Integrative Bargaining
The difference between integrative and distributive approaches to bargaining is best explained by the classic example of the fight between a boy and his elder sister for one orange. Both want the orange, and in a distributive approach, settle for one half of the orange each.
However, if they talk to each other, they figure out that the boy wants to eat the whole orange and has no need for the orange skin, while the elder sister wants the orange skin as one of the ingredients for a cake she is baking. Once they figure out what each of them wants, the boy gets to eat the whole orange while the elder sister gets to use the skin from the orange. In the latter case, both get what they really want, without taking away anything from each other: this is integrative bargaining.
Savvy biz-dev professionals always strive for integrative bargaining while striking business deals, which is clearly a better approach to bargaining in business negotiations compared to distributive bargaining.
Integrative bargaining is not limited to business negotiations. It has applications everywhere, including solving problems that might exist between neighbors, couples, and nations. Unless both parties are willing to communicate in depth so that seemingly unsolvable problems can be untangled, integrative bargaining can't take place. Also see
the Pareto Negotiation Frontier in our Advanced Frameworks section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORE COUPONS (COMING SOON) >>
