Negotiations are part of our daily activities. In commerce, effective negotiations are the pillars of all successful businesses (Dietmeyer & Kaplan, 2004). Companies who adopt effective negotiation strategies can be able to generate assessable business values for themselves and for their clients.
Unlike in the past, negotiations have become very important to every business organization. This has been brought about by deals becoming more complex, more professional buyers joining the marketplace, competitive behaviors in the market, and increase in internal negotiations within companies (Dietmeyer & Kaplan, 2004).
Business experts classify negotiations into several types based on critical variables such as time, conflicts, and participants. In this regard, this paper seeks to compare and contrast integrative negotiation and distributive negotiation strategies.
Integrative negotiation is normally referred to as win more- win more model of negotiation (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001). Through this approach, participating parties aim at walking away with at least perceptions of having gained more than they could through different approaches. As compared to other models of negotiations, this model is the most preferred.
During the negotiation processes, disagreements are avoided because they are more costly than compromises. This implies that gains and losses are equalized to enhance repetitive and continuous relationships in the future. Another approach of negotiation is distributive negotiation model. This approach is normally referred to as win-lose model of negotiation (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001).
Unlike the previous model, each party involved in the negotiation process is after winning the deal. This implies that the winning parties are not concerned with the outcomes of the losing parties. More often, losing parties will seek control over the other parties’ finances, resources, or associations. Distributive negotiation models are applied mostly in negotiations with fixed resources to be shared.
As such, court cases, some property negotiations, and divorce issues are the best examples of distributive negotiations. As compared with integrative negotiation model, distributive negotiation model employs offensive tactics rather than defensive tactics.
For instance, in distributive model parties employ deception tactics by trying to make the competing parties give in more than they can concede (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001). According to business experts, integrative model is more effective than the distributive model. In general, integrative model can be described as cooperative approach, while distributive model can be described as competitive approach.
In my work environment, the integrative negotiation model will be more effective than the distributive model. Through this model, our organization can cooperate and focus with other organizations with the aim of increasing the gains for both parties. Equally, integrative model will enable our organization to avoid uncertain competitive bargains.
On the other hand, our organization can employ a distributive negotiation model when solving issues that cannot be solved through other available approaches. Similarly, our organization can utilize this approach when they want to get the most out of a single deal.
However, this approach should only be adopted when the relationship with the competing party is insignificant (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001). In conclusion, it is upon the business managers and their negotiation representatives to decide on the negotiation models.
During the decision-making processes, they should evaluate whether they can afford a distributive model or an integrative model. Similarly, they should evaluate the future dependencies and the relationships that would evolve out of the negotiations to decide on the models to be adopted (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001).
References
Dietmeyer, B. J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Strategic Negotiation: A Breakthrough 4-step Process for Effective Business Negotiation. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Pienaar, W. D., & Naylor, A. (2001). Negotiation: theories, strategies, and skills. Kenwyn: Juta.