1 lamar university integrative negotiation adapted from: lewicki, roy j., saunders, david m., and...

1Lamar University

Integrative Negotiation

Adapted from:Lewicki, Roy J., Saunders, David M., and Minton,

John W., Essentials of Negotiation, Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1997ISBN#: 0-256-24168-6

2Lamar University

What is Integrative Negotiation ?

• Integrative Negotiation - win-win bargaining.

• It is possible for both sides to achieve their objectives

3Lamar University

Distributive Vs. Integrative Negotiation

Integrative Distributed

Flow of information Create a free and open flow, share information openly

Conceal information, or use it selectively and strategically

Understanding the other Attempt to understand what the other side really wants and needs

Make no effort to understand the other side, or use the information to gain strategic advantage

Attention to commonalities and differences

Emphasized common goals, objectives, interests

Emphasize differences in goals, objectives, interests

Focus on solutions Search for solutions that meet the needs of both (all) sides

Search for solutions that meet own needs or even block the other from meeting their needs

4Lamar University

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.

5Lamar University


• 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.

6Lamar University


• 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.

7Lamar University


• 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.

8Lamar University


• 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.

9Lamar University


• 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.

10Lamar University


• 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.

11Lamar University



• Concern with the other's objectives may be in one of two forms:

1. To make sure that what the other obtains does not take away from one's own accomplishments

2. To attempt to block the other from obtaining objectives because of a strong desire to win and even defeat the opponent.

12Lamar University



• 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.

13Lamar University

Key Stages in the Integrative Negotiation Process

• There are four major steps in the integrative negotiation process:

1. Identifying and defining the problem

2. Understanding the problem and bringing interests and needs to the surface

3. Generating alternative solutions to the problem

4. Choosing a specific solution from among those alternatives.

14Lamar University

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.

15Lamar University

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.

16Lamar University

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.

17Lamar University

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.

18Lamar University

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.

19Lamar University

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

20Lamar University

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.

21Lamar University

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.

22Lamar University

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.

23Lamar University


• 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.

24Lamar University



• 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.

25Lamar University



• 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.

26Lamar University


• 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.

27Lamar University

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.

28Lamar University

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.

29Lamar University

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.

30Lamar University

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.

31Lamar University

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.

32Lamar University

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.

33Lamar University

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).

34Lamar University

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).

35Lamar University

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

36Lamar University

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

37Lamar University

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.

38Lamar University


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

39Lamar University


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.

40Lamar University

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.

41Lamar University

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.

1 lamar university integrative negotiation adapted from: lewicki, roy j., saunders, david m., and...

Documents