Page 139 - 4126

in the negotiation. Parties in integrative negotiations seek creative
options rather than focusing on which concessions to make.

Unlike in distributive negotiation, to be successful at integrative
negotiation, you need to share information. There are several ways
negotiators can do this:

 discuss key issues related to their situation, including why they
want to make a deal and what their real interests are, as well as
their business constraints
 be up-front about their preferences among options and issues,
and
 reveal any additional resources or capabilities that match the
other side’s interests

Selecting the right negotiation type

There are pros and cons for each type. The most common analogy for
these two types of negotiations is the pie. In the case of distributive
negotiation, the pie represents the whole of what’s available, and each
side fights to get as much of it as possible. Integrative negotiation
looks to enlarge the pie so that both sides get what they need.

Integrative negotiation may seem to be the weaker of the two types.
After all, distributive negotiation is about going after what you want
while protecting what you have, whereas integrative negotiation
requires negotiators to consider the interests of the other side.
However, integrative negotiation isn’t negotiating from a position of
weakness, but is rather a way to create and claim value. It says “Let’s
work together on this. We’ll both benefit, but here’s what I want out
of the deal.”

Most negotiations should be handled using an integrative approach, as
it has more potential for creating lasting agreements and relationships.
There will, however, always be negotiations in which a distributive
approach will yield results, and it can also play a part in an integrative
negotiation, when appropriate.
139