Monday, December 04, 2006
Negotiation Chapter 4:Strategy and Tactics of Intergrative Negotiation
Chapter 4: Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation
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. In contrast, in integrative negotiation the goala of the parties are not mutually exclusive. If the one side achieves its goals, the other is not necessarily precluded from achieving its goals. Integrative negotiation is variously known as cooperative, collaborative, win-win, mutual gains, or problem solving. The fundamental structure of an inegrative organization situation is such that it allows both sides to achieve their objectives.
What makes integrative negotiation different? For a negotiation to be characterized as integrative, negotiators must also:
· 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 gains.
· Use objective criteria for standards of performance.
An overview of the integrative negotiation process The following processes tend to be central to achieving almost all integrative agreement.
· Creating a free flow of information – the effective information exchange promotes the development of good integrative solutions.
· Attempting to understand the other negotiator’s real needs and objectives.
· Emphasizing the commonalities between the parties and minimizing the differences
· Searching for solutions that meet the goals and objectives of both sides
Key steps in the integrative negotiation process There are four majorsteps in the integrative negotiation process:
1. Identify and define the problem
· Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides.
· State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness.
· State yhe problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to attaining this goal.
· Depersonalize the problem. – allows both sides to approach the issue as a problem “ \outthere” rather than as a problem that belongs to one side only.
· Separate the problem definition from the search for solutions.- don’t jump to solutions until the problem is fully defined.
2. Understand the problem fully – identify interest and needs
Interests are different from positions in that interests are underlying concerns, needs, desires, or fears that moyivate a negotiator to take a particular position.
· Types of interests.
- Substantive interests: relate to the focal issues under negotiation – economic and financial issues such as price or rate, or the substance of negotiation such as the devision of resources.
- Process interests: relate to the way a dispute is settled.
- Relationship interests: indecate that one or both parties value their relationship with each other and do not want take actions that will damage it.
- Interests in principle: concerning what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable, what is ethical, or what has been done in the past and should be done in the future.
· Some observations on interests. We may make several obsevations about interests and types of interests:
- There is almost always more than one type of interest in adispute.
- Parties can have different types of interests at take.
- Interests oftens stem from deeply rooted human needs or values.
- Interests can change over the time.
- There are many ways to get at interests.
- Getting interests is not always easy or to one’s best advantage. Critics of the “interests approach” to negotiation have often identified the difficulty of defining interests and taking them into consideration.
- Focusing on interests can be harmful to a group of negotiators whose concensus on a particular issue is built around a nified position rather than a more generalized set of interests.
3. Generate alternative solutions.
· Inventing options: generating alternative solutions by redefining the problem or problem set such as:
- Expand the pie.
- Use nonspecific compensation.
- Cut the costs for compliance.
- Find a bridge solution.
· Generating alternative solutions to the problem as given.
· Brainstorming. The success of brainstorming depends on the amount of intellectual stimulation that occurs as different ideasare tossed around. Therefore , the following rules should be observed:
1) Avoid judging or evaluaing solutions.
2) Separate the people from the problem.
3) Be exhaustive in the brainstorming process.
4) Ask outsiders.
4. Evaluation and selection of alternatives
The following guidelines should be used in evaluating options and reaching a consensus, there are:
· Narrow the range of solution options: examine the list of options generated and focus on those that are strongly supported by one or more negotiators.
· Evaluate solutions on the basis of quality, acceptability, and standards: solutions should be judged on two major criteria: how good they are, and how acceptable they will be to those who have to implement them.
· Agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options: negotiators should agree to the criteria for evaluating potential integrative solutions early in the process.
· Be willing to justify personal preferences.
· Be aware to the influence of intangibles in selection options.
· Use subgroups to evaluate complex options.
· Take time out of cool off.
· Explore different ways to logroll.
· Exploit differences in risk preference.
· Exploit differences in expectations.
· Exploit differences in time preference.
· Keep decisions tentative and condition until aspects of the final proposal are complete.
· Minimize formality and record keeping until final agreements are closed.
Factors that facilitate successful integrative negotiation
1. Some common objective or goal. Three types of goals – common(all parties share equally), shared(both parties work toward but that benefits each party differently), and joint(involves individuals with different personal goals agreeing to combine them in acollective effort.) – may facilitate the development of integrative agreements.
2. Faith in one’s problem – solving ability. Parties who believe they can work together usually are able to do so.
3. A belief in the validity of one’s own position and the other’s perspective. The purpose of integrative negotiation is not to question or challenge the other’s viewpoint, but to incorporate it into the definition of the problem and to attend to it as the parties search for mutually acceptable alternatives.
4. The motivation and commitment to work together. Motivation and commitment to problem solving can be enhanced in several ways:
· The parties can come to believe that they share a commom fate.
· The parties can demonstrate to each other that there is more to be gained by working together than by seperately.
· The parties can engage in commitment to each other before the negotiations begin.
5. Trust.Generating trust is complex, uncertain process; it depends in part on how the parties behave and in part on the parties’ personal characteristics. A number of key factors contribute to the development of trust between negotiators: 1)people are more likely to trust someone they perceive as similar to them or as holding a positive attitude toward them, 2)people often trust those who depend on them, 3)people are more likely to trust those who initiate cooperative, trusting behavior, 4)there is some evidence that giving a gift to the other negotiator may lead to increase trust, 5) people are more likely to trust those who make concessions.
6. Clear and accurate communication. For high-quality integrative negotiation, negotiators must be willing to share information about themselves and the other negotiators must understand the communication.
7. An understanding of dynamic of integrative negotiation. Training negotiators in integrative tactics – particularly in how to exchange information about priorities across issues and preferences within issues, and how to set high goals – significantly enhanced the frequency of integrative behaviors and led the parties to achieve higher joint outcomes.