Page 138 - 4126

integrative. Most fall somewhere in between, but it’s important to
understand each type on its own.

Distributive negotiation is often referred to as “zero-sum” negotiation.
Its goal is the acquisition of value. At the end of the negotiation, the
person who can claim the most value is the winner.

Distributive negotiation is often used in situations where there’s a
single, fixed issue to be negotiated, and where the greatest concern is
getting the best possible value. You may have thought of situations
such as buying an expensive item such as a car or a house, or perhaps
bartering a price for an antique.

A key difference between the two types of negotiation is how
information is handled in distributive negotiation. In distributive
negotiation, the goal is to withhold as much information as possible,
putting the other side at a disadvantage. It’s also important to try to
find out as much information as you can about the other side, to create
a greater advantage for yourself.

In distributive negotiation, future relationships are not a priority. In a
purely distributive negotiation, you’ll likely never meet with your
negotiating opponent again. Your relationship with this person is
typically the farthest thing from your mind.

In purely integrative negotiation, both sides cooperate to achieve the
greatest benefit. This type of negotiation requires that you be good at
both creating value and claiming it. Your goal is to create as many
options with as much value as possible for both sides. And then you
need to claim the best value for yourself among the options you’ve
helped create. This can result in both sides getting exactly what they
want, but in most cases it requires that each side compromise slightly
to get what it values the most.
So instead of trying to get the biggest piece of the pie, or focusing on a
single issue, you consider other options – other types of value. The
more options you have, the more likely you’ll be able to claim value

138