How does integrative bargaining differ from distributive bargaining?

Integrative bargaining differs from distributive bargaining in its goal and approach to negotiation. Distributive bargaining, also known as competitive or zero-sum bargaining, assumes that there is a fixed amount of resources to be divided between the parties. Each party tries to maximize its share of the resources, often at the expense of the other party. It's characterized by a win-lose mentality, where one party's gain is perceived as the other party's loss. Tactics used in distributive bargaining include aggressive offers, threats, and withholding information. Integrative bargaining, also known as collaborative or win-win bargaining, focuses on creating value by exploring the underlying interests of the parties and finding solutions that satisfy everyone's needs. It assumes that it is possible to expand the pie by identifying common interests and developing creative options that benefit all parties. Tactics used in integrative bargaining include open communication, sharing information, and problem-solving. For example, in a salary negotiation, distributive bargaining would focus solely on the amount of money, with each party trying to get the best possible deal for themselves. Integrative bargaining, on the other hand, would explore the employee's needs for career development and work-life balance, and the employer's needs for employee retention and productivity, potentially leading to solutions such as flexible work arrangements or training opportunities that benefit both parties.