According to Richard Walton and Robert Mc Kersie in the article “A Behavioral Theory of
Labor Negotiations”, there are fours types of bargaining subprocesses that take place in
collective bargaining to negotiate a union contract. They are distributive bargaining,
integrative bargaining, attitudinal bargaining and intraorganizational bargaining. The first
two subprocesses – distributive and integrative bargaining – are the major alternatives for
negotiating terms and conditions of employment: adversarial bargaining over conflicts of
interest, and collaborative problem solving for issues of mutual gain. That means
distributive bargaining tries to distribute a fixed pie and focuses on positions while
integrative bargaining integrates interests to increase the size of pie of which focuses on
interests. But, to create a more cooperative partnerships and healthy workplaces and
organizations in a competitive environment, many academics and specialists suggested that
negotiators should replace distributive with integrative bargaining in labor negotiations.
However, it’s hard to switch from traditional bargaining (distributive bargaining) methods
to an integrate method.
Integrate bargaining definition – compare to distributive bargaining
In our textbook “Labor Relations – Striking Balance”, John W.Budd defines integrative
bargaining as “seeking to unify (integrate) the common interests of a parties to a
negotiation so that all can become better off.” (249). Each side seeks to create an outcome
that benefits both sides, sets a shared goal of joining the interests of both parties so that
mutual value can be created. That means the parties actually work together toward the
same purpose instead of toward opposing purposes.
Comparing to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining allows all members of
negotiating teams to participate while participants of distributive bargaining are chief
spokesperson or lead negotiators only. Distributive bargaining’s tactic is manipulating
perceptions of positions, increasing cost of delay in order to win gains for your side
through bargaining power. On the contrast, integrative bargaining uses brainstorming and
objective data to create joint gain and stronger relationship. So its important prop is flip
chart for brainstorming with free flowing information and the trust of being critical or
facilitated. But integrative bargaining can also create problems, such as time consuming,
selling results to constituents and giving up control.
Integrative bargaining’s role in bargaining table
Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes
for the parties involved than does positional bargaining. Integrative solutions are generally
more gratifying for all involved in negotiation, as the true needs and concerns of both sides
will be met to some degree. It is a collaborative process and therefore the parties actually
