Integrative and Distributive Negotiations: The Dose Makes the Poison.

"Integrative negotiation is better for repeated negotiations as it fosters trust and cooperation between parties."

Distinguish negotiations by the number of topics.

The number of negotiated issues is essential to distinguishing different negotiation settings.

Some negotiations (or simply bargains) are centered upon only one issue - usually, commodity price. 

Others cover multiple issues, such as important contract clauses, delivery terms, payment terms, warranties, etc.

Distributive negotiations or bargaining

Single-issue haggling, by definition, involves a conflict of interests.

This type of negotiation is based on the belief that resources are limited, often called a "fixed pie." As a result, single-issue negotiations are typically distributive, meaning they are win-lose scenarios.

In distributive negotiations, each party attempts to claim value by presenting their position statement and supporting arguments.

Integrative negotiations

Multi-issue negotiations offer additional potential for integrative behavior because the parties may grow their utilities by leveraging multiple resources. 

Eventually, if appropriately managed, integrative negotiations can make everybody better off.  

The sides to integrative negotiations aim to create value by identifying mutually beneficial improvements. They operate multi-issue offers, creative persuasions, and other actions that increase both sides' joint utility (win-win.)

The following graphs present the differences between distributive and integrative negotiations. 

The latter assumes the opportunity to gradually grow the utilities of parties by exploring perks across different aspects of the negotiation scope. 

Illustration comparing distributive and integrative negotiations, highlighting the distinction between fixed pie (win-lose) and win-win strategies based on the parties' willingness to share and process information.

Negotiation tactics based on the Game Theory

Based on the Game Theory, distributive negotiations resemble zero-sum games, and integrative ones fit cooperative games.

Therefore, we'll look into appropriate tactics for each game type.

Zero-sum games (distributive)

1.      Aggressive Anchoring – Start with an extreme opening offer to frame expectations.

2.      Claiming Value – Focus on your immediate gain rather than finding shared benefits.

3.      Withholding Information – Reveal only data that strengthens your position while keeping weaknesses hidden.

4.      Using Leverage – Emphasize your alternatives and power to push for better terms.

Cooperative games (integrative)

1.      Interest Exploration – Focus on underlying goals instead of rigid positions.

2.      Sharing Information – Build trust by revealing relevant insights to find common ground.

3.      Joint Problem-Solving – Collaborate to lower costs or improve performance without sacrificing quality.

4.      Creating Multiple Options – Brainstorm alternatives and evaluate the best outcome together.

Negotiation types mapped to the Kraljic Matrix.

Referring to the opening quote of this article, I want to warn you about the misconception that win-win negotiations are better than win-lose, just like Agile is better than Waterfall.

That's not true! Each type suits certain circumstances and should be applied topically and consciously.

Let's refer to the procurement basics - the Kraljic Matrix.

Distributive negotiations can fit perfectly into the Leverage and Non-critical quadrants of the Kraljic matrix. There, the customers enjoy the low-risk competitive market and can dictate their terms. Would you spend time and effort carefully crafting concessions with a supplier in a saturated market driven by the cost?

Integrative negotiations are great for the Strategic and Bottleneck quadrants of the Kraljic matrix. Enforcing our terms would not work, unlike the delicate and conscious attitude toward the interests of a counterpart.

Sola dosis facit venenum

Paracelsus's Principle of Toxicology is often paraphrased as:

"The dose makes the poison."

It suggests that any harmful or beneficial substance can act as a poison or a remedy, depending on the dose, context, and application.

• Dosage Matters – Even water can be toxic when consumed in excessive quantities (water intoxication). Conversely, substances like arsenic, which are poisonous in larger doses, may have therapeutic effects in microdoses.

• Balance and Moderation – Medicines often strike the right balance to avoid toxicity while ensuring efficacy.

• Context is Critical – A medicine for one condition might act as a poison in another scenario or for another person due to differences in biology or pre-existing conditions.

• Philosophical Insight – Life experiences, tools, or even emotions like stress can be harmful or beneficial depending on how they are managed.