Integrative negotiation is a negotiation strategy that entails the working together of parties whose endgame is the finding of a solution that satisfies the concerns and needs of each party involved. In integrative negotiation compromise is often common as both conflicting groups give up particular needs to reach a solution. Honesty is another attribute in integrative negotiation that promotes conflict resolution as it leads to the comprehensive understanding of the problem existing and what each party needs to be satisfied with the result. As a marketing manager to solve the conflict existing my company’s marketing department and information technology department on the presentation conference I would need to improvise integrative negotiation techniques. As the marketing department head that I am in-charge of we which wishes to talk about recent accomplishment we have achieved while the information technology wishes to discuss their progress. I intend to use several integrative negotiation techniques to solve the dispute and collaborate a solution. First I will outline each party’s needs (Holbrook, 2010). Before I present solutions, I understand what each party’s specific hopes and concerns are. Since I am one of the parties, I consider asking the other to discuss what they want and need from the negotiation. This step allows everyone involved to gain many perspectives of the situation to better brainstorm solutions that tailor to all needs. The other step entails brain storming multiple solutions between the two departments. I can come up with different ideas as many as possible when using the integrative negotiation tactics. Both department can share the solutions they think of and share with the other party. The list will include ideas that benefit both my marketing department and the information technology department. By completing this step I will increase the chances of getting the other sides to agree. The advantage of Integrative negotiation is that it produces satisfactory outcomes for the parties conflicting and disagreeing more than positional bargaining does. Positional bargaining is founded on opposing viewpoints (positions), fixed and tends to result in no agreement at all. However the down side of integrative negotiation is that difficult because of the need to establish a relationship with the other party for the sake of working together in future (“Integrative negotiation,” 2013). However if you can identify additional resources and share information it is possible to reach a mutual agreement.
Distributive negotiation is in contrast to integrative bargaining, a more inclusive strategy that aims to optimize the parties’ gains. In fact, the majority of negotiations include both distributive and integrative negotiating components (Rognes & Schei, 2010). In the training program that am organizing the professor wishes 100 KD per hour instead of 100 KD and that is rather unscrupulous. Using distributive approach I intend to convince the professor that at the amount I set is fair for both of our sakes. I will see the success of my program with his assistance and he will get paid for his services. Then using the integrative approach I will use compromise to convince the lecturer that I will not gain as much as he would as my part in the program is not in monetary terms for me. In this type of situation certain negotiators use unscrupulous tactics and can become discreet, dishonest, punishing or misleading (Rognes & Schei, 2010). A distributive approach to the talks will result in results that are less than ideal. For example, both sides might withhold information which would support the other side, resulting in a less favorable outcome than might be likely otherwise. Strong negotiators are more likely to get what they want out of the deal, according to research but that victory might come at the expense of future business.
References
Integrative Negotiation is Difficult (2013). WordPress. https://sites.psu.edu/ba322lesson3/integrative-negotiation-is-difficult/
Holbrook, J. R. (2010). Using Performative, Distributive, Integrative, and Transformative Principles in Negotiation. LoY. L. REv., 56, 359. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/loyolr56&div=15&id=&page=
Rognes, J. K., & Schei, V. (2010). Understanding the integrative approach to conflict management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(1), 82-97. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011013885