Editing Negotiation (section)

=== Integrative negotiation ===
{{See also|Non-zero-sum game|Win-win game}}

Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, win-win, or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often value various outcomes differently.<ref>John Nash, "The Bargaining problem", Econometrica XVIII 1:155–162, 1950; G C Homans, Social Behavior. Harcourt, Brace and world, 1961</ref> While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie") by either "compensating" the loss of one item with gains from another ("trade-offs" or [[logrolling]]), or by constructing or reframing the issues of the conflict in such a way that both parties benefit ("win-win" negotiation).<ref>{{cite book| title=Creative Experience | last=Follett | first=Mary | publisher=P Smith | location=United States | date=1951 }}</ref>

However, even integrative negotiation is likely to have some distributive elements, especially when the different parties value some items to the same degree or when details are left to be allocated at the end of the negotiation. While concession by at least one party is always necessary for negotiations,<ref name="Langlois"/> research shows that people who concede more quickly are less likely to explore all integrative and mutually beneficial solutions. Therefore, early concession reduces the chance of an integrative negotiation.<ref>{{cite journal|last2=Hufmeier|last3=Loschelder|last4=Schwartz|last5=Collwitzer|date=2011|title=Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself in the opponents shoes helps to walk towards agreements|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=101|issue=4|pages=771–790|doi=10.1037/a0023801|pmid=21728447|last1=Trotschel|url=http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/771.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.728.9853}}</ref>

Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the formation of a relationship, although [[INSEAD]] professor Horacio Falcao has stated that, counter-intuitively, trust is a helpful aid to successful win-win negotiation but not a necessary requirement: he argues that promotion of interdependence is a more effective strategy that development of trust.<ref>Falcao, H., [https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/seven-myths-win-win-negotiations The Seven Myths of Win-Win Negotiations], ''INSEAD Knowledge'', accessed 3 December 2023</ref> Integrative negotiation can also involve creative problem-solving in the pursuit of mutual gains. It sees a good agreement as one that provides optimal gain for both parties, rather than maximum individual gain. Each party seeks to allow the other party sufficient benefit that both will hold to the agreement.

Productive negotiation focuses on the underlying interests of both parties rather than their starting positions and approaches negotiation as a shared problem-solving exercise rather than an individualized battle. Adherence to objective and principled criteria is the basis for productive negotiation and agreement.<ref name="AgainstGridlock-p1">Gregory Brazeal, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1730725 "Against Gridlock: The Viability of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation"], ''Harvard Law & Policy Review'' (Online), vol. 3, p. 1 (2009).</ref>