Integrative and Distributive Negotiation
Derived from Walton and McKersie’s (1965) classic studies of collective bargaining, integrative and distributive negotiations refer to two of the four subprocesses that characterize conflict interaction.
Prior to the 1960s, research and practice focused on distributive negotiation in which bargainers viewed their goals as fixed sum in win-lose types of conflicts. The distributive model highlighted withholding information, learning about your opponent’s resistance point, and using strategies and tactics to acquire the largest share of a “fixed pie.” In contrast, integrative approaches treated bargaining as variable sum in win-win situations. The integrative model advocated sharing information, engaging in problem solving, generating alternative solutions, making concession, and understanding the needs and interests of the other party (Putnam & Poole, 1987).Integrative and distributive negotiation formed the foundation for communication studies of strategies and tactics in collective bargaining (Donohue, 1978, 1981a; Donohue, Diez, & Hamilton, 1984; Donohue & Roberto, 1996; Putnam & Jones, 1982a; Putnam & Wilson, 1989; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988), in mediation (Donohue, Allen, & Burrell, 1985), and in interpersonal conflict (Sillars, 1980b; Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 1982). Strategies referred to a broad plan that encompassed a series of moves, while tactics were the specific messages that enacted the moves.
Communication scholarship played a pivotal role in the debates about the functions of strategies and tactics. Communication researchers observed that strategies and tactics played multiple roles, depending on how they were used during a negotiation. Even though some strategies, like flexibility and problem solving, were aligned with integrative processes and other tactics like threats fit with distributive processes, many strategies and tactics (e.g., information sharing, threats, arguments, concessions) performed multiple functions (Putnam & Wilson, 1989; Roloff, Tutzauer, & Dailey, 1989). Thus, analysis of communication patterns revealed that messages can serve multiple and varying functions as conflict evolved over time. This dynamic view brought communication research into examining prenegotiation plans and how these plans are altered during these negotiations (Jordan & Roloff, 1997; Roloff & Jordan, 1991). In effect, communication strategies and tactics played complex and interchangeable roles in integrative and distributive processes.