Distributive and Integrative Bargaining

¶ … Realm of Legal Negotiation DISTRIBUTIVE VS. INTEGRATIVE Negotiation involves a dialogue of two or more parties or people with the intention to reach a favorable outcome. This favorable result can be for just one party or both parties involved. The integrative approach to negotiation tries to expand the "pie" to make sure everyone gets something. However, the distributive approach ensures one side "wins" and the other, "loses." The legal landscape of practicing lawyers today asks for a further analysis of what is effective and what is not.

Meaning, the distributive method greatly outweighs the integrative method in terms of its utilization in lawyer-to-lawyer negotiations because of how it can be used to help one side get what it wants. That is what lawyers do, they try to get the best outcome for their client, not for both parties involved. Negotiation is a difficult activity to learn and master. ADR or alternative dispute resolution encompasses dispute resolution techniques and processes that offers a means with which disagreeing parties may come to an agreement[footnoteRef:1].

It is a mutual phrase for the ways parties can resolve disputes without or with the aid of a separate third party. While in the past numerous popular parties as well as their advocates resisted ADR, in recent years it has gained pervasive acceptance among the legal profession and the general public. It has gone so far as some courts now requiring some parties to resolve disputes using ADR, before the case it taken to trial (ie. The European Mediation Directive 2008).

Business have also taken to ADR to handle mergers and acquisitions to help mediate any post-acquisition disputes. [1: Tracy, Brian. 2013. Negotiation. New York: American Management Association.] a. Distributive and Integrative Negotiation What negotiation styles make up ADR? As was previously stated integrative negotiation makes up one part of ADR. Distributive negotiation and mixed model make up the rest.

Going by the names of principled negotiation, collaborative problem-solving, and so forth, integrative negotiation is characterized by the open sharing of data so that value may be rationally claimed and generated by the parties. Distributive negotiation or position bargaining, hard bargaining, etc., is characterized by competitive tactics, less information exchange, and distribution of a zero-sum resource. Mixed model uses both with integrative negotiation in the beginning and distributive styles used to divide the recognized resources or benefits.

Distributive negotiation tends to approach negotiation using a model of "haggling" in a market. This means each side frequently adopts an extreme position with the knowledge that the other party will not accept it. Then the part employs a combination of bluffing, brinkmanship, and guile in order to surrender as little as possible before a deal is reached. In a way, it is the process of distributing a perceived fixed amount of value. Distribution negotiation can go one of two ways, either in the hard direction or the soft direction.

"A hard distributive approach leads to competition where each actor seeks dominance over the other, whereas a soft approach leads to accommodation where one active gives into the other. Compromise occurs when each actors relinquishes something of value to reach an agreement" [footnoteRef:2]. [2: Yang, Ming, and Fan Yang. 2012. Negotiation in Decentralization. London: Springer. P. 39] While the history of negotiations runs millennium, it is important to clarify what integrative negotiation is in order to understand why it would not be a beneficial tactic for a lawyer to use.

With integrative negotiation, the goalmouths of both parties are not mutually exclusive. That means even if one side accomplishes their objective, the other party is not precluded from accomplishing their own objectives. Both sides then can achieve their objectives. "Integrative bargaining reframes the negotiation as a shared problem to be resolved through pooling knowledge and resources and looking to maximize mutual gain to yield greater payoffs to all parties. This means negotiators must focus on commonalities rather than differences"[footnoteRef:3]. [3: Williams, Robert E, and Paul R Viotti. 2012. Arms Control.

Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger Security International. P. 129] These commonalties and differences are all part of a game where people make educated guesses and assumptions on what their opponent will do next. The end-game is to win and win enough for the client to be satisfied. If one has to bluff and gamble in order to scare off the opponent, that is what must be done for the biggest piece possible of the pie.

Distributive negotiation means one must haggle to get the best possible 'price' our outcome in order to win and gain the spoils. Games like ADR games help teach just how to play by the rules of either distributive or integrative with distributive usually meaning higher win to loss ratios. b. ADR Games ADR can be a tricky thing to learn. Lawyers sometimes play games while learning and also outside in the workforce. Games of one-upmanship are quite typical with lawyers meeting professionally for the first time.

During this "game," lawyers will hand each other their respective business cards indicating which firm they work for and even ask which law school their opponent went to, asking where they finished academically within their graduating classes. This game is all about gaining the psychological advantage by discouraging either person. That is where the distributive approach becomes useful. The opponent sizes the other opponent up and reveals as little information as possible.

This is because similar to board games like Battleship because the less information the opponent has, the less they have to strike with and gain an upper hand. The integrative approach requires sharing information that would make someone not only appear weak and easily to conquer, but also easy to hit because that person is out in the open like an exposed battleship. Law students do not have to behave like lawyers until they enter the field. That means these kinds of games are not as common.

However, in school, law students do have to learn how to approach cases in ways that will gain them the advantage or the upper hand. Just like in a game, the goal is to win. Winning is essential. Case in point are the Ultimatum games. Class members are divided into pairs and each pair is given $10,000 to divide between themselves. One person is instructed to odder a proposed division of the $10,000 between themselves and the other participant.

The offer recipient can either accept the proposed division, giving each the suggest amounts, or reject the offer, leaving both with nothing .. The participants begin to appreciate how much the appearance of fairness affects the interactions[footnoteRef:4] [4: Craver, Charles B. 2012. Effective Legal Negotiation and Settlement. 7th ed. LexisNexis.] By having players switch sides in each round, students get to see what actions are needed in order to level the playing field and create a fairer outcome.

Here distributive bargaining (going for $7,000 while the opponent gets $3,000) becomes disadvantageous because when they switch sides, the person getting the $3,000 thinks it is unfair. Integrative bargaining also becomes disadvantageous because the players will want to get more. In the end it is all about weighing the options and seeing which outcome will be most favorable in the end and which seems the most fair overall. That is great if the real world had tables turn like this. It teaches a student the use of both approaches.

However, the real world does not operate like that. In reality, lawyers must try to get the $7,000, because that $7,000 will make their client and their firm happy, leading to a win-win. Win-win situations are part of mathematical models and paradigms. c. Mathematical Models/Paradigms People often interpret negotiation using mathematical models or paradigms. Frequently referred to as bargaining, the aim is to predict the cooperation details within certain contexts. For instance, negotiation models can be applied to task allocation, supply chains, electronic commerce, and resource management, to name a few.

Such models produce significant results and may give the upper hand to an opponent. A study reveals people often use this kind of approach during competitions, attempting to analyze their opponent with an opponent modeling component. "An analysis of various agents' strategies from past competitions show that most of the used an explicit opponent modeling component"[footnoteRef:5]. [5: Fukuta, Naoki, Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Katsuhide Fujita, and Valentin Robu. 2016. Recent Advances in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiation. Springer. P.

267] The opponent modeling component part of the growing interest in what is called "automated negotiation" is a way to search for effective strategies to gain advantage in negotiations. While there are common key components in negotiation agents that can therefore transfer to automated negotiation such as bidding strategy, the acceptance and opponent criteria, the negotiating architecture has grown to include in other things that provide a useful foundation for continuous development of agents as well as become a useful analytical tool.

As discussed earlier, distributive negotiating involves revealing as little information as possible to the opponent to gain the upper hand. The other aspect of this involves gaining as much information possible from the opponent in order to keep the upper hand. Analytical tools help an individual analyze the information collected and then apply that information to a strategy that will provide the individual with a favorable outcome.

Mathematical models also help an individual understand which actions create the most favorable and least favorable outcomes or outcomes in the middle, with few losses or gains. d. Real-Life Application Any theoretical perspective a person may have has to be applied in the real world to see if it works. That is why it is important to see distributive and integrative negotiation done in the real world. By providing examples of the kinds of ways people use these approaches shows how beneficial one may be over the other.

To begin, distributive negotiating can be used to make sure the person looking to buy or sell something gets the most for their money[footnoteRef:6]. [6: Graham, Chris Scott. 2010. The Way of The Lawyer. Chicago: American Bar Association.] Imagine someone buying a used car. The seller wants to get the buyer to pay as close to the asking price as possible so he or she gets a nice commission and it looks good when his supervisor or manager evaluates him or her.

The customer however, sees there could be some problems with the used car and wants to pay less than asking to take into account any potential repairs. While the salesperson may want to get more money, it is up to the customer to try to bring it down in order to make it advantageous for the customer. This is an excellent example of distributive bargaining. Here either party wants to avoid revealing as much information as possible, so they can get the best deal.

The seller will not disclose any potential problems. The buyer will not disclose how much he or she will actually pay before the salesman walks away. This is kind of situation is often referred to as a "fixed pie." The focus stays on singular gain -- "the parties will divide the pie and focus on getting as must as possible for themselves. This is different from situations where the parties try to make the entire pie bigger, so there is enough profit/gain and value to satisfy everyone"[footnoteRef:7].

[7: editor, MAW. 2016. "What Is Distributive Negotiation? Management at Work." Management.Atwork-Network.Com. http://management.atwork-network.com/2008/06/16/what-is-distributive-negotiation/.] The integrative approach is often used in business, for example mergers and acquisitions. Everyone during this time wants a "win-win" situation because any fallout could spell trouble for the business in terms of diminished productivity and potential lawsuits. Therefore, keeping everyone satisfied is the best approach to have when it comes to bargaining within this context.

Integrative negotiating fosters cooperation, conflict resolution and diminishes any potential negative reactions like aggressive behavior or personal attacks. However, in order to foster the use of integrative bargaining, both parties must be interested in negotiating and there must proper communication and leader to cultivate cooperation within both parties. e. Impact of Legal Ethical Guidelines Legal ethical guidelines have an impact on how either negotiation techniques can be applied in the real world. When in the field, lawyers negotiate repeatedly.

Even when not working a case, interaction with colleagues and prospective clients creates instances of negotiation. Clients may want a certain price or outcome, colleagues may want a lawyer to perform well, everything exists as a power struggle where both parties either get what they want, no one gets what they want, or one party gets what they want. For decades the majority of law schools never offered courses in negotiation. They believed these things were best learned outside the classroom.

However, since the 1990's law schools have begun to recognize the significant nature of negotiation skills, incorporating negotiation training or negotiation courses into their dispute resolution courses. While instructors felt uncomfortable with how competitive students became from bargaining exercises, they saw the benefits of placing students in bargaining environments and so decide to adapt a communitarian style approach using integrative bargaining concepts that were developed by Mary Parker Follett over one hundred years ago. That is why law schools practice integrative bargaining techniques over distributive.

Communitarians feel that negotiation is both an ethical and moral process, worthy of deep legal, political, human, and philosophical respect. This approach warrants both parties to be fully honest and open with each other and respect their true interests, settlement, and intentions. While monetary issues frequently demand distributive negotiations, researchers suggest negotiations are 'mixed motive' that include both chances for joint gain as well as chances for taking more than the other side. "Strategies that are wise for creating are often opposite from those that are wise for claiming.

But all negotiations include both elements, and few negotiations occur where a wise negotiator would not employ at least some of each set of behaviors"[footnoteRef:8]. [8: Friedman, Raymond A., and Debra L. Shapiro. 1995. "Deception and Mutual Gains Bargaining: Are They Mutually Exclusive?." Negotiation Journal 11 (3): 243-253. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1995.tb00066.x. p. 248-9] f. Contrasting Economic Implications of Both Techniques Negotiation can end up being a difficult task. Many studies indicate some negotiators make concessions in order to avoid straining relationships.

This can happen in the law and business worlds and can be due to avoidance of stress and anxiety. In economic games, the process of unmitigated communion foretells giving in situations where the interpersonal norm of reciprocity applies. However, this is not true of contexts tapping altruistic or instrumental motives for collaboration. Distributive negotiations have different motives and consequences than integrative negotiations as highlighted in a 2008 article.

"In distributive negotiations, the effect of unmitigated communion in lowering a negotiator's outcome is mediated by prenegotiation anxieties about relational strain and plans to make large concessions if needed to avoid impasse (lower reservation points)"[footnoteRef:9]. In other words, in order to avoid additional stress, one party will concede to getting less. For example, in a lawsuit where a company is being sued for selling a defective product, the previous customer and their lawyer would want a settlement to avoid taking the case to trial.

To avoid having to pay additional legal fees and the possibility of losing the case, the company pays the settlement amount, gaining nothing from the other party other than the case dropped. [9: Amanatullah, Emily T., Michael W. Morris, and Jared R. Curhan. 2008. "Negotiators Who Give Too Much: Unmitigated Communion, Relational Anxieties, And Economic Costs in Distributive and Integrative Bargaining.." Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology 95 (3): 723-738. doi:10.1037/a0012612.] In integrative negotiation, there is consideration for both parties that could end up with less favorable economic outcomes overall.

The authors of the 2008 article made sure to highlight the effects of integrative negotiations citing relational accommodation and less success in maximizing financial joint gain. "In integrative negotiations, high unmitigated communion on both sides of the negotiation dyad results in relational accommodation, evidenced by decreased success in maximizing economic joint gain but increased subjective satisfaction with the relationship" [footnoteRef:10]. When it comes to money matters, and economic implications, distributive negotiation seems to maximize financial gain whereas integrative maximizes subjective satisfaction with the relationship. [10: Amanatullah, Emily T., Michael W.

Morris, and Jared R. Curhan. 2008. "Negotiators Who Give Too Much: Unmitigated Communion, Relational Anxieties, And Economic Costs In Distributive And Integrative Bargaining.." Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology 95 (3): 723-738. doi:10.1037/a0012612.] 2. Support and Literature Review Negotiations processes can be broken down into two main types, integrative and distributive. The integrative process involves both a search for mutually profitable alternatives and concession making. Distributive negotiation involves mainly concession making. The meaning of 'flexibility' thus takes on a different context for each main type.

With integrative it means willingness to participate in the search process. In the distributive it means willingness to make concessions. When it comes to profession of lawyer, most cases require wiliness to make concessions. This is because cases are either won or lost. Although there can be a mixture of both integrative and distributive negotiation in a lawyer's case load, in reality, distributive produces far more benefits and advantages than the integrative approach does. For one, the distributive approach to negotiation means less information sharing.

Withholding information produces an advantage to the party whereas with an integrative approach, sharing information is key in reaching a consensus and thus reduces the advantage. Another thing to note is the integrative approach requires cooperation from both parties. However, in legal or civil cases, especially those involving money, people will not be so willing to cooperate. That is why a lawyer must take on the distributive approach in order to secure his or her client a favorable outcome.

This is not to say the integrative approach does not have its place in the real world. Businesses require the use of integrative negotiating in order to have a peaceful merge or successful acquisition of another business. But because there is a leader that takes charge in order to facilitate the kind of communication needed to successfully negotiate using this approach, it is something that can be done and is more likely to succeed versus in a courtroom with a plaintiff and defendant[footnoteRef:11].

[11: Lewicki, Roy J, Bruce Barry, and David M Saunders. 2011. Essentials Of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.] Integrative reasoning even has its place in law with arbitration. If people wish to settle out of court, integrative negotiating could facilitate and create a favorable outcome for both parties. However, in a win or lose situation, the best way to get what is best for the client, as a lawyer, would be to take the distributive approach.

This literature review portion of the paper will show how beneficial the distributive approach is to lawyers. a. Win-Lose Scenarios Win-lose scenarios are a part of being a lawyer, especially during trial, even pre-trial. If a lawyer wins, the client is happy, the lawyer could gain good references, potential clients through referrals and so forth. There is a lot to gain financially as a lawyer, from winning. Losing on the other hand means the client is not happy. The lawyer may miss out on potential clients.

The firm the lawyer works for may drop him or her based on poor performance. As much as people may want to demonstrate that integrative negotiation is the best choice when it comes to negotiating, because cases involve a majority of the time, a win-lose scenario, the distributive approach is key as shown in this website article written by Brad Spangler. Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily.

Distributive bargaining processes, based on a principle of competition between participants, are more likely than integrative bargaining to end in win-lose outcomes -- or they may result in a situation where each side gets part of what he or she wanted, but not as much as they might have gotten if they had used integrative bargaining[footnoteRef:12]. [12: Spangler, Brad. 2016. "Win-Win / Win-Lose / Lose-Lose Situations -- Beyond Intractability." Beyondintractability.Org. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/win-lose.] In zero-sum or 'win-lose' situations, parties have to divide a fixed size of 'metaphorical pie'.

While some may argue that an integrative approach can be used even in this scenario, most of the time, the combative tactics work better for cases and a lawyer's client because it creates advantage whereas cooperative tactics create disadvantage. Such combative tactics are mentioned in a book covering ethics for negotiation. "Combative tactics generally associated with distributive bargaining-starting high, conceding slowly, concealing and misrepresenting one's own interests, arguing coercively, threatening and bluffing"[footnoteRef:13]. Such tactics work and provide the basis from which a lawyer can gain a favorable outcome.

Some may say it is unethical to pursue such tactics, but again these tactics are for use in a courtroom where a client may be guilty of a crime and has to try to get a result that does not end with loss of money or jail time. Therefore, it would be acceptable to employ distributive negotiating. [13: Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, and Michael Wheeler. 2004. What's Fair. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. P. 31] b. Reframing Reality Reality and theory are two different things.

Law school is meant to prepare the student for a world that is both hard and arduous. However, by giving one aspect of negotiating as the main way to negotiate, it is doing a disservice to law students by not preparing them fully for the actions of reality. In a 1992 article that discusses how third parties assess conflict, the author shares these evaluations and 'frames' are often what direct how disputes are handled. "Sheppard et al.

have proposed that third parties 'frame', or evaluate, conflicts differently, and those frames greatly affect assumptions about the nature of the dispute and the appropriate strategy for resolution"[footnoteRef:14]. In reality, no one assumes everyone is playing fair or is concerned for a good outcome for all. These assumptions often take the form of paranoia and distrust and require a different way of handling that could help one party get what they want over the other. [14: Lewicki, Roy J., Stephen E. Weiss, and David Lewin. 1992.

"Models of Conflict, Negotiation and Third Party Intervention: A Review And Synthesis." Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (3): 209-252. doi:10.1002/job.4030130303. p. 240] If negotiation is to remain at the heart of the legal process, student taking a course in negotiation must be able to examine all aspects of it, challenging them to reorganize the education implanted cognitive map of the legal world centered on reading appellate cases. These kinds of courses should offer a chance for students to reassess the picture of law borne from law school curriculum.

To challenge the tacit concepts of background versus foreground, hard versus soft, periphery versus core, helps organize such a picture. A 1984 article examines just that. "Students sense that the picture of hierarchies of courts developing and applying doctrine in cases adjudicated through appellate courts is a very partial and unrepresentative picture of the legal world"[footnoteRef:15]. [15: Galanter, Marc. 1984. "Worlds of Deals: Using Negotiation to Teach About Legal Process.." Journal of Legal Education 34 (2): 268-76. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ303068. P.

272] For law schools to represent such an incomplete picture of the legal world and only representing components of the system in asides and fragments, it fails to supply the necessary analytical tools for law students to fully grasp the curriculum and apply that successfully when they transition and become lawyers. Negotiation in the real world factors in costs, uncertainties, delays, and do not incorporate the expectation of fairness and benevolence.

The aim then should become to reorganize what is known in a way that is both more satisfying intellectually and useful for comprehending the world of lawyering. Another article from 2008 highlights the results of two correlational studies showing how integrative bargaining has more potential for use in contexts where there is a greater level of fairness upheld and used[footnoteRef:16]. However, most settings show that fairness is not upheld not necessarily by the courts, but the parties.

Because of this the best choice often times is the use of the distributive approach. The distributive approach reduces information sharing which leads to an advantage for the party using the negotiating style and increases their chances of gaining the desired or favorable outcome. [16: Hollander-Blumoff, Rebecca, and Tom R. Tyler. 2008. "Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, And Integrative Potential." Law & Social Inquiry 33 (2): 473-500. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00110.x. p. 473] Information sharing is the basis of integrative negotiating.

However, when applying it to real world scenarios, many times the information shared is inaccurate, especially in scenarios that involve civil and criminal cases. Inaccurate information may even be made available in other settings such as employees in businesses. A 1997 article by Kim examines such an issue showing that workers are unaware of their legal rights in relation contracts and job security.

"If, however, workers are unaware of the legal default rule, then their failure to contract for greater job security can no longer be presumed to represent their true preferences. The presence of a significant information failure suggests a breakdown in the bargaining process" [footnoteRef:17]. [17: Kim, Pauline. 1997. "Bargaining with Imperfect Information: A Study of Worker Perceptions of Legal Protection in an At-Will World." Cornell Law Review 83 (1): 106-115. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10533. P. 106] Integrative negotiation relies on accurate information sharing so both parties get what they need.

However, as Kim shows, most people are kept in the dark or are ignorant of what they really get when they bargain and sign contracts. Employees assume they have more rights than they do and the employers get someone to sign their contracts without having to worry about many legal repercussions. The employers get what they want versus the employee. That is not integrative negotiating because it is deceptive, yet it is encouraged in law school to use this approach. c.

Integrative and Distributive Negotiations in Economy In most cultures, soft bargaining is more widely accepted than hard bargaining. However, some researchers like Deborah Elms, proposes the hypothesis "that countries that are in a position of loss are more likely to opt for a hard bargaining strategy than countries that are in a position of gains"[footnoteRef:18].

That means when examining a financial situation like a civil lawsuit where one party stands to lose a sum of money, they may be more likely to adopt hard bargaining versus soft, even if soft bargaining is the preferred style of negotiation. Another article discussing the bargaining situations in the European Union demonstrates unanimity decision rule may have an effect on the negotiation patterns of and in the European Union. [18: Du-r, Andreas, Gemma Mateo, and Daniel C Thomas. 2011. Negotiation Theory and The EU. London: Routledge. P.

73] Two interrelated studies that verified the hypothesis of procedural justice, process, or fairness, played a serious role in the reception of agreements reached via consensual negotiations. Both studies tested the connection between the equality of the process utilized to decide a dispute, and the crucial factors of negotiation (objective monetary outcomes, subjective outcome favorability, subjective outcome fairness) demonstrating that the distributive approach was better because the distributive approach aided in conserving or gaining money.

Additionally, the second study established the hypothesis that negotiations integrating a superior level of procedural justice/process end in more prospective for the integrative bargaining style. This result in the end suggested that procedural justice encourages the acceptance of negotiated agreements, as well as leading to the opportunity for increased visibility of the integrative form of bargaining. Furthermore, a particular type of bargaining situation may also have an impact on policy outcomes[footnoteRef:19].

These policy outcomes require not one negotiation style, but a mix of several leading to the assumption that integrative negotiating in theory seems to be the standard option, in reality, may not be enough. Most of the time it requires a mixed model or in the case of lawsuits, forgoing the integrative approach altogether in lieu of using the distributive. [19: da Conceicao-Heldt, Eugenia. 2006. "Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Situations In The European Union: What Difference Does It Make?." Negotiation Journal 22 (2): 145-165.

doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00092.x.] The distributive negotiation style can be highly effective. A piece written by Scott R. Peppet explains the major advantages the distributive approach offers to the liar. "In Prisoner's Dilemma terms, the hard-bargainer defects by lying and thereby increase her personal payoff." While deception can only work when it is not detected, many have learned to deceive successfully, appearing forthright and trustworthy. Such second-level deception in game-theoretic terms generates a signaling or sorting problem.

This makes the job of the negotiator that much more difficult in attempting to determine if the counterpart is honest (apply an integrative approach, collaboration) or lying (apply hard-bargaining, distributive approach). If the default falls to integrative, and many people lie and take the position of hard-bargaining, especially when they feel they are at the "losing-end" of the conflict, this will prove disadvantageous. Therefore, unfortunately, it would seem best to make the default strategy distributive, at least for taking on the job of a lawyer.

For political disputes, a mixed model would be more appropriate. d. ADR in Schools School is a great place to encourage fairness. A 2008 article discusses the use of ADR in order to encourage conflict resolution. An integrative approach to negotiation builds trust and encourages cooperation among both parties. There has been growing concern that children are becoming more violent in schools and need peer mediation programs to help mediate and resolve any issues they may have with each other.

The Peacemakers program offers students ways to identify what is not and is a conflict; how to use the integrative approach in conflicts; how to mediate a classmate's conflicts; and receive continuous training.

Results specified students learned the conflict resolution measures taught by the program, remembered their acquired information during the school year, "applied the conflict resolution procedures to actual conflicts, transferred the procedures to nonclassroom and nonschool settings, used the procedures similarly in family and school settings, and, when given the option, engaged in problem solving rather than win-lose negotiations"[footnoteRef:20].

This shows that integrative negotiating has many uses outside the courtroom, especially when it comes to mediating conflicts not involving money or some other kind of serious loss like loss of freedom and personal rights. However, when a situation involves that, the distributive approach is the best option out of the two. [20: Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. 2001. "Teaching Students to Be Peacemakers: A Meta-Analysis.." Eric.Ed.Gov. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED460178.] There exists a legal education orthodoxy in law schools.

While on a social level integrative negotiating is the best way practice ADR and handle disputes, it is just one piece of the puzzle. Certainly, the institutions of legal education as well as the practice of law are in a link of joint influence; "a denouement which preserves the best aspects of the common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice and think about the role of law resistant to change"[footnoteRef:21].

Of course in an academic setting students must be discouraged from being cutthroat and being too aggressive with each other. However, students, especially law students, must be prepared to handle all kind of scenarios that happen in the real world. Not everyone will want to resolve conflicts with honesty and cooperation. Some will wish to be dominate and want to take all of the 'pie'. That is when someone should hard-bargain, and try to take what is necessary to survive, and win. [21: Duffy, James, and Rachael Field. 2016.

"Why ADR Must Be A Mandatory Subject In The Law Degree: A Cheat Sheet For The Willing And A Primer For The Non-Believer -- QUT Eprints." Eprints.Qut.Edu.Au. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/69895/.] e. Unmitigated Communion What is unmitigated communion? Essentially this term means when an individual has some personality traits that is defined as possessing a focus more on others than of the self[footnoteRef:22]. 'Economic games' have an impact on both integrative and distributive forms of bargaining.

Within the distributive context, and observing it through the lens of unmitigated communion, it often leads to the interpersonal norm of exchange. In the integrative context, it leads to unselfish and instrumental motives for cooperation[footnoteRef:23]. Meaning, one party gives in and loses in distributive bargaining and in integrative bargaining, both parties learn to be selfless and have concern for both parties and not just themselves[footnoteRef:24]. [22: Willard, Wanda Ann. 1996. The Role of Unmitigated Agency and Unmitigated Communion In Physical And Psychological Health.] [23: Amanatullah, Emily T., Michael W.

Morris, and Jared R. Curhan. 2008. "Negotiators Who Give Too Much: Unmitigated Communion, Relational Anxieties, And Economic Costs in Distributive and Integrative Bargaining.." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95 (3): 723-738. doi:10.1037/a0012612.] [24: Sharma, S., W. P. Bottom, and H. A. Elfenbein. 2013. "On The Role of Personality, Cognitive Ability, And Emotional Intelligence in Predicting Negotiation Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis." Organizational Psychology Review 3 (4): 293-336. doi:10.1177/2041386613505857.] This is important to understand because of the consequences of negotiation. The purpose of negotiations to resolve conflicts and either please one party or please both.

For lawyers, they have to have more concern about pleasing their client versus pleasing both their client and the defense or the prosecution. It is so easy to fall into the expectations and desires of others. But an excellent lawyer stayed laser-focused on the sole needs of his or her client because that will ultimately lead to success for the lawyer and for the firm the lawyer works in. f. Integrative Lawyers do worse than Distributive Lawyers The fact is, most lawyers practice distributive bargaining more than integrative.

Traditional law practice shows that. In fact, the integrative approach and integrative are such a novel thing that is considered a burgeoning movement in the law world. "Over the past several years, the movement has gained momentum. And Tesler, who has trained more than 6,000 people in integrative law principles over the past 20 years, is convinced it is the next "huge wave coming to the legal profession"[footnoteRef:25]. To say distributive bargaining is the default bargaining method for lawyers in the real world stands true.

That being said, how well do integrative lawyers do compare to regular lawyers that often apply distributive tactics like criminal lawyers? Integrative bargaining is often used in family practice because it requires settlement more often than litigation. [25: Temple, Hollee. 2016. "Is The Integrative Law Movement the Next 'Huge Wave' For The Legal Profession?." ABA Journal. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/integrative_law_puts_passion_into_the_profession.] Payscale.com offers the median salary average for jobs. A criminal lawyer's salary averages at $78,242. A family lawyer's salary averages at $69,499[footnoteRef:26][footnoteRef:27].

Keeping in mind that family lawyers also handle divorce cases where distributive bargaining may come into play. So the most likely to use distributive bargaining (the criminal lawyer) on average gets paid almost $9,000 more per year than a family lawyer who would most likely use integrative bargaining. This is not to say that integrative bargaining should never be used, but it does show that distributive bargaining does have its advantages. [26: Payscale,. 2016. "Attorney / Lawyer Salary." Payscale.Com. http://www.payscale.com/research/U.S./Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary.] [27: Payscale,. 2016.

"Family Law Attorney Salary." Payscale.Com. http://www.payscale.com/research/U.S./Job=Family_Law_Attorney/Salary.] 3. Conclusion Law schools favor the integrative approach in handling situations that require negotiation. This is because it teaches fairness and removes the competitiveness from learning. However, in the real world, especially in relation to working as a lawyer, people need to learn how to negotiate so they can win. Winning is a crucial component of being a successful lawyer.

For most working in the profession, it is not about keeping everyone satisfied or keeping stable a relationship, it.