For video version go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFwj54zdf2I
Integrative negotiation is different in that the focus is on resource variability, and favors cooperative methods. Referring to this as a “win-win” option is not far from the target, since it tries to create synergistic solutions by openly exchanging information: maximizing joint outcome (pareto optimal) by utility expansion. Competition can be very costly, and leave rivals in a “lose-lose” situation where both are hemorrhaging money (A. A. Thompson et al., 2012), though integrative style can reduce such competition and open-up new revenue streams. Hence, it is highly recommended to have an open dialogue about interests and goals with your business partners, in order to identify possible synergies.
On the flipside, integrative negotiations are more labor intensive than distributive, and are not attractive under time pressure (Hawes & Fleming, 2014). Therefore, while distributive is about quickly proclaiming positions, integrative is about thoughtfully examining motives, and the former is short- while the latter is long-term oriented. Like with distributive style, characteristics of the negotiators play an important role, since various traits and states are especially fortuitous in integrative negotiations. Those who are more open and social (extraverted) are more likely to work towards a common understanding of the terms of negotiation (Choi, 2010); i.e. metacognitive. People with great emphatic skills also perform very well in integrative negotiations (Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011). Further, negotiators for whom moral identity is important also perform better in integrative negotiations, because they use corresponding tactics more effectively, though their success depends on a similar moral identity in the counterpart (Han, Kwon, Bae, & Park, 2012). They also found that combining integrative and distributive tactics could increase joint outcome.
An illustrative example. Many workplace negotiations are well-suited for an integrative approach, since it is better for building long-term relationships (Meiners & Boster, 2012). For illustration, employee compensation is one of the biggest expenses for a company, and salary negotiations usually focus on a long-term commitment (WorldatWork, 2007). That is why such negotiations are especially suited for an integrative approach, considering that the aim is a high joint outcome where the company trades money (compensation and benefits) for human productivity (Cascio & Boudreau, 2011). Prospective employees who actively negotiate starting salary increase it by an average $5000 (Marks & Harold, 2011). The most successful negotiators openly discussed the salary through a competing or collaborative strategy, while those preferring compromises and accommodations where less successful.
For more go to: www.cybloom.com
Science (entire EP-series): http://cybloom.blogg.no/1446324892_yes_this_is_economic_.html
Music: ” Canon in D Major” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
Video background: Flower, by Thatgamecompany