Tips and Answers to Your Questions
The Negotiations Process

The Difference Between Integrative and Distributive Negotiation

There are two types of negotiation: "integrative" and "distributive." Integrative negotiations are those typically referred to as "win/win" negotiations: all sides are looking for a solution that maximizes joint gain and allows everyone to walk away feeling like they won something. They involve looking at the issues being negotiated from multiple angles, considering multiple issues at once (thus allowing for trade-offs), and honestly trying to "expand the pie" rather than divide it. Anyone who imagines that they might see or do business with their fellow negotiator in the future should be attempting to negotiate in this way. Integrative negotiations foster trust and good working relationships, and leave all parties feeling good, not just one.

Distributive negotiations, on the other hand, are typically described as "win/lose" negotiations – one party gets what they want, and the other party gives something up. Think of negotiating for your car – you either get that extra $1000, or the dealership does. If you feel you got a good deal (and squeezed that salesman), you "won." If you walk away feeling like you paid too much money, you "lost." This type of negotiating does not lead to good long-term relationships. The parties’ interests are often opposed (or seem to be opposed – this may not prove to be the case once you start getting creative), and usually good feelings are not plentiful when the negotiation is over.

Integrative vs. Distributive Negotiations

Characteristic	Integrative Negotiations	Distributive Negotiations
Outcome	Win / win	Win / lose
Motivation	Joint gain	Individual gain
Interests	Congruent	Opposed
Relationship	Long-term	Short-term
Issues	Multiple issues	Single Issue

Here’s a story (probably familiar to many of you!) that demonstrates the difference between integrative and distributive negotiations: Two sisters were fighting over the last orange in the fruit bowl. They went back and forth, each girl insisting that she should get it and both refusing to give up. They were about to agree on cutting the orange in half when their aunt walked in and realized what was going on. She turned to the girls and asked them each why they wanted the orange. As it turns out, one wanted to eat the orange, and the other wanted the peel for an art project she was working on. Once they realized this, they were able to "split" the orange in such a way that both got exactly what they wanted. The girls were engaged in distributive negotiations (though it probably felt like bickering to them), while their aunt was suggesting an integrative solution.

As you might have guessed by now, partnership negotiations should always be integrative. The goal in any partnership should be maximizing all parties’ abilities to advance their collective mission, and to enable both to better serve the community, deal effectively with their economic obligations and pressures, etc. One organization should not want to "win" at the expense of the other. You want joint gain, not just individual gain, and while your specific motivations for pursuing the partnership may be different, the spirit behind your interests should be congruent. Most importantly, you are entering into a long-term relationship with your prospective partner(s), and you want this to be a good relationship. The only way to build trust and expand the pie (or the orange) in a negotiation situation is be integrative. You must do this from the beginning. Once you start down the "distributive path" it is hard to change directions, as you establish a dynamic of competition and distrust. The moral of the story: be integrative!