UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 10.9 Free with a free account
Two Styles of Bargaining: Integrative and Distributive
Human Resources Management · Chapter 10: Working With Unions: Collective Bargaining and Labor RelationsSection 10.9 · lesson 79 of 9115 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: When Negotiations Fail: Strikes, Lockouts, and Other Outcomes →← What Employers Can and Can't Do During Organizing and BargainingNext lesson: When Negotiations Fail: Strikes, Lockouts, and Other Outcomes →
In this lesson
Match the bargaining method to the issue, the alternatives and the continuing relationship.
- Explain target points, limits and the settlement range.
- Find trades through interests, information and differing priorities.
- Apply both modes to cases and practice issues.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,848 words). Read along, or search it.
Working With Unions: Collective Bargaining and Labor Relations
Two Styles of Bargaining: Integrative and Distributive
Collective bargaining involves two problems: dividing resources, and finding arrangements both parties value more. Distributive bargaining addresses the division, while integrative bargaining searches for useful trades. Neither mode describes a personality; cooperation cannot create a nonexistent trade. We will examine target points, resistance points, and the settlement range on a fixed issue. Then, we will separate stated positions from the interests that make packages possible. Information, trust, multiple issues, and time support that search, without guaranteeing mutual gains. Interest-based bargaining gives the parties a structured process with possible training or facilitation. Most negotiations combine both modes, sometimes moving between them within a single session. The Northgate Logistics example shows a schedule trade, alongside a distributive base-rate question. Practice issues will help identify the mode and interests behind opposing demands. Finally, the scanning-system problem shows why hidden priorities can prevent agreement despite capable teams.
DISTRIBUTIVE STRUCTURE
A Fixed Resource Creates a Division Problem
Distributive bargaining divides a resource treated as fixed, so gains cost the other side. A wage-rate increase illustrates that structure, holding hours, output, and other elements constant. The target point is the outcome a party hopes to achieve, rather than its limit. Its resistance point is the least favorable outcome it would accept over no agreement. An opening proposal is different again; do not mistake the first demand for either point. The settlement range consists of outcomes both parties accept, requiring overlap between acceptance limits. If those limits do not overlap, no agreement exists on that issue under current assumptions. Skillful presentation cannot manufacture overlap, although a broader package may change the problem. A different alternative, constraint, or issue framing can also alter each party's acceptance. The diagrammatic idea needs no invented figures; identify the limits and look for overlap. This structure directs preparation toward the no-agreement outcome, which gives the resistance point meaning.
ALTERNATIVES AND TECHNIQUES
Leverage Comes From the Alternative to Agreement
A resistance point reflects the alternative to agreement, rather than an arbitrary chosen number. For the employer, dispute costs can include lost production, customers, and interrupted operations. For employees, available work, member commitment, and the capacity to sustain a dispute influence acceptance. A strike fund and lawful operational readiness can affect those alternatives, without guaranteeing settlement. Anchoring starts discussion at a proposed position, seeking to influence later bargaining. Its limitation is credibility: an implausible opening can be dismissed, weakening the party's standing. Concession patterns concern the sequence and size of movements, signaling possible limits. Diminishing concessions may signal an approaching limit, but a signal is not proof. Commitment makes retreat costly by publicly binding a party, strengthening resolve while reducing flexibility. Experienced parties recognize these techniques; they are analytical concepts, rather than guaranteed tricks. Preparing a realistic alternative can matter more than presentation, while legal obligations constrain conduct.
INTEGRATIVE MECHANISM
Trade Across Issues Valued Differently
Integrative bargaining searches for packages that serve both parties, using differing priorities. The mechanism needs more than a friendly manner; it needs genuine trade opportunities. Suppose the employer values predictable core coverage, while employees especially value shift-exchange control. A fixed coverage arrangement with a self-managed swap system may serve both sets of interests. Each exchanges a lower-valued feature for a higher-valued feature, rather than splitting a difference. That possibility must be tested against actual preferences, coverage needs, and administrative safeguards. A position is what the party says it wants; an interest explains why it matters. A shift-premium position may reflect disruption to family life, beyond money alone. Advance schedules, shift choice, or a different pattern might also serve that interest effectively. Ask why the issue matters, which problem it solves, and what would reduce its importance. Do not assume every member shares the same preference, or that every proposed trade improves outcomes.
4 ENABLING CONDITIONS
Information Makes the Trade Visible
Four enabling conditions help explain why a possible trade remains invisible. First, identify multiple issues or design dimensions, so something can be traded meaningfully. One fixed scalar provides little room for integrative exchange, unless framing changes. Second, exchange information about actual priorities and constraints, because unknown preferences cannot guide trades. Third, establish enough trust and process agreement that disclosure is not simply exploited by the other side. A one-sided willingness to explain interests can create vulnerability when the other side bargains incompatibly. Fourth, allow time for discovery, option generation, and evaluation, rather than demand immediate compromise. That exploration takes effort, although a structured collaborative process may ultimately shorten negotiation overall. These conditions support the process; they do not promise that every problem contains mutual gains. Selective disclosure on a fixed-sum issue can conflict with revealing priorities needed for useful packages. Agree on how information will be used, distinguishing acceptance limits from shared interests.
5 COMPARISON DIMENSIONS
The Modes Differ in Assumptions and Information Use
Compare the modes across resource assumptions, information, techniques, relationship effects, and issue fit. Distributive bargaining treats the resource as fixed, while integrative bargaining looks for differing priorities. The first often uses selective disclosure of acceptance limits; the second needs exchange about priorities. Anchors, concession patterns, and commitments fit division questions, while linked options support trades. The source associates hard bargaining with strained goodwill, and collaboration with stronger relationships. Treat those as tendencies, rather than inevitabilities: respectful hard bargaining can preserve trust too. A collaborative process can fail, especially when participation is unequal or promises exceed opportunities. The base rate or a fixed contribution is principally distributive when only amount is disputed. Schedules, training, and work arrangements often offer design opportunities, alongside costs and allocation. Contract duration likewise can involve stability, flexibility, and linked protections, rather than one inevitable mode. State the assumptions clearly, then choose the method that fits the issue on the table.
INTEREST-BASED BARGAINING
Agree on the Process Before Using It
Interest-based bargaining applies the integrative method through an agreed process, beyond goodwill alone. The parties identify interests before fixing positions, and jointly generate options before package selection. They then evaluate alternatives using agreed criteria, including feasibility, cost, and interest fulfillment. Joint training or a facilitator can help the parties use that process consistently. Both sides need meaningful commitment; one-sided disclosure can weaken the participant whose disclosure is exploited. Economic pressure, threatened closure, or hostile leadership changes can strain collaboration and encourage positional conflict. That vulnerability is real, but does not make a collaborative process useless under all pressure. A genuine disagreement over a fixed resource remains distributive; reframing does not erase opposing interests. An acceptance limit need not be volunteered, but that differs from inventing material facts. An employer's inability-to-pay claim can trigger a substantiation duty on request, depending on facts and law. Distinguish inability from unwillingness to pay, and examine confidentiality accommodations rather than withhold required information.
MIXED BARGAINING AND PREPARATION
Prepare Both Limits and Interests
Most collective negotiations contain both modes, and preparation needs limits and interests. Costing proposals and assessing no-agreement alternatives help establish target points and resistance points for distributive negotiation. Identifying actual priorities, lower-valued components, and acceptable trades prepares integrative discussion. A team that prepares costs alone may overlook a feasible package the other side values. These parties have a continuing relationship, meeting again in grievances, workplace crises, and later negotiations. Reputation therefore has practical value, while depleted goodwill can complicate later administration. An apparent victory gained by exploiting a mistake may create costs beyond this session. Selective disclosure is ordinary bargaining, but deliberate deception risks both trust and the legal good-faith obligation. Ask how the other side would view the conduct after learning what actually happened during negotiation. Would they regard themselves as fairly outnegotiated, or deceived about material facts? Keep required information duties separate from voluntary disclosure; a private limit does not erase them.
FICTIONAL NORTHGATE LOGISTICS CASE
Predictability and Choice Reveal a Feasible Trade
At fictional Northgate Logistics, the union seeks a weekend premium, rejected over cost. The employer seeks twelve-hour shifts during peak season, while members resist fatigue and childcare disruption. Both teams repeat positions, treating each issue as a demand to accept or reject outright. The employer's underlying interest is predictable peak capacity, rather than twelve-hour shifts specifically. Members seek advance notice and control over weekends, with several preferring certainty to money. Once those interests emerge, a package becomes visible: publish schedules eight weeks ahead, with voluntary extended shifts. Attach a modest premium to those shifts, and cap consecutive weekends worked to address disruption. The employer obtains capacity below the rejected broad-premium cost, while employees obtain valued predictability and choice. The source supplies that preference pattern; it supplies no numerical premium or savings. Actual fatigue, legal, operational, and childcare constraints still need assessment before implementation. A separate base-rate disagreement remains distributive, showing how both bargaining modes can coexist.
8 ISSUE CLASSIFICATIONS
Identify Allocation Questions and Design Opportunities
The eight practice issues test whether the dispute involves money, design, or both. The base hourly rate, benefit-fund contribution, and one-time lump sum are principally distributive as framed. Their broader packages might contain trades, but their stated amounts alone are allocation questions. Overtime allocation among people who want hours can incorporate preferences and coverage needs. Annual shift patterns likewise offer exchanges involving predictability, choice, workload, and coverage. Training design and release arrangements can improve access and skill development while meeting staffing constraints. A grievance procedure can jointly improve fair handling, clarity, timely resolution, and workable administration. Agreement length is mixed: stability and flexibility may be traded through linked terms or reviews. Ask why one side wants the duration, rather than assigning a universal label. A package including timing, risk, or design differs from negotiation over a single fixed payment amount. Explain the issue's scope and the parties' priorities, then justify the mode and trade potential.
4 PAIRED POSITIONS
Treat Proposed Interests as Hypotheses to Test
For the four paired positions, propose plausible interests, then treat explanations as hypotheses. A union's shift-premium demand may concern disruption, while the employer's refusal concerns capacity and predictable cost. Choice or advance notice might address disruption, but actual member preferences must guide alternatives. Subcontracting maintenance may reflect reliability or specialist skill, while union concerns involve jobs and safety. The employer might also seek cost control, which does not remove bargaining obligations or constraints. Strict seniority can reflect fairness and transparent opportunity, while management seeks competence and adaptability. A workable design needs attention to those real priorities, rather than presumed motives. The employer's three-year term may seek planning stability, while the union's one-year term preserves adjustment opportunities. Uncertainty, changing conditions, and the cost of repeated negotiations can inform linked protections or reviews. Ask what problem each request solves, and what would make that position less essential. Listening tests the hypothesis, while proposal costing and legal review test the package's feasibility.
REVERSE PROBLEM AND 8 DEFINITIONS
A Scanning Safeguard Can Unlock the Paid-Day Trade
The reverse problem stalls for four sessions over an additional paid day and a new scanning system. The employer wants scanning without further negotiation, while the union maintains its paid-day demand. Later, the employer reveals it could accept the day at a cost considered modest. The union's actual objection concerns individual performance monitoring, rather than scanning technology itself. A potential trade combines the paid day with a negotiated scanning arrangement with defined monitoring safeguards. Those safeguards and implementation terms need actual agreement, with bargaining duties and constraints addressed. The missing condition was information about interests, which prevented either team from recognizing a package. The source does not identify lack of negotiating skill as the deadlock's cause. Review distributive and integrative bargaining, target and resistance points, settlement range, and anchoring through that distinction. Also define position versus interest, and interest-based bargaining as the process for discovering and evaluating options. Next, we examine impasse, lawful economic action, and third-party procedures when agreement remains unresolved.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Two Styles of Bargaining: Integrative and Distributive
What is the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining?
What are target points, resistance points, and the settlement range in negotiation?
What is the difference between a position and an interest in negotiation?
What is interest-based bargaining?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →