Distributive Bargaining and Integrative Negotiation

Question: Discuss about theDistributive Bargaining and Integrative Negotiation. Answer: Introduction The interaction between two or more than two persons which is aimed at achieving a beneficial outcome is known as negotiation process (Pruitt, 2013). The negotiation process is carried out in such a way that there is mutual advantage of both the parties. This process comes to a suitable conclusion after discussion with both the parties. The aim of negotiation process is to resolve a conflict and gain the desired outcomes (Rubin Brown, 2013). It is a common process in both personal as well as professional life of an individual. This paper would analyze the difference between the key concepts of negotiation such as integrative negotiation and distributive bargaining (Lewicki et al., 2002). The two concepts are critically evaluated with the help of conflict experiences. Discussion The distributive bargaining power comes into play when there are involvements of people who are interacting for the first time and they are not likely to do so in the future (Zahariadis, 2016). It implies that there is finite amount in the distribution of the materials. The approach takes place when the associated parties are making an effort to divide something. The disputant in this type of bargaining are strangers to each other (Zahariadis, 2016). It is one time interaction with each other and there are least possibilities of forming a relationship between the key entities involved in this type of bargaining (Nupia, 2013). They interact only for the purpose of effectively carrying out the deal in question. The parties are least concerned about how the other parties perceiving themselves as there are least possibilities of them meeting in the future (Lewicki et al., 2002). They are more focused with their individual gains and give least priority to group dynamics. The distributive bargaining strategy is often compared with the fixed pie strategy (Jeong, 2016). This is because this strategy is involved with the allocation of finite resources within the negotiators. There are a limited number of resources and there is subsequent debate regarding the allocation of the resources (Jeong, 2016). This type of bargaining strategy initiates an environment of intense competition in which every party tries to secure a bigger portion of the available resources. This strategy makes the participants assess the competitive position of the other parties (Jeong, 2016). Every parties act against each other and there is an increase in the competition level, which can be unhealthy competition at times (Acheson, 2016). The distributive bargaining strategy fosters a reserved as well as defensive approach. There can be increased probability of conflicts in the distributive bargaining approach (Snyder Diesing, 2015). This strategy is similar to a win-lose argument (Lewicki et al., 2002). This is because the distributive bargaining strategy involves the distribution of a fixed resource such as financial resources. There is no possibility of expansion of the resources and every party has their own demands to do so (Snyder Diesing, 2015). For example, if a fixed financial resourceof 2000 $ needs to be distributed among 5 people, then it is obvious that every individual would be entitled to receive 400$ each. However, the conflict arises when one party is eager to receive $500 and no one else is eager to give away their shares or receive less than $400. The integrative negotiation, on the other hand, is similar to a situation in which there is a win-win approach in order to resolve a dispute (Moore, 2014). It is contrast to the distributive bargaining strategy and it is concerned with equal benefit to all the negotiating parties involved in the dispute (Lewicki et al., 2002). It is opposite to the distributive bargaining approach in which the concerned parties aimed at increasing total share with the help of mutual cooperation (Illes, Ellemers Harinck, 2014). Each party of the dispute perceives the other party as collaborators or friends since this strategy is based on the joint efforts as well as common interests (Illes, Ellemers Harinck, 2014). This is in contrast to the distributive bargaining strategy in which the parties conceive each other as competitors. There can be cooperation with all the concerning parties and this strategy involves a high degree of trust as well as the helps in the formation of a relationship between t he parties (Carneiro et al., 2013). As the concerned parties are working towards a common goal, this approach fosters team building capabilities among the disputed parties (Illes, Ellemers Harinck, 2014). There are multiple issues that are addressed by integrative negotiation unlike distributive negotiation that involve a single issue (Nolan-Haley, 2013). In integrative negotiation, the concerned parties receive something concerned with value in the process of trading something that has a less value (Liu, 2014). This strategy requires the sharing of information between the parties in the dispute and this helps in the understanding of each others interest (Nolan-Haley, 2013). This strategy is helpful in seeking solutions to specific problems when understanding all the parameters. An example that illustrates the integrative negotiation is that when two girls want the same orange, there would be a dispute, which can be solved by their mother, if she acts as a moderator. If the mother interacts with the girls and tries to know their interests, then this issue would be solved without compromising the individual interests of the task. The integrative bargaining would let the mother know that one girl may be interested in the orange while the other may be interested in the peel only to make some cookies. This would ensure that the girls would receive everything that they would have wished to. Conclusion The distributive bargaining as well as integrative negotiation is a common phenomenon in both personal as well as professional life. These are the most common forms of negotiations that are used by almost all individuals. There are instances when these two categories of negotiation coincide. This paper gives a better understanding of the two types of negotiations so that the individuals can use them in different suitable situations. It would also help in enhancing the interpersonal relations as the individuals gain an increased awareness regarding the process of negotiation. References Acheson, D. (2016). 6 Negotiation dynamics.International Negotiation: Process and Strategies, 107. Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F., Zeleznikow, J., Neves, J. (2013). Using Case-Based Reasoning and Principled Negotiation to provide decision support for dispute resolution.Knowledge and Information Systems,36(3), 789-826. Illes, R., Ellemers, N., Harinck, F. (2014). Mediating Value Conflicts.Conflict Resolution Quarterly,31(3), 331-354. Jeong, H. W. (2016).International Negotiation: Process and Strategies. Cambridge University Press. Liu, L. A. (2014). Addressing reviewer comments as an integrative negotiation.Management and Organization Review,10(2), 183-190. Moore, C. W. (2014).The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley Sons. Nolan-Haley, J. (2013).Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Nutshell, 4th. West Academic. Nupia, O. (2013). Distributive politics, number of parties, ideological polarization, and bargaining power.The Journal of Politics,75(02), 410-421. Pruitt, D. G. (2013).Negotiation behavior. Academic Press. Rubin, J. Z., Brown, B. R. (2013).The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. Elsevier. Snyder, G. H., Diesing, P. (2015).Conflict among nations: Bargaining, decision making, and system structure in international crises. Princeton University Press. Zahariadis, N. (2016). Bargaining power and negotiation strategy: examining the Greek bailouts, 20102015.Journal of European Public Policy, 1-20. Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, Barry, B., Saunders, Minton,J.W. (2002), Negotiation, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Neweredition (2011).