Distributive Bargaining vs. Integrative Bargaining

Attribute	Distributive Bargaining	Integrative Bargaining
Goal	Maximize individual gains	Create value for both parties
Approach	Win-lose	Win-win
Focus	Positional	Interest-based
Information sharing	Limited	Open and transparent
Relationship	Competitive	Collaborative

Definition

Distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining are two common negotiation strategies used in various situations. Distributive bargaining, also known as competitive or zero-sum bargaining, involves a fixed amount of resources that must be divided between the parties. In this approach, one party's gain is the other party's loss. On the other hand, integrative bargaining, also known as collaborative or win-win bargaining, focuses on creating value for both parties by finding mutually beneficial solutions.

Goal

The primary goal of distributive bargaining is to maximize one's own share of the resources at the expense of the other party. This approach is often used in situations where there is a limited amount of resources to be divided, such as in labor negotiations or price haggling. In contrast, the goal of integrative bargaining is to expand the pie and create value for both parties. This approach is more suitable for complex negotiations where there are multiple issues to be addressed.

Focus

In distributive bargaining, the focus is on claiming value from the fixed pool of resources. Each party tries to outmaneuver the other to secure a larger share of the pie. This often leads to a competitive and adversarial atmosphere where concessions are seen as signs of weakness. In integrative bargaining, the focus is on creating value by identifying common interests and exploring creative solutions. Parties work together to find ways to satisfy their underlying needs and interests.

Communication

In distributive bargaining, communication tends to be more guarded and strategic. Parties may withhold information or use deceptive tactics to gain an advantage. The emphasis is on persuasion and manipulation to secure a favorable outcome. In integrative bargaining, communication is more open and transparent. Parties share information freely and engage in problem-solving discussions to find mutually beneficial solutions. Trust and collaboration are key components of this approach.

Relationship

Due to its competitive nature, distributive bargaining can strain relationships between parties. The focus on claiming value can lead to feelings of resentment and mistrust. Once the negotiation is over, parties may harbor negative feelings towards each other, which can impact future interactions. Integrative bargaining, on the other hand, fosters positive relationships between parties. The collaborative approach builds trust and respect, leading to stronger partnerships and long-term cooperation.

Outcome

In distributive bargaining, the outcome is often a win-lose scenario where one party gains at the expense of the other. This can lead to short-term gains but may damage relationships and limit future opportunities for cooperation. In integrative bargaining, the outcome is a win-win scenario where both parties benefit from the agreement. By focusing on creating value and addressing underlying interests, parties can reach agreements that satisfy their needs and strengthen their relationship.

Flexibility

Distributive bargaining tends to be more rigid and competitive, with parties taking fixed positions and making limited concessions. There is little room for creativity or exploration of alternative solutions. Integrative bargaining, on the other hand, is more flexible and collaborative. Parties are encouraged to think outside the box and consider a wide range of options to meet their interests. This flexibility allows for more innovative and sustainable agreements.

Application

Both distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining have their place in negotiations, depending on the context and goals of the parties involved. Distributive bargaining is often used in situations where resources are limited, and parties have conflicting interests. It can be an effective strategy for quickly reaching agreements and maximizing one's share of the pie. Integrative bargaining is more suitable for complex negotiations where there are multiple issues to be addressed and parties have shared interests. It can lead to more durable agreements and stronger relationships between parties.