In a big talk where people want different things, how does an expert decide whether to try and win a fixed slice of a pie or work together to make a bigger pie for everyone?

The expert's decision between pursuing a fixed slice of a pie, which is known as a distributive negotiation approach, or working together to make a bigger pie for everyone, which is an integrative negotiation approach, is based on a careful assessment of several critical factors. A distributive negotiation, or fixed-slice approach, occurs when the resource or outcome is perceived as finite and cannot be expanded. In this scenario, one party's gain directly corresponds to another party's loss, making it a zero-sum game focused on claiming value. For example, if two companies are negotiating the precise price for a single, non-divisible item, where the seller wants the highest price and the buyer wants the lowest, they are engaged in a fixed-slice negotiation over a set amount of money. An integrative negotiation, or bigger-pie approach, aims to create additional value by exploring underlying interests, differences in priorities, and potential synergies among parties. This approach seeks solutions where all parties can achieve more than they would through simply dividing a fixed resource, effectively expanding the total value available. For instance, if two departments need access to a shared resource, an integrative approach might find ways to reschedule usage, cross-train staff, or invest in additional tools, creating more overall utility than just dividing existing access time. The expert assesses the nature of the issue itself. If the subject of the talk is inherently a single, indivisible item or a fixed quantity, like a specific sum of money that cannot be increased, the expert leans towards a distributive strategy. If, however, the issue involves multiple components, different types of resources, or various stakeholders with diverse needs and priorities, an integrative strategy becomes more viable because there are more opportunities to create value through trade-offs and creative solutions. Another crucial factor is the importance of the relationship between the parties. If the talk is a one-time interaction with no expectation of future collaboration, an expert might prioritize claiming maximum individual value through a distributive approach. Conversely, if an ongoing relationship, trust, and future cooperation are essential, the expert will favor an integrative strategy to build goodwill and foster long-term mutual benefit. The expert also considers the underlying interests of all parties, not just their stated positions. A position is what someone says they want, like "I want 70% of the budget." An interest is the deeper reason or motivation behind that position, such as "I need 70% to fund specific projects that align with the company's long-term goals." When parties can articulate and understand each other's interests, an integrative approach is possible, as it allows for finding solutions that satisfy multiple interests simultaneously, often in ways not initially apparent. If interests remain hidden or parties are unwilling to disclose them, a fixed-slice approach is more likely to prevail. Information availability and the level of trust among participants heavily influence the choice. An integrative strategy requires a higher degree of transparency and trust, as parties must be willing to share information about their true needs, priorities, and capabilities to identify potential areas for joint value creation. If information is withheld, or trust is low, making it difficult to verify claims or explore options openly, the expert will typically revert to a more guarded, distributive negotiation where information asymmetry is less detrimental. The expert also evaluates the time and resources available for the talk. Integrative negotiations generally require more time, effort, and creative thinking to brainstorm options, analyze trade-offs, and develop complex solutions. If time is severely limited or resources for extensive exploration are scarce, a quicker, more direct fixed-slice negotiation might be chosen out of necessity. Finally, the expert considers the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) for all parties. A BATNA is what a party will do if they cannot reach an agreement in the current negotiation. If all parties have strong BATNAs, meaning they have good options outside the current talk, the expert might lean towards an integrative approach to ensure a deal is reached, as a distributive win-lose scenario might lead to an impasse. If an integrative approach can create value that surpasses all parties' BATNAs, it becomes the preferred strategy, as it offers a compelling reason for everyone to agree.