Introduction The ability to establish a productive dialogue between conflicting parties is a valuable practice applied in different environments, including political, social, and business areas. At the same time, creating conditions for discussing issues and problems affecting the interests of both parties depends on the chosen methods of negotiation. Approaches to the discussion and resolution of disputes may be based both on a rational and competent methodology of joint conflict resolution and on peremptory requirements that provide for an exceptionally one-sided benefit. These strategies are called integrative and distributive, respectively, and their specificity largely influences the outcomes of dialogues. I have happened to witness the negotiation process where two parties followed the same approach, and according to the results of the assessment, one can argue that a mutual agreement reached during the discussion is the result of both participants’ reasonable decisions. Example of Negotiations The relationships between the parties involved in conflicts of different levels develop in accordance with the methods and approaches used by the participants. Recently, I have witnessed the negotiations of my two neighbors who could not come to an agreement on the disputed land near their houses. Both men have sought to obtain this site into a personal property for quite a long period. I saw how they met on this territory and began to discuss all the conventions of further actions. It is essential to note that, despite their dispute, neither side resorted to rudeness or mutual insults. Conversely, the neighbors tired of the protracted conflict talked calmly, did not interrupt each other, and took the arguments with restraint. This course of negotiations is an example of an objective dispute resolution procedure through an integrative methodology. Analysis of the Negotiation Process The considered negotiation process between two neighbors is an example of an integrative strategy where participants discuss the possible ways of solving the problem together and focus on interests rather than personal opinions or positions. According to Brett and Thompson, this strategy “refers to behaviors negotiators use when they are focused on creating value and claiming value” (69). In relation to the case in question, both parties looked for win-win opportunities, which indicated their interest not only in personal gain but also the effective resolution of the dispute when where none of the participants would remain dissatisfied. Since the parties concerned did not show aggression, one can note that they valued each other’s needs and requests, which is proof of an integrative negotiation process. Based on the outcomes of the discussion, the value was created and claimed, and later, I learned that as a result of the discussion, the parties managed to come to a mutually beneficial solution, and each of the neighbors could receive a separate part of the disputed territory. Although personal interests were affected and a potential benefit was obvious, the positions of the men were not a key tool in resolving the dispute. As a result, the integrative method has become an eff