPA. Level 2 agreements produce an outcome that is even better for both
parties than Level 1 agreements, possibly by introducing a new issue for which both parties
have a similar objective. Finally, Level 3 agreements are those for which it is impossible to
improve the outcome from the perspective of both parties, one in which any change that would

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 211