AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Negotiation is an important aspect of conflict resolution.  There are two approaches to bargaining; integrative and distributive, each having their own advantages and disadvantages. This essay discusses these two approaches and their strategies in relation to a negotiation simulation carried out.

Negotiation is a process where parties attempt to reach an agreement on issues that they either disagree on or can mutually benefit from, often in an environment characterised by uncertainty and information dependence (Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 1999). Negotiation is fundamental for employment disputes like the one the author participated in.

In distributive bargaining, parties compete for a share of limited resources (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2009). Since both parties aim to maximise their share, it is often a win-lose situation as one party gains more from the negotiation than the other (Goering, 1997). There is a focus on positions rather than underlying interests. The author and the employer focused on what they each wanted (like a specific salary amount) but overlooked the reasons for wanting that amount. The distributive bargaining approach may be distinguished from distributive issues. These are topics where a gain to one party is a direct loss to the other (Lewicki et al., 2009). In the author’s negotiation, these issues were the salary and the leave, so every $5000 increase in the author’s salary was a direct $5000 loss that the employer would have to pay the author.

A distributive bargaining strategy used was manipulation.  Goering (1997) explains that distributive bargainers exaggerate difficulty in making concessions, and ensure that the opposition knows the importance of any concessions made by the negotiator. An indifference issue (one that had no value to the author) (Lewicki et al., 2009), was the contract and the author used this to persuade her employer into making concessions on distributive issues such as the salary and leave, which were a priority for both parties. The author manipulated her employer into thinking that since she was compromising on an important issue (the contract), they too can concede on the salary and leave.

An advantage of distributive bargaining is the possibility of obtaining more resources than the opposition (Lewicki et al., 2009). However, its hostile nature can lead to negative relationships, especially between equally competitive negotiators. The author often reached a dead-end on issues that neither party was willing to concede on. Distributive bargaining also doesn’t assess any underlying causes of problems, it is merely a “cosmetic fix” (Goering, 1997, p. 426). Some issues can appear to be win-lose on the surface but may actually be integrative at the root with positive outcomes for both parties.

Integrative bargaining emphasises mutual gains, co-operation and problem solving. It focuses on the interests/reasons behind a position, rather than the positions themselves and aims to reach a point of maximised/Pareto efficiency (Lewicki et al., 2009). Goering (1997) explains that parties create an open communication environment, attempting to understand each other’s true objectives. The integrative negotiation approach may be distinguished from integrative issues where parties with different priorities attempt to trade-off between these issues so that a win to one party is not a direct loss to the other (Lewicki et al., 2009).

Although the author’s negotiation had an overall distributive approach, the bonus was an integrative issue. An integrative bridging strategy was used in which a new option was invented that met both parties’ needs (Lewicki et al., 2009). The employer offered the author a 2% bonus, but she wanted 8%. They agreed that they would start with a 4% bonus and gradually lead up to 10% by the end of the 5^th year of the contract. This technique is a potent example of an integrative approach that considers both parties needs and reaches a common goal.

Integrative bargaining can lead to favourable outcomes for both parties and result in longer-lasting relationships (Goering, 1997). However, it can be difficult to have an integrative mindset when the issues are distributive and the parties are competitive. In the author’s negotiation, it was difficult to co-operate on some issues that were of a high priority. It was only when the parties reached a standstill on these issues that they decided to take an integrative approach to solving them.  Another disadvantage is that it takes longer to establish trust and agreement is reached slower (Lewicki et al., 2009), often due to deception/lying. The author told the employer that the contract was an important issue for her, when in fact it was an indifference issue. This lie might have caused their negotiation to take a distributive focus and decrease trust between parties.

This essay has explored integrative and distributive approaches to negotiation, concluding that these approaches inherently depend on the relationships and personalities of the parties in the negotiation. If parties are trusting, less competitive and willing to compromise, then an integrative approach is beneficial. However, in the author’s case, both parties had competitive personalities that wanted a larger share of the resource pie. They were not willing to compromise on most of the distributive issues, meaning that their negotiation automatically took a distributive approach.

References

Goering, E. M. (1997). Integration versus distribution in contract negotiations: an interaction analysis of strategy use. Journal Of Business Communication, 34(4), 383-400. Retrieved from Business Source Premier, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=d201e479-6bf5-4174-b9fa-ae793c9d1e89%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=9711100258

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Barry, B. (2009). Negotiation. (6^th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Education.

Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., & Minton, J.W. (1999). Negotiation. (3^rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.