Study Mterial Ch 2and ch 3

Ch.3- Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation


XII. The Integrative Negotiation Process

A. Choosing a free flow of information promotes the development of good integrative solutions.

1. Negotiators must be willing to reveal their true objectives and to listen to each other carefully.
2. Willingness to share information is not a characteristic of distributive bargaining situations, in which the parties distrust one another, conceal and manipulate information, and attempt to learn about the other for their own competitive advantage.
3. Research shows that negotiators who did not reveal the availability of a good alternative received some benefits to themselves, but those who did share information about their alternatives received additional benefits.

B. Attempting to understand the other negotiator’s real needs and objectives

1. Understanding the other’s needs, realizing the other party’s priorities are not the same as your own, can stimulate more exchange of information, have a better understanding of the nature of the negotiation, and achieve higher joint profits.

C. Emphasizing the commonalities between the parties and minimizing the differences

1. To sustain a free flow of information and an effort to understand the other’s needs and objectives, negotiators may require a different outlook or frame of reference.

2. Individual goals may need to be refined through collaborative efforts directed toward a collective goal. At times the collective goal is clear and obvious, and other it is not clear or easy to keep in site.

D. Searching for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.

1. The success of integrative negotiation depends on the search for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.

2. In this process, negotiators must be firm but flexible

3. A low level of concern for the other’s objectives may drive one of two forms of behavior.

a. Making sure that what the other obtains does not take away from one’s own accomplishments.

b. Attempting to block the other from obtaining his or her objectives because of a strong desire to win or to “defeat the opponent.”

XIII. Key Steps in the Integrative Negotiation Process

Pareto efficiency: The goal of creating value is to push the claiming value line to a point where there would be “no agreement that would make any party better off without decreasing the outcomes to any other party.”

A. Identify and define the problem

1. This is a critical step for integrative negotiation because it sets broad parameters regarding what the negotiation is “about” and provide an initial framework for approaching the discussion.

2. Should be comprehensive enough to capture complexities of the situation.

a. Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides.

b. State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness.

c. State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to obtaining this goal.

d. Depersonalize the problem.

e. Separate the problem definition from the search for solutions.



B. Understand the problem and bring interests and needs to the surface

1. Types of interests

a. Substantive interests – relate to the focal issues under negotiation – economic and financial issues.

b. Process interests – related to the way a dispute is settled. They can be both intrinsic and instrumental.

c. Relationship interests – one or both parties value their relationship with each other and do not want to take actions that will damage it

(1) Intrinsic relationship – parties value the relationship both for its existence and for the pleasure or fulfillment that sustaining it creates.

(2) Instrumental relationship – parties derive substantive benefits from the relationship and do not wish to endanger future benefits by souring it.

d. Interests in principle – principles deeply held by the parties and serve as the dominant guides to their actions.

(1) Some principles include: concerning what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable, what is ethical.

2. Some observations on interests

a. There is almost always more than one type of interest underlying a negotiation.

b. Parties can have different types of interests at stake.

c. Interests often stem from deeply rooted human needs or values.

d. Interests can change.

e. Surfacing interests.

f. Surfacing interests is not always easy or to one’s best advantage.

g. Focusing on interests can be harmful to a group of negotiators whose consensus on a particular issue is built around a unified position rather than a more generalized set of interests.

C. Generate alternative solutions to the problem

1. Inventing options: generating alternative solutions by redefining the problem or problem set.

a. Expand the pie – add resources in such a way that both sides can achieve their objectives.

b. Logroll – successful logrolling requires the parties to establish (or find) more than one issue in conflict; the parties then agree to trade off among these issues so that one party achieves a highly preferred outcome on the first issue and the other person achieves a highly preferred outcome on the second issue.

c. Use nonspecific compensation – allow one person to obtain his objectives and pay off the other person for accommodating his interests.

d. Cut the costs for compliance – one party achieves her objectives and the other’s costs are minimized if he agrees to go along.

e. Find a bridge solution – when the parties are able to invent new options that meet all their respective needs they have created a bridge solution. Successful bridging requires a fundamental reformulation of the problem so that the parties are not discussing their positions but disclosing information that will satisfy needs.

2. Generating alternative solutions to the problem as given.
a. Brainstorming – generating as many solutions to the problem as possible. The following rules should be observed when engaging in brainstorming:
(1) Avoid judging or evaluating solutions.
(2) Separate the people from the problem.
(3) Be exhaustive in the brainstorming process.
(4) Ask outsiders.
b. Surveys – asking a large number of people to list all possible solutions they can imagine.
c. Electronic brainstorming – A facilitator uses a series of questions to guide input from participants, who type their anonymous responses into a computer.

D. Evaluate those alternatives and select among them.
1. Narrow the range of solution options – focus on those that one or more negotiators strongly support.
2. Evaluate solutions on the basis of quality, standards, and acceptability – how good are the solutions? How acceptable are they to those who have to implement them?
3. Agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options – this can be helpful in narrowing or selecting options.
4. Be willing to justify personal preferences.
5. Be alert to the influence of intangibles in selecting options – it is good practice to help the other party identify intangibles and make them public as part of the evaluation process.
6. Use subgroups to evaluate complex options.
7. Take time out to cool off.
8. Explore different ways to logroll.
a. Exploit differences in risk preference – it is possible to create a package that recognizes differences in risk preferences.
b. Exploit differences in expectations about the likelihood of future events. This can permit the parties to invent a solution that addresses the needs of both.
c. Exploit differences in time preferences – invent solutions that address the parties’ preference of either short-term needs or long-term rewards.
9. Keep decisions tentative and conditional until all aspects of the final proposal are complete.
10. Minimize formality and record keeping until final agreements are closed.


XIV. Factors That Facilitate Successful Integrative Negotiation
A. Some common objective or goal
1. A common goal is one that all parties share equally, each one benefiting in a way that would not be possible if they did not work together.
2. A shared goal is one that both parties work toward but that benefits each party differently.
3. A joint goal is one that involves individuals with different personal goals agreeing to combine them in a collective effort.

B. Faith in one’s problem-solving ability
1. Parties who believe they can work together are more likely to do so.
2. Expertise in the focal problem area strengthens the negotiator’s understanding of the problem’s complexity, nuances, and possible solutions.
3. Expertise increases both the negotiator’s knowledge base and his or her self-confidence, both of which are necessary to approach the problem at hand with an open mind.
4. Direct experience in negotiation increases the negotiator’s sophistication in understanding the bargaining process and approaching it more creatively.
5. There is also evidence that knowledge of integrative tactics leads to an increase in integrative behavior.

C. A belief in the validity of one’s own position and the other’s perspective
1. Integrative negotiation requires negotiators to accept both their own and the other’s attitudes, interests, and desires as valid.
2. One must believe in the validity of your own perspective—that what you believe is worth fighting for and should not be compromised.

D. The motivation and commitment to work together.
1. For integrative negotiation to succeed, the parties must be motivated to collaborate rather than compete.
2. Motivation and commitment to problem solving can be enhanced in several ways:
a. The parties can come to believe that they share a common fate.
b. The parties can demonstrate to each other that there is more to be gained by working together than by working separately.
c. The parties can engage in commitments to each other before the negotiations begin. Such commitments have been called presettlement settlements and are distinguished by three major characteristics:
(1) The settlement results in a firm, legally binding written agreement between the parties.
(2) The settlement occurs in advance of the parties undertaking full-scale negotiations, but the parties intend that the agreement will be replaced by a more clearly delineated long-term agreement which is to be negotiated.
(3) The settlement resolves only a subset of the issues on which the parties disagree and may simply establish a framework within which the more comprehensive agreement can be defined and delineated.
E. Trust
1. Mistrust inhibits collaboration.
2. Generating trust is a complex, uncertain process that depends in part on how the parties behave and in part on the parties’ personal characteristics.
3. To develop trust effectively, each negotiator must believe that both he/she and the other party choose to behave in a cooperative manner.

F. Clear and accurate communication
1. Negotiators must be willing to share information about themselves, for example, revealing what they want and why.
2. Negotiators must understand the communication, or meaning each party attaches to their statements.
G. An understanding of the dynamics of integrative negotiation
1. Several studies indicate that training in integrative negotiation enhances the ability of the parties to successfully pursue the process.

XV. Why Integrative Negotiation is Difficult to Achieve

A. The history of the relationship between the two parties - The more competitive and conflict-laden their past relationship, the more likely negotiators are to approach the current negotiation with a defensive, win-lose attitude.
B. A belief that an issue can only be resolved distributively - Conflict dynamics tend to lead negotiators to polarize issues or see them only in win-lose terms.
C. The mixed-motive nature of most negotiation situations - Most situations contain some elements that require distributive bargaining processes and others that require integrative negotiation.