Integrative bargainingmeans showing potential interests which is creating joint value between parties(Jossey Bass,2001).This is also called a negotiation strategy that isfinding a solution in both parties. Ingenerally integrative case has no conflict between the two parties, if theyfind congenial solution. On the other hand some negotiation are trulyintegrative it is a combination of integrativeand distributive aspects (Walton &Mckersie,1965). In such cases most havedesirability of integrative agreements versus distributive agreements.Furthermore it is likely to be mutually satisfaction between these twoagreements and greater willingness to abide by the agreement and loweredwillingness to adopt more tactics in the future relationship (Pruitt &Rubin,1986).Integrative bargainingis satisfactory solution, rather than less cooperation. Because the partieswill have well cooperation with each other they tried to be solved both partiesproblem equally distributed cost to the party,when the parties dedicate theirtrue needs and concerns-their basic interests (Fisher,Ury &Patton,1991).
Integrative bargaining claim interests between two parties mixedmotive bargaining task and concern for one’s as well as the other side’s interests (Pruitt & Rubin ,1986) as wellas persistence and effort. Besides extraversion associated positively withrealizing more integrative potential, because integrative bargaining trainedexploration of ideas facilities.However a distaste forconflict may make it harder to one’s needs with clarity and conviction. Thecosts of agreeableness might be counteract the benefits of agreeableness,result will make an no effect. The one thing we believe that conscientiousnesshas same effect for both integrative and distributive bargaining. Besidesintegrative agreements is important because of parties achieve a higher jointoutcome and mere compromise agreement (Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992; Follett,1940). Integrative agreements bridging the twoparties.
If one party does not try toprogress of their position that probablycreate an agreements more attractive for the other party. Bridging developedthat meets each side’s ability and willingness to trade issues with each other(Forman & Cohen, 1970; Wallton andMc kersie , 1965): if they issues trade offs then parties can achieve higherjoint benefits ( Carnevale and Pruitt , 1992).In both cases mutual concessionsis necessary because some issues are compromise while perusing others andconcessions. Research has shown that the number of cognitive, motivational andemotional barriers (Thompson et al, 2010 or Lewicki et al,2007).Moreover integrativebargaining has some personality effects too. This is non-zero- sum encounterand it has possibility for joint gain from negotiation. Besides party hasgreater knowledge about bargainers and abilityto have find solution when they face integrative bargaining situations.
Becauseintegrative bargaining help to fulfill the planning and it has ability to acquire and interpretcomplex information about the other party’s interests. Integrative situationsalso present new opportunities which have positive impact on interests. That’swhy Integrative bargaining issubstantially difficult to solve but easyto understand. Sometimes bargainers face complexity because the ability tointegrates are unadjusted to information and realize that integrative outcomesthrough communication is low in complexity (Pruitt& Lewis,1975).
In this personalityeffect mental contrasting also lead to enhanced perspective taking which is amajor building block of integrative bargaining (Galinsky et al,2008). Mentalcontrasting may effect as an integrative invasion. So achieve a goal of one’sparty lead higher quality of agreements to understand the mental contrasting.Furthermore strong goals commitment, discrimination among the means to goalachievements and perspective taking and useful for the other integrativesolution.
A strong goal generally promotes more profitable agreements ( Polzerand Neale,1995); so integrative bargaining outcomes also taking perspective and understand how to meet one’sparty demand without conceding. Integrative bargaining unexplored aspiration because ofthe qualitative nature of the integrative negotiation. There is no chance tomoderating influence of aspirations would operate differently in a situationwith integrative potential. Having knowledge about the opponent’s trueinterests and the basic thing of integrative bargaining is it will be make littlecost of themselves.