Integrative Negotiation Strategies

Abstract

Abstract In contrast to traditional win–lose bargaining, win–win bargaining—or integrative bargaining —is a negotiation type in which the bargainers attempt to arrange settlements of high joint benefit. Integrative bargaining can be distinguished from traditional negotiation in terms of the structure of the situation, the behaviors of the bargainers, and the cognitive frameworks of the negotiators. The flexible rigidity hypothesis and the dual concern model explain the types of goals and behaviors the bargainers must have to be successful in integrative bargaining. A number of integrative negotiation strategies can be employed that help attain agreements of high joint benefit. These include logrolling, simultaneous issue consideration, information exchange, heuristic trial and error, and bridging. The stereotypical view of bargaining or negotiation (this entry will treat the terms bargaining and negotiation as synonyms) is of two parties glaring at each other across the table, each scheming to force the other to make concessions, so as to make as much for oneself as possible to the detriment of the opponent. Although descriptive of many real‐life situations, negotiation scholars have long realized that the stereotype is often wrong; many times it is possible to integrate the needs of both parties, fashioning agreements that benefit both parties rather than one at the expense of the other. Such integrative bargaining , along with the strategies that negotiators use to attain integrative agreements, is thus an active area of scholarly inquiry.