Chapter 03
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative
Negotiation
Overview
Integrative negotiation – variously known as cooperative,
collaborative, win-win, mutual gains, or problem solving – is the focus of this
chapter. In distributive bargaining, the
goals of the parties are initially at odds – or at least appear that way to
some or all of the parties. The belief
is that there is a limited, controlled amount of key resources to be
distributed and both parties may want to be the winner. Both may want to win on the same dimension,
with their goals being mutually exclusive which leads to conflict. In integrative negotiations the goals of the
parties are not mutually exclusive. If
one side achieves its goals, the other is not necessarily precluded from
achieving its goals. One party’s gain is
not necessarily at the other party’s expense.
The fundamental structure of an integrative negotiation situation is
such that it allows both sides to achieve their objectives. A description of the efforts and tactics by which
negotiators discover these alternatives accounts for the major part of this
chapter. Our descriptions will draw
heavily on the writings of several authors who have studied the integrative
process in great detail. In addition, we
will note recent research findings that have affirmed the validity of
particular strategies and tactics.
Learning Objectives
- Describe how the
integrative negotiation process works and learn the fundamental strategies
of integrative negotiation.
2.
Identify and understand key steps in the integrative
negotiation process.
3.
Factors that facilitate successful integrative
negotiation.
4.
Why integrative negotiation is difficult to achieve.
What Makes Integrative
Negotiation Different?
For a negotiation
to be characterized as integrative, negotiators must also practice these
requisite behaviors and perspectives:
- Focus on
commonalties rather than differences.
- Attempt to
address needs and interests, not positions.
- Commit to meeting
the needs of all involved parties.
- Exchange
information and ideas.
- Invent options
for mutual gain.
- Use objective
criteria for standards of performance.
I.
An Overview
of the Integrative Negotiation Process
A. Creating and 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.
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.”
II.
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.”
There are four
major steps in the negotiation process:
A. Step
1: 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 provides 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 obtain this goal.
d) Depersonalize
the problem.
e) Separate
the problem definition from the search for solutions.
B. Step
2: Understand the problem and surface interests
and needs.
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. Step
3: Generate alternative solutions to the
problem.
1. Inventing
options: generating alternative solutions by redefining the problem or problem
set.
a) 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.
b) Expand
and modify the resource pie – add resources in such a way that both sides can
achieve their objectives.
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.
f) Superordination
– when "the differences in interest that gave rise to the conflict are superseded
or replaced by other interests."
g) Compromise
– compromises are not considered to be a good integrative strategy except for
circumstances where parties are very entrenched and it is unlikely that a more
comprehensive agreement is possible.
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. Step
4: 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) Explore differences in risk preference –
it is possible to create a package that recognizes differences in risk
preferences.
b) Explore 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) Explore 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.
III. 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.
d) Create
an umbrella agreement that provides a framework for future discussions. Umbrella agreements manage three negotiation
challenges:
(1) Allow flexibility when the relationship is
evolving.
(2) Provide flexibility for claiming value when
the actual future gains are not known at the time.
(3) Can be used when all the issues and
contingencies have yet to be identified but the parties know they wish to work
together.
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.
Summary
A high level of concern for both
sides achieving their own objectives propels a collaborative, problem-solving
approach. Negotiators frequently fail at
integrative negotiation because they fail to perceive the integrative potential
of the negotiating situation. Successful
integrative negotiation requires several processes. First, they must create a free flow of information
and an open exchange of ideas. Second,
the parties must understand each other's true needs and objectives. Third, they must focus on their similarities,
emphasizing their commonalities rather than their differences. Finally, they must engage in a search for
solutions that meet the goals of both sides.
This is a very different set of processes from those in distributive
bargaining.
The four key steps in the
integrative negotiation process are identifying and defining the problem,
identifying interests and needs, generating alternative solutions, and
evaluating and selecting alternatives.
Various factors facilitate
successful integrative negotiation. First,
the process will be greatly facilitated by some form of common goal or
objective. The goal may be one that the
parties both want to achieve, one they want to share, or one they could not
possibly attain unless they worked together.
Second, they must have faith in their problem-solving ability. Third, the parties must be willing to believe
that the other’s needs are valid. Fourth,
they must share a motivation and commitment to work together to make their
relationship a productive one. Fifth, they
must also be able to trust each other and to work hard to establish and
maintain that trust. Sixth, there must
be clear and accurate communication about what each one wants and an effort to
understand the other’s needs. Finally,
there must be an understanding of the dynamics of integrative negotiations.
