---
id: "prereq-zero-sum-vs-value-creation"
type: "prerequisite"
source_timestamps: ["§ Don't Negotiate Every Material Issue"]
tags: ["negotiation-theory"]
related: ["contrarian-fewer-issues", "concept-market-standard-default"]
reason: "Necessary to understand why the author argues that single-issue negotiations are zero-sum and why traditional orthodoxy suggests more issues allow for more creativity."
sources: ["ecosystem"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-ecosystem"
originDay: 11
articleStem: "hbr-nm-103-big-companies-negotiate-deals"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/01/why-big-companies-struggle-to-negotiate-great-deals"
sourceTitle: "Why Big Companies Struggle to Negotiate Great Deals"
---
# Distributive vs. Integrative Negotiation

The source references **'zero-sum' issues** and **'value creation'** (expanding the pie) without defining them, assuming familiarity with:
- **Distributive negotiation** — claiming value on a single issue (e.g., price); one party's gain is the other's loss (zero-sum).
- **Integrative negotiation** — creating value through multi-issue trade-offs, where differing priorities allow mutual gains.

**Why it's a prerequisite here:** It is necessary to understand why the author argues that single-issue negotiations are zero-sum and why traditional orthodoxy holds that *more issues* allow for more creativity — the very orthodoxy the author overturns in [[contrarian-fewer-issues]] and [[concept-market-standard-default]]. Foundational to the Fisher/Ury and Lax & Sebenius traditions.