Using the Terms Integrative and Distributive Bargaining in the Classroom: Time for Change?

Abstract

This piece examines the confusion about the terms “integrative” and “distributive” negotiation, perhaps the most widely used terminology in the negotiation field. It notes that these terms sometimes are variously used to refer to negotiators’ mindsets, behaviors, approaches, styles, structures, and even negotiators themselves. The terms are heavily value-laden, inappropriately suggesting that there is a generally right and wrong way to negotiate. Moreover, it is unclear if the terms provide an accurate portrayal of reality or whether they actually function as lens that distorts our understandings. Given these problems, it suggests some solutions for instructors using these terms in the classroom: that we might avoid using these terms, use other terms, or use these terms for their historical value. I suggest referring to these terms noting the problems with them and using clear definitions. For example, one might define a negotiator’s integrative mindset as “looking for joint gains in a negotiation.” Although the piece focuses on the use of these terms in teaching, the observations also are relevant for scholars.

Keywords: negotiation, integrative, distributive, bargaining, teaching