integrative negotiation is effective than distributive bargaining

 integrative negotiation is effective than distributive bargaining

Negotiation is a process that occurs daily, either consciously or subconsciously. Most people are never aware that they are in a negotiation process. For those who are knowledgeable, they either use integrative or distributive negotiation methods. Integrative negotiation permits each party to leave the negotiating table with a feeling of victory (mutual agreement). Distributive bargaining, on the other hand, results in one party becoming a loser. Having experienced both negotiation processes, I argue that integrative negotiation is effective than distributive bargaining. However, in conflict situations, coming into a mutual agreement can be difficult because the parties involve might never agree.

Most people believe that negotiation is a method that is used in professional or business settings, but it can also occur in informal situations. Before attending a negotiation class, I believed that I did not have to negotiate until I was old enough to do so. However, after taking a negotiation course, I have realized that I have been involved in several negotiation situations in my life. Some of these experiences include; deciding on what restaurant to go for dinner with my friends, choosing a movie genre to watch with my siblings, or negotiating the price of a car with a salesperson. From these experiences, I have realized that I have always been the losing party, and I easily give in to what others decide even though I do not entirely agree with their decisions. However, since I am equipped with the knowledge on how negotiations should proceed, I look for win-win solutions in my future negotiation experiences.

For a successfully integrated negotiation process to occur, the parties involved need to “identify and define the problem, recognize the interests and needs of both parties, generate alternative solutions and evaluate and select alternatives” (Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 2015). A few weeks ago, as I was heading for an important meeting, my car broke down. Luckily, a tow truck driver that was behind me stopped, and he was willing to help me. I explained how I could not afford to get late for my meeting and requested him to give me a lift to my workstation. Unfortunately, the driver was rushing to meet his manager at the workshop, and he could not be late. However, he told me he was going to get my car to their workshop and called his friend, a taxi driver, to take me to my destination. I was able to get to the meeting on time, and later, I realized that I had been involved in a negotiation process that resulted in a mutual agreement.

Apart from Integrative negotiation, the commonly used negotiation process is distributive negotiation. In a distributive bargaining process, the parties aim at persuading their opponents to agree with their target points or get as close to it as possible (Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 2015). In most cases, I use distributive negotiation when buying goods from retailers. For example, a few months ago, I wanted to buy a bag for my laptop, but it ranged between $160 and &180, which was above my target price. Since i did not intend to go beyond my budget for a laptop bag, I tried to negotiate with the seller for a lower price, but he insisted that the price I was offering was below the market value. I decided to leave the bag since we could not agree on a favorable amount for both of us. From this experience, I realized how difficult it could be to convince someone to change their mind and also how difficult it can be to come into a mutual agreement if the objectives of the negotiators differ. However, despite such challenges, most people use this type of negotiation, either knowingly or unknowingly.

From the two experiences, it can be argued that an integrative negotiation is a practical approach to distributive bargaining. This is because it creates a long-term relationship and provides an opportunity for the involved parties to work together in the future. Distributive negotiation is a selfish approach because people aim at achieving their interests without the concern of what the other person gets in return (Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 2015). During my encounter with the tow driver, if I had not considered his needs and instead insisted on him to first attend to my needs, he would have probably left my car and left me on the road to find help elsewhere. However, because of our mutual understanding, we both achieved our objectives, and chances are his rapport will make me call him in the future in case I need services on my car.

The success of a person in either distributive or integrative negotiation depends on the strategies or tactics used. According to Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton (2015), “negotiators in a distributive bargaining situation need to execute the right strategies and tactics to increase their chances of obtaining a positive agreement.” The negotiators also need to understand that for an effective distributive negotiation to take place, there should be careful planning, reliable execution, and continuous observation of the other party’s reaction. The goal of negotiators in a distributive negotiation process should be to learn about the other party’s motives, strategies, and tactics. However, they should guard their information to reach a favorable agreement.

Successful integrative negotiation requires several processes. According to Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton (2015), there must be a free flow of information between the negotiators and an exchange of ideas in integrative bargaining. The parties must also understand each other’s needs, objectives, identify their similarities instead of their differences, and find a solution to achieve mutual goals. Thus, negotiators should not talk each other out of their needs or fail to acknowledge the significance of their colleagues. They should be willing to work for both their needs and their counterparts to find the best mutual arrangement. However, despite all these recommendations, it is essential to note that integrative negotiation is not an easy process, especially in conflict situations, because the party’s in conflict may never be willing to share their objectives.

Negotiation is used in both formal and informal situations, and it is a valuable skill to have. People need to understand the characteristics and circumstances that contribute to a negotiation to identify better solutions for any conflict in the future. It is also important to know the best negotiation strategies to use for a successful integrative or distributive negotiation. From the experiences highlighted, I conclude that integrative negotiation is more effective than distributive negotiation because it is based on a win-win achievement with no competition on who should get better benefits.

From the above definition and experience of both negotiation processes, I argue that integrative negotiation is effective than distributive bargaining. However, in conflict situations, coming into a mutual agreement can be difficult because the parties involved might never agree to share their objectives.