Integrative Negotiation

1
Integrative Negotiation
Adapted from Lewicki, Roy J., Saunders, David M.
, and Minton, John W., Essentials of Negotiatio
n, Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1997
ISBN 0-256-24168-6
2
What is Integrative Negotiation ?

• Integrative Negotiation - win-win bargaining.
• It is possible for both sides to achieve their
  objectives

3
Distributive Vs. Integrative Negotiation
4
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• Key 1 Creating a Free Flow of Information -
  effective information exchange promotes the
  development of good integrative solutions
  
• For this open dialogue to occur, negotiators
  must
  
• Be willing to reveal their true objectives
• Listen carefully to the other negotiator
• Create the conditions for a free and open
  discussion of all related issues and concerns.

5
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• How is this different from distributive
  bargaining?
  
• Parties distrust one another
• Conceal and manipulate information
• Attempt to learn information about the other for
  their own competitive advantage.

6
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• Key 2 Attempting to Understand the Other
  Negotiator's Real Needs and Objectives
  
• If you are to help satisfy another's needs, you
  must first understand them.
  
• Parties must make a true effort to understand
  what the other side really wants to achieve.

7
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• How is this different from distributive
  bargaining?
  
• Negotiator either makes no effort to understand
  what the other side really wants or uses this
  information to challenge, undermine, or even deny
  the other the opportunity to have those needs and
  objectives met.

8
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• Key 3 Emphasizing the Commonalties between the
  Parties and Minimizing the Differences  
  
• In integrative negotiation, individual goals may
  need to be redefined as best achievable through
  collaborative efforts that achieve a broader
  collective goal.

9
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• For example, politicians in the same party may
  recognize that their petty squabbles must be put
  aside to assure the party's victory at the polls.
  
• The phrase "Politics makes strange bedfellows"
  suggests that the quest for victory can unite
  political enemies into larger coalitions that
  will be assured of political victory.
• Similarly, managers who are quarreling over
  cutbacks in their individual department budgets
  may need to recognize that unless all departments
  sustain budget cuts, they will be unable to
  change an unprofitable firm into a profitable
  one.

10
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• Key 4 Searching for Solutions That Meet the
  Goals and Objectives of Both Sides
  
• Negotiators must be firm but flexible - they must
  be firm about their primary interests and needs,
  but flexible about the manner in which these
  interests and needs are met through solutions.
• What if the parties have traditionally held a
  combative, competitive orientation toward each
  other?
  
• They are more prone to be concerned, only with
  their own objectives.
  

11
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• Key 4 Searching for Solutions That Meet the
  Goals and Objectives of Both Sides
  
• Concern with the other's objectives may be in one
  of two forms
  
• To make sure that what the other obtains does not
  take away from one's own accomplishments
  
• To attempt to block the other from obtaining
  objectives because of a strong desire to win and
  even defeat the opponent.
  

12
Key Processes to Achieving Integrative Neg.

• Key 4 Searching for Solutions That Meet the
  Goals and Objectives of Both Sides
  
• Successful integrative negotiation requires each
  negotiator
  
• To define and pursue her own goals
• To be mindful of the, other's goals
• To search for solutions that will meet and
  satisfy the goals of both sides.
  

13
Key Stages in the Integrative Negotiation Process

• There are four major steps in the integrative
  negotiation process
  
• Identifying and defining the problem
• Understanding the problem and bringing interests
  and needs to the surface
  
• Generating alternative solutions to the problem
• Choosing a specific solution from among those
  alternatives.

14
Stage 1 Identifying and Defining The
ProblemStep 1 Define the problem in a way that
is mutually acceptable to both sides

• Parties should enter the integrative negotiation
  process with few if any preconceptions about the
  solution and with open minds about the other
  negotiator's needs.
• Why does this rarely occur?
• An understandable and widely held fear is that
  during the problem definition process, the other
  party is manipulating information and discussion
  in order to state the problem for his own
  advantage.

15
Stage 1 Identifying and Defining The
ProblemStep 1 Define the problem in a way that
is mutually acceptable to both sides

• For positive problem solving to occur
• Both parties must be committed to stating the
  problem in neutral terms.
  
• The problem statement must be mutually acceptable
  to both sides and not stated so that it favors
  the preferences or priorities of one side over
  the other.
• The parties may be required to work the problem
  statement over several times until each side
  agrees upon its wording.

16
Step 2 Keep the Problem Statement Clean and
Simple

• The major focus of an integrative agreement is to
  solve the primary problem.
  
• Secondary issues and concerns should be raised
  only if they are inextricably bound up with the
  primary problem.
  
• This approach is in stark contrast to the
  distributive bargaining process, in which the
  parties are encouraged to "beef up" their
  positions by bringing in a large number of
  secondary issues and concerns so they can trade
  these items off during the hard bargaining phase.

17
Step 2 Keep the Problem Statement Clean and
Simple

• What if there are several issues on the table in
  an integrative negotiation?
  
• The parties may want to clearly identify the
  linkages among the issues and decide whether they
  will be approached as separate problems (which
  may be packaged together later) or redefined as
  one larger problem.

18
Step 3 State the problem as a goal and identify
the obstacles to attaining this goal

• It is important for the parties to create this
  specific goal mutually, rather than having one
  side introduce it unilaterally.
  
• What if only one side introduces it and defines
  it specifically?
  
• It will be perceived by the other as a
  distributive bargaining tactic.
  
• Problem definition should then proceed to specify
  what obstacles must be overcome for the goal to
  be attained.

19
Step 4 Depersonalize the problem

• When parties are engaged in conflict, they tend
  to become evaluative and judgment.
  
• They view their own actions, strategies, and
  preferences in a positive light and the other
  party's actions, strategies, and preferences in a
  negative light.
• As a result, when negotiators attempt the
  integrative negotiation process, their evaluative
  judgments of the value or worth of the opponent's
  preferences can get in the way of clear and
  dispassionate thinking, simply because the other
  happens to own those preferences

20
Step 4 Depersonalize the problem

• Viewing the situation as "your point of view is
  wrong and mine is right" inhibits the integrative
  negotiation process because we cannot attack the
  problem without attacking the person who "owns"
  the problem.
• By depersonalizing the definition of the
  problem-stating, for example, that "there is a
  difference of viewpoints on this problem"-both
  sides can approach the difference as a problem
  "out there," rather than as one they personally
  own.

21
Step 5 Separate the problem definition from the
search for solutions

• Don't jump to solutions until the problem is
  fully defined.
  
• In distributive bargaining, negotiators are
  encouraged to state the problem in terms of their
  preferred solution and to make concessions from
  this most desired alternative.
• In contrast, the integrative negotiation process
  cannot work unless negotiators avoid premature
  solutions (which probably favor one side or the
  other).
• Negotiators should fully define the problem and
  examine all the possible alternative solutions.

22
Stage 2 Understand the Problem Fully-Identify
Interests and Needs

• A key to achieving an integrative agreement is
  the ability of the parties to get at each other's
  interests
  
• Interests are different from positions in that
  interests are the underlying concerns, needs,
  desires, or fears behind a negotiator's position
  that motivate the negotiator to take that
  position.
• Although negotiators may have difficulty
  satisfying each other's specific positions, an
  understanding of underlying interests may permit
  them to invent solutions that meet those
  interests.

23
Stage 2 Understand the Problem Fully-Identify
Interests and Needs

• Example Two men quarreling in a library.
• One wants the window open and the other wants it
  closed. They bicker back and forth about how much
  to leave it open a crack, halfway,
  three-quarters of the way. No solution satisfies
  them both.
• Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants
  the window open. "To get some fresh air." She
  asks the other why he wants it closed. "To avoid
  the draft '" After thinking a minute, she opens
  wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh
  air without a draft.

24
Stage 2 Understand the Problem Fully-Identify
Interests and Needs

• Example Two men quarreling in a library.
• Their positions are "window open" and "window
  closed"
  
• If they continue to pursue positional bargaining,
  the set of possible outcomes can either be a
  victory for the one who wants the window open, a
  victory for the one who wants it shut, or some
  form of a compromise in which neither gets what
  he wants.
• Note that a compromise here is more a form of
  lose-lose than win-win for these bargainers
  because one party believes that he won't get
  enough fresh air with the window open halfway,
  whereas the other views it as a loss because any
  opening will create a draft.

25
Stage 2 Understand the Problem Fully-Identify
Interests and Needs

• Example Two men quarreling in a library.
• The librarian's questions transform the dispute
  by focusing on why each man wants the window
  open or closed to get fresh air or to avoid a
  draft.
• Understanding these interests enables the
  librarian to invent a solution that meets the
  interests of both sides-a solution that was not
  at all apparent when they continued to argue
  over their positions.

26
Stage 2 Understand the Problem Fully-Identify
Interests and Needs

• Interests are motivators-the underlying needs,
  concerns, and desires that lead us to set a
  particular position.
  
• In integrative negotiation, we need to pursue the
  negotiator's thinking and logic to determine the
  factors that motivated her to arrive at those
  points.
• The presumption is that if both parties
  understand the motivating factors for the other,
  they may recognize possible compatibilities in
  interests that permit them to invent positions
  which both will endorse as an acceptable
  settlement.

27
Stage 3 Generate Alternative Solutions

• Search for alternatives is the creative phase of
  integrative negotiations
  
• Two techniques to help negotiators generate
  alternative solutions.
  
• Generating Alternative Solutions by Redefining
  the Problem or Problem Set - requires the
  negotiators to redefine, recast, or reframe the
  problem (or problem set) so as to create win-win
  alternatives out of what earlier appeared to be a
  win-lose problem.

28
Stage 3 Generate Alternative Solutions

• Generating Alternative Solutions to the Problem
  as Given - takes the problem as given and creates
  a long list of alternative options, from which
  negotiators can choose a particular option.
• In integrative negotiation over a complex
  problem, both approaches may be used and
  intertwined.

29
Generating Alternative Solutions by Redefining
the Problem or Problem Set

• The approaches in this category recommend that
  the parties specifically define their underlying
  needs and develop alternatives to successfully
  meet them
• Expand the Pie
• Logroll
• Use Nonspecific Compensation.
• Cut the Costs for Compliance.
• Find a Bridge Solution.

30
Expand the Pie

• Add resources in such a way that both sides can
  achieve their objectives
  
• Assumes that simply enlarging the resources will
  solve the problem.

31
Logroll

• Successful logrolling requires that the parties
  establish (or find) more than one issue in
  conflict
  
• The parties then agree to trade off these issues
  so one party achieves a highly preferred outcome
  on the first issue and the other person achieves
  a highly preferred outcome on the second issue.
• If the parties do in fact have different
  preferences on different issues, each party gets
  his most preferred outcome on his high priority
  issue and should be happy with the overall
  agreement.

32
Logroll

• Logrolling is frequently done by trial and error,
  as the parties experiment with various packages
  of offers that will satisfy both sides.
  
• The parties must first establish which issues are
  at stake and then decide their individual
  priorities on these issues.
  
• If there are already at least two issues on the
  table, then any combination of two or more issues
  may be suitable for logrolling.
  
• If it appears initially that only one issue is at
  stake, the parties may need to engage in
  "unbundling" or "unlinking" of a single issue
  into two or more issues, which may then permit
  the logrolling process to begin.

33
Use Nonspecific Compensation

• Allow one person to obtain his objectives and pay
  off the other person for accommodating his
  interests.
  
• This payoff may be unrelated to the substantive
  negotiation, but the party who receives it
  nevertheless views it as adequate for acceding to
  the other party's preferences.
• For nonspecific compensation to work, the person
  doing the compensating needs to know what is
  valuable to the other person and how seriously
  the other is inconvenienced (i.e., how much
  compensation is needed to make the other feel
  satisfied).

34
Cut the Costs for Compliance

• Through cost cutting, one party achieves her
  objectives and the other's costs are minimized if
  he agrees to go along.
  
• Unlike nonspecific compensation, where the
  compensated party simply receives something for
  going along, cost-cutting tactics are
  specifically designed to minimize the other
  party's costs and suffering.
• The technique is thus more sophisticated than
  logrolling or nonspecific compensation because it
  requires a more intimate knowledge of the other
  party's real needs and preferences (the party's
  interests, what really matters to him, how his
  needs can be more specifically met).

35
Find a Bridge Solution

• The parties are able to invent new options that
  meet each side's needs
  
• Successful bringing requires a fundamental
  reformulation of the problem such that the
  parties are no longer squabbling over their
  positions instead, they are disclosing
  sufficient information to discover their
  interests and needs and then inventing options
  that will satisfy both parties' needs

36
Generating Alternative Solutions to the Problem
as Given

• The success of these approaches relies on the
  principle that groups of people are frequently
  better problem solvers than single individuals,
  particularly because groups provide a wider
  number of perspectives on the problem and hence
  can invent a greater variety of ways to solve it.
  
• Brainstorming
• Nominal Groups
• Surveys

37
Communication Techniques

• Negotiators need to be able to signal to the
  other side the positions on which they are firm
  and the positions on which they are willing to be
  flexible.
• 1. Use contentious (competitive) tactics to
  establish and determine basic interests, rather
  than using them to demand a particular position
  or solution to the dispute. State what you want
  clearly.
• 2. Send signals of flexibility and concern about
  your willingness to address the other party's
  interests. "Acknowledge their interests as part
  of the problem." In doing so, you communicate
  that you have your own interests at stake but are
  willing to try to address the other's as well.

38
Communication Techniques

• 3. Indicate a willingness to change your
  proposals if a way can be found to bridge the two
  parties' interests
  
• 4. Demonstrate a problem-solving capacity
• 5. Maintain open communication channels. Do not
  eliminate opportunities to communicate and work
  together, if only to demonstrate continually that
  you are willing to work with the other party

39
Communication Techniques

• 6. Reaffirm what is most important to you through
  the use of deterrent statements-for example,
  
• "I need to attain this"
• "This is a must this cannot be touched or
  changed."
  
• These statements communicate to the other that a
  particular interest is fundamental to your
  position, but it does not necessarily mean that
  the other's interests can't be satisfied as well.
  
• 7. Reexamine any aspects of your interests that
  are clearly unacceptable to the other party and
  determine if they are still essential to your
  fundamental position. It is rare that negotiators
  will find that they truly disagree on basic
  interests.

40
Stage 4 Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives

• Evaluate the options generated during the
  previous phase and to select the best
  alternatives for implementing them.
  
• Negotiators will need to determine criteria for
  judging the options and then rank order or weigh
  each option against the criteria.
  
• The parties will be required to engage in some
  form of decision-making process, in which they
  debate the relative merits of each side's
  preferred options and come to agreement on the
  best options.

41
Stage 4 Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives

• Narrow the Range of Solution Options.
• Examine the list of options generated and focus
  on the options that are strongly supported by any
  negotiator.
  
• Evaluate Solutions on the Basis of Quality and
  Acceptability.
  
• Solutions should be judged on two major criteria
  how good they are, and how acceptable will they
  be to those who have to implement them. These are
  the same two dimensions that research has
  revealed to be critical in effective
  participative decision making in organizations.