Why A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations Remains a Triumph at Fifty but the Labels 'Distributive' and 'Integrative' Should Be Retired

Richard Walton and Robert McKersie's closeness to practice, disciplinary rigor, and successful search for powerful generalizations help explain the lasting impact of the Behavioral Theory of Labor Relations. Ironically, the names they chose for the fundamental processes they explicated—especially "attitudinal structuring" and "intra-organizational bargaining"—have limited the impact of some of their most interesting and original work. By contrast, some of their most successful labels—"distributive" and "integrative" bargaining—have generated at least three ongoing areas of analytic and practical confusion despite the exemplary sophistication of the authors' underlying analysis. First, classifying each issue by itself as integrative or distributive (or mixed) has led some to erroneously conclude that "purely distributive" issues cannot admit joint gain beyond the fact of agreement. Second, though Walton and McKersie are clear on the point, later analysts and practitioners often exhibit confusion about whether the terms "integrative" and "distributive" refer to behavior or to underlying issue structure (or both). Third, the authors develop the "Distributive Bargaining Model" and the "Integrative Bargaining Model" in separate chapters and seemingly as alternative models of the process. Walton and McKersie themselves insightfully treat the tight relationship of these two processes in a series of "dilemmas." Yet it is common to this day to hear integrative and distributive bargaining wrongly described as wholly separate, even as warring conceptions of the negotiation process—when, both analytically and practically, they are inherently linked. In addition, to the student or lay negotiator, "integrative" and "distributive" are not naturally evocative terms, but rather serve as terms of art. Other labels, such as "creating" and "claiming" value, are more analytically precise while directly communicating to a non-specialist audience.