Explore Data of Countries
Find out how people in different countries around the world experience justice. What are the most serious problems people face? How are problems being resolved? Find out the answers to these and more.
*GP – general population; *HCs – host communities; IDPs* – internally displaced persons
Justice Services
Innovation is needed in the justice sector. What services are solving justice problems of people? Find out more about data on justice innovations.
The Gamechangers
The 7 most promising categories of justice innovations, that have the potential to increase access to justice for millions of people around the world.
Justice Innovation Labs
Explore solutions developed using design thinking methods for the justice needs of people in the Netherlands, Nigeria, Uganda and more.
Creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework where innovations and new justice services develop
Rules of procedure, public-private partnerships, creative sourcing of justice services, and new sources of revenue and investments can help in creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework.
Forming a committed coalition of leaders
A committed group of leaders can drive change and innovation in justice systems and support the creation of an enabling environment.
Problems
Find out how specific justice problems impact people, how their justice journeys look like, and more.
Guideline for employment problems / RESOLVING: 2.3 Integrative negotiation to resolve disputes
During the orientation process of the available literature, we identified the following interventions as most plausible for precarious working conditions in manufacture industries disputes:
The integrative negotiation represents a specific procedure designed to optimise the probability of both parties obtaining a good and perhaps ‘best’ solution to a particular problem. The integrative process is ultimately a problem-solving exercise which concentrates on the best total solution to a problem instead of immediate individual party interests. This is a procedure that requires a mutual identification of the problem, a search for alternate solutions, and an eventual choice of a solution that will accommodate the interests of both parties. The tactical imperatives associated with this procedure are associated with the need for trust and mutual cooperation in identifying what both parties need and want from an eventual solution. They relate specifically to reducing the other party’s fear of exploitation and building a strong cooperative atmosphere [1].
The integrative process involves the creation and discovery of joint gains. Parties identify common interests and make trade-offs on differentially valued issues. By exchanging information, negotiators can develop accurate judgments about the other party’s interests and create mutually beneficial integrative agreements – expanding the pie. This process is called the ‘variable-sum game’ or ‘win-win agreement’ [2].
Issues with integrative potential are those where the parties’ interests could differ – and they negotiate a trade-off that creates value in negotiation, for example work life balance, equality and corporate social responsibility [3].
Integrative negotiation tends to use the following kinds of strategies and tactics:
The distributive negotiation refers to how negotiators resolve differences when their interests or positions are in conflict. From the game theory approach, this is called the ‘zero-sum game’ or the ‘win-lose process’ because it involves dividing limited resources – as in a fixed pie [5].
The distributive model assumes that the primary concern for each party is deriving a maximum share of a solution or, more appropriately, ‘settlement’. Each party will go to considerable trouble to positively affect the balance in its favour, given the nature of the stakes involved. Party lines are clearly drawn and there is a common realisation that each party is concerned with obtaining the largest benefit share. The emphasis is on calculated maneuvers designed to alter the opposite’s viewpoint of what is an acceptable share distribution [6].
The distributive process represents a method by which each party attempts to obtain the solution that it believes would maximise its own interests, fully realising it is a win/lose situation. Solutions are sought and graded against partisan utility functions on an independent basis. The emphasis is on forcing a particular solution rather than discovering one the tactical maneuvers required for success in each process are different [7].
Distributive negotiators tend to use the following kinds of strategies and tactics:
Integrative negotiation is a promising intervention in resolving precarious work conditions disputes. On the other hand, even though distributive negotiation is opposite to integrative negotiation it is still praised by some scholars. For this, it is interesting to compare these two interventions together.
For parties to a precarious working conditions in manufacturing industries dispute, is adopting distributive negotiation approach or adopting integrative negotiation approach more effective for well-being?
The databases used are: Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and ResearchGate.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: negotiation types, distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation, employment dispute resolution.
The main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:
Patricia Elgoibar, Francisco J. Medina, Martin Claes Euwema and Lourdes Munduate’s empirical study explores the negotiation process between management and employee representatives by analysing the roles of trust and how trustworthiness has a greater influence on negotiation, particularly with regard to integrative as opposed to distributive issues, and that trust partially mediates this relationship.
Rick Coleman and C.R.P. Fraser examine the antithetical nature of the two methods of resolving conflict through negotiation and suggests an appropriate process depending upon how the parties view the problem and how they perceive it being viewed by their opponent.
Dan-Mallam Yakubu Abigail, Dulzalani Eden and Awang Ideris have proved the importance of negotiation for resolving a dispute. They demonstrated that the outcome of every negotiation relies heavily on the negotiation strategies of the parties involved, the exchange of information and their characters during the negotiation process. They studied how the two types of strategies distributive and integrative are in relation to the behaviour and attitudes negotiators display in a negotiation table and the reason behind using cooperative and competitive strategies. The reason why negotiators commonly used cooperative and competitive strategies.
Russell Korobkin in his working paper demonstrated how distributive negotiation can be beneficial for certain cases and help resolving disputes. Even though he is in favour of structuring negotiated agreements in an integrative way, he defends the fact that distributive bargaining should not be withdrawn or seen as less than integrative negotiation.
Quality of evidence and research gap
According to our research method, we grade the evidence comparing adopting integrative negotiation approaches or adopting distributive negotiation approaches as low.
Available studies and expert opinions are of a high quality, but do not pertain to precarious work conditions disputes in particular. Furthermore, sources consist of expert opinions and contain a risk of bias of some authors, resulting in downgrading of the evidence by one level.
Adopting integrative negotiation approach | Adopting distributive negotiation approach |
---|---|
Integrative negotiations have the potential to transform single issues into multiple issues and make trade-offs. We observe this trend in collective negotiation, where there is greater social awareness within organisations of such issues as health and safety, and employee training [9].
Taking for example the past circumstances that have presented a number of creative ways to reach integrative agreements. One is the possibility of recovering working hours lost during the toughest phase of the pandemic in exchange for keeping jobs in the organisation. Another is investment in online training during periods of the pandemic when economic activity was low.
In these cases, the parties refocused the negotiation from the single issue of how many hours could be recovered by identifying the multiple issues regarding training or teleworking during the pandemic that turned out to be the real issues in these negotiations, issues with integrative potential as they are able to create added value and maximise joint gains [10].
| A distributive bargaining approach may be appropriate if getting your way is paramount to all other concerns. For example, in a crisis, where you are the expert or best trained individual, it may be appropriate to be very forceful in getting things done as you see fit. For example, your objective might be to demonstrate power over the opposition, to essentially send a psychological message of dominant power in a given situation [17].
|
Integrative dispute resolvers seek ways that both sides can achieve their goals with as little cost as possible to the other side. A creative problem solver can often use integrative dispute resolution strategies even in what appears to be very restrictive circumstances. Expanding the ‘pie’, the general approach of the integrative dispute resolver is to be more global than the competitive problem solver, to not be tied to only the obvious object of the dispute. The integrative problem resolver asks whether there are other elements of value in the dispute that are not obvious, but which, if addressed, can make a resolution more easily achieved. Focusing on interests, not positions, every dispute involves issues. The integrative problem solver directs the attention of the disputants to interests, not positions or even issues. By focusing on interests, the integrative problem solver seeks to ‘go below the line’ to find what is driving the parties’ conflicting positions [11].
| Distributive bargaining approach might be useful when you know that there are no opportunities to ‘expand the pie’ and you must get as much of the existing, available resources as possible [18]. |
Because disputes and negotiations are often emotionally charged, integrative problem solvers attend carefully to the focus of the problem and work either to steer the focus back to substance whenever the discussion strays to personalities, or to deal forthrightly with affective issues when they interfere with discussing the substance of the dispute. The problem-solving process itself is as much an issue for the integrative dispute resolvers as are the interests of the parties. Only when the disputants are comfortable with their relationship can they risk approaching the problem using techniques that go beyond distributive strategies [12].
| According to some authors such as Keith Allred, distributive strategy is very important for the purpose of self-actualization. Distributive disputants normally acquired their goals through competitive means rather than cooperation with the other negotiators for a collective agreement. Such negotiators believe that adopting a cooperatively oriented bargaining attitude will obstruct their chances of self-achievements at the negotiation table. Allred further maintains that disputants cannot always achieve what they need through cooperation and sincerity. Allred argued that there are fundamental key issues which may hinder the two parties from reaching an agreement in the name of absolute honesty and sincerity. Moreover, excessive truth-telling in the negotiation results in more topics of discussion and argument which potentially prolong the negotiation process without achieving success. Allred stated that competitive and cooperative approach creates a dilemma for disputants to reach mutual agreements in a negotiation. Allred suggested that the best alternative for disputants to resolve their misunderstanding is to move away from the combination of integrative and distributive strategies and move towards distributive tactics for the purpose of personal accomplishment [19].
|
Inventing options [ innovative solutions] for mutual gain, inventing options for mutual gain consists of identifying and deliberating over multiple solutions to a problem, and comparing, contrasting, and refining these solutions to a problem until a realistic and mutually satisfactory outcome is reached. It includes ‘brainstorming’ in which bargainers hypothesise outcomes. This process seeks to alter frames of reference so that the problem is considered from the parties’ differing vantage points as well as vantage points that are created by the brainstorming process itself [13].
| |
Evidence from most current literature shows that integrative negotiators place a strong emphasis on a high degree of trust and commitment to integrate their ideas with their counterparts in order to come out with meaningful and logical solutions to ensure integrative agreement. They consider information exchange as their top priority for the purpose of achieving collective goals. Negotiators with integrative negotiation tactic also seek for more clarification and understanding from their counterparts in relation to their interest in dispute with this kind of mindset; they often succeed in accomplishing a collective goal [14].
| |
Integrative negotiation leads to a less considerable level of psychological distress between the two disputants during the negotiation process, negotiators who utilize integrative strategy are honest in the negotiation table as they believe that it is a way of being fair and kind to the other negotiators. They also believe in cooperation to honestly and fairly reveal their priorities and preferences to the other party to avoid suppressing each other. This makes it much easier for the disputants to successfully reach an agreement. More-so, studies suggest that integrative negotiation style is crucial in achieving a collective mutual achievement [15]. | |
Integrative negotiations may be appropriate in complex situations where there are multiple issues under consideration and potentially multiple paths to a solution. Additionally, the more complex the situation means it is more likely that the parties have significant interests influencing their positions; this exploration of interests is best accomplished by pursuing an integrative negotiations strategy [16]. |
Adopting integrative negotiation approach | Adopting distributive negotiation approach |
---|---|
Not all negotiation problems have the potential to be solved with an integrative approach. Some disputants may adopt distributive strategy as a way to achieve their demands, which have been taken for granted by another party for just no cause [20].
| Distributive negotiation usually assumes that the value being negotiated is relatively fixed. In the case of a salary negotiation, for example, the parties may attempt to distribute a limited and specific amount of money. This assumption tends to limit the options for the parties to consider in seeking resolution to a dispute or claim [22]. |
Individuals who lack formal negotiation training are less likely to intuitively grasp the fundamental concepts of integrative negotiations, while most everyone has an intuitive sense of how to use some distributive tactics, such as taking a firm position and grudgingly making concessions, individuals who lack formal negotiation training are less likely to grasp the fundamental concepts of integrative bargaining. This point can obscure the fact that negotiations have more distributive potential than integrative potential [21].
| Distributive bargaining encourages an aggressive style that may harm a relationship, unfortunately such stylized distributive negotiation tends to motivate competitive and aggressive strategies. One of the essences of distributive negotiation, for example, is concealing information in order not to give up too much of the object of the bargaining in order to reach a deal. A number of other tactics are often associated with distributive negotiation that are aimed at overpowering the opposing party. As a result, there is considerable likelihood such negotiation will harm the parties’ relationship.
|
Empirical evidence shows that negotiators who use the distributive style of negotiation do not pay attention to the success of their partners at the negotiation table, this is why they frequently apply the use of threat to force a decision on their partners. This kind of irrational behavior from the side of the distributive negotiators often leads to dispute between the two disputants as the other negotiators with integrative attitudes will not accept forceful proposals below their initial demands. In reality, disputants with distributive tactics of negotiation have a high tendency to yell at their opponents when their offer has been rejected. At this moment, the two parties may not likely reach an agreement as yelling can easily trigger anger among the negotiators which will later have a greater consequence on the process of negotiation and its outcome [23].
| |
Many distributive problem-solving strategies break down because there is simply no zone of agreement. By focusing on positions rather than interests, distributive problem solvers limit the information they share, reducing their creativity and problem-solving power. By asking ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions, on the other hand, disputants can learn the reasons behind the positions and seek to satisfy those interests rather than the more concrete issues. Such questions seek the ‘why’ information without asking ‘why’ questions. ‘Why’ questions tend to make the parties become defensive, also limiting their creativity [24].
| |
Showing non-cooperative behaviour, evidence shows that distributive negotiators achieve their success on the basis of less cooperative behaviour in the negotiation table which results in the exploitation of their counterparts [25]. This has greatly contributed to a high degree of resistance to important pieces of information from their partners which are supposed to result in win-win solutions as their prime intention is to satisfy their goals at the negotiation table regardless of whether their partners are satisfied or not. For this reason, the two parties cannot be able to reach a fruitful agreement with each other as both parties struggle to meet up their goals at the bargaining table. Hence, the possibility of confrontation among the two disputants becomes high due to clash of interest [26].
| |
Lack of a compromise attitude of negotiators with distributive strategy, this kind attitude often undermines and weakens the success of their negotiation with their partners as they struggle to achieve all their demands. In addition, unpleasant behaviour such as insincerity and fake promises are other common tactics adopted by negotiators with distributive strategy. This frequent unfulfilled agreement may further complicate their future negotiation because their counterparts will no longer trust statements from their distributive counterparts and that may likely cause a delay in reaching meaningful an agreement between the two parties [27].
|
Taken together, the available research suggests that adopting an integrative negotiation approach proves to be desirable in resolving precarious work conditions disputes, the strategies and tactics used in this type of negotiation seeks that both parties achieve their goals with as little cost as possible to the other side, Also, a mutually agreed upon solution is more durable, has more buy-in, and any problems that arise during execution are usually more easily resolved.
On the other hand, adopting a distributive negotiation approach is not always useful in resolving the dispute as it encourages an aggressive style that may harm the relationship between parties by adopting a non-cooperative behavior and a lack of compromise attitude.
The desirable outcomes of integrative negotiation outweigh those of distributive negotiation, and the undesirable outcomes of distributive negotiation outweigh those of active integrative negotiation. Therefore, adopting an integrative negotiation approach is preferred.
Taking into account the balance of outcomes, the benefits for parties to a precarious working condition in manufacture industries disputes, and the quality and consistency of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: for parties to a precarious working condition in manufacture industries disputes, adopting integrative negotiation approach is more conducive to well-being than adopting distributive negotiation approach.
[1] Coleman, R., & Fraser, C. R. P. (1979). Integrative vs Distributive Bargaining: Choosing a Problem Resolution Process. Industrial Relations, 34(3), p. 547.
[2] Elgoibar, P., Medina, F. J., Euwema, M. S., & Munduate, L. Increasing Integrative Negotiation in European Organizations Through Trustworthiness and Trust. Département de gestion, Université de Barcelone, p. 11.
[3] Ibid., p. 3.
[4] World Bank. Communication for Governance & Accountability Program (CommGAP), p. 2.
[5] Op. cit., réf. [2], p. 11.
[6-7] Op. cit., réf. [1], p. 548.
[8] Op. cit., réf. [4], p. 2.
[9] Op. cit., réf. [3].
[10] Op. cit., réf. [3], p. 2.
[11] Meierding, N. (2019). Negotiating Strategies for Better Results – Understanding Both the Competitive and Integrative Bargaining Processes to Maximize Success. Negotiation and Mediation Training Services, Bainbridge Island, p. 7.
[12] Ibid., p. 10.
[13] Ibid., p. 12.
[14-15] Abigail, D. Y., Eden, D., & Awang, I. (2018). A Review of Distributive and Integrative Strategies in the Negotiation Process. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH, 3(5), pp. 70-71.
[16-18] Distributive Fights and Integrative Efforts: Two Frames For Negotiation. Air Force Negotiations Centre, pp. 3, 6.
[19-20] Op. cit., réf. [14], pp. 70-71.
[21] Korobkin, R. (2007). Against Intégrative Bargaining, p. 3.
[22] Op. cit., réf. [11], p. 4.
[23-27] Op. cit., réf. [14], p. 69.
Table of Contents
1.1 Clear definition of employee benefits in the terms and conditions of the contract
1.2 Fairness standards for benefits provided to employees by the employer
1.3 Standards to determine the fairness of the employer’s conduct regarding dismissals
1.4 Grievance procedure related to dismissals at the workplace
1.5 Applying the Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms (ADR) according to the ladder of ADR activities
The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org
The Hague Institute for
Innovation of Law
Tel: +31 70 762 0700
E-mail: info@hiil.org