CHAPTER THREE

Strategy And Tactics of

Integrative Negotiation
(expanding the pie)
 What Makes Integrative
Negotiation Different?
• Focus on commonalties rather than differences
• 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 to set standards
 Strategy and Tactics

• Strategy (thought): overall guideline,

indicating the direction we need to take from
our wishes and needs to our objectives.
• Tactics (its formulation): a concrete line of
action following after strategy.
• The thought comes before the word.
Strategy and Tactics
 Integrative vs Distributive

Warming-up Questions

1. Do you believe in IN?

2. Can you name some differences between IN &
DN?
3. Why is the distinction so important?
 Why is the distinction so important?

If you want to play well, you need to know

the rules of the game.
The Negotiators’ mental models are central to
understanding how the negotiation game is
defined.
How parties understand the game is a critical
determinant of how they play the game.
 Case 1
Customer
How much do you want for this
brass dish?
Oh come on, it’s dented. I’ll give
you $175.
Well, I could go to $200, but I
would never pay anything like
$500. Quote me a realistic price.
$200.
Storekeeper
This is a beautiful antique, isn’t
it? I guess I could let it go for
$500.
Really! I might consider a
serious offer, but $175 certainly
isn’t serious.
You drive a hard bargain, young
lady. $425 cash, right now.
It cost me a great deal more than
that. Make me a serious offer.
Distributive negotiation
Case 1 Graphically depicted
 Remarks on case 1: Distributive

 focus on one single issue (often, money).

 Conflict dominated and relationship ignored or sacrificed.
 Myth: negotiation as a fixed pie perception.
 Possible outcomes: win-lose, lose-lose (compromise), no
agreement
 Often common for one-off, low-value deals, e.g. buying
items at a flea market where haggling is the accepted
“game.”
 Inefficient (a battle of will)
AND ……?
 Case 2

• Two men were quarrelling in a library. One wants the

window open and the other wants it closed. They argue
back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack,
halfway, three quarters of the way. No solution
satisfies them both.
• The librarian enters. She asks 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.
Integrative Negotiation
 Case 2 Integrative
 win-win perception: both can win.
 problem-solving, cooperative: focus on mutual interests
(e.g. “care about”, “want”), and a potential script: What
can I learn from this demand? (vs. How can I avoid
accepting this demand?)
 Multiple issues and multiple options: A position is just
one possible option or a possible solution (e.g. a crack,
halfway, three quarters of the way).
 positions not identical to interests
 Asking questions of “why” and “why not” can help
explore interests behind positions (e.g. “To get some fresh
air.” “to avoid the draft.”)
Distributive Negotiation Integrative Negotiation
1.   little cooperation 1.   strong cooperation

2.   what I gain is what 2.   mutual gain

you lose

3.   win-lose 3.   win-win

 2 …Win-win revolution

Popularized by the book

Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving
In by Fisher, Ury, and Patton in the early 1980s.
(1981, 1991, 1995)
The focus shifted from battling over the division of the
pie to the means of expanding it by uncovering and
reconciling underlying interests.
Principled Negotiation: Four key contributions
(TBCed)
Principled
Principled Negotiation
Negotiation

people interests

options criteria
 Principled negotiation ： 4D
dig

Options

design decide
Criteria
Interests

BATNA
develop
 2 …IN as a six-step procedure

1. State what you want.

2. Express how you feel.
3. Give the reasons that underlie your wants and feelings.
4. Communicate your understanding of the other person’s
wants, feelings, and reasons.
5. Invent three or more possible solutions that enhance
everyone’s outcomes.
6. Agree and shake hands on the solution that maximizes
mutual benefits.
 Classic Case-Scenario 1

• Two kids are squabbling over the last orange

in the fridge. When Dad hears the ruckus, he
goes into the kitchen and is sure he’s got the
answer. He slices the fruit into equal halves
and gives one to each kid. Surprising, no one
is happy. Why? Because one kid just wanted
the pulp, and the other just wanted the rind.
 Classic case---Scenario 2

Recently two of my sons were squabbling over some

apple pie, each insisting that he would have the larger
slice. Neither would agree to an even split. So I
suggested that one boy cut the pie any way he liked,
and the other boy could choose the piece he wanted.
This sounded fair to both of them, and they accepted.
Each felt that he had gotten the square deal.
 Overview of the Integrative
Negotiation Process
• Create a free flow of information
• Attempt to understand the other negotiator’s
real needs and objectives
• Emphasize the commonalties between the
parties and minimize the differences
• Search for solutions that meet the goals and
objectives of both sides
 Key Steps in the Integrative
Negotiation Process
• Identify and define the problem
• Understand the problem fully
– identify interests and needs on both sides
• Generate alternative solutions
• Evaluate and select among alternatives
Claiming and Creating Value
 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 the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles
in attaining this goal
• Depersonalize the problem
• Separate the problem definition from the search for
solutions
 Understand the Problem Fully –
Identify Interests and Needs
• Interests: the underlying concerns, needs,
desires, or fears that motivate a negotiator
– Substantive interests relate to key issues in the
negotiation
– Process interests are related to the way the dispute is
settled
– Relationship interests indicate that one or both
parties value their relationship
– Interests in principle: doing what is fair, right,
acceptable, ethical may be shared by the parties
 Generate Alternative Solutions
• Invent options by redefining the problem set:
– Expand the pie
– Logroll
– Use nonspecific compensation
– Cut the costs for compliance
– Find a bridge solution
• Generate options to the problem as a given:
– Brainstorming
– Electronic brainstorming
– Surveys
 Evaluation and Selection
of Alternatives
• Narrow the range of solution options
• Evaluate solutions on:
– Quality
– Objective standards
– Acceptability
• Agree to evaluation criteria in advance
• Be willing to justify personal preferences
• Be alert to the influence of intangibles in
selecting options
• Use subgroups to evaluate complex options
 Evaluation and Selection
of Alternatives
• Take time to “cool off”
• Explore different ways to logroll
• Exploit differences in expectations and risk/ time
preferences
• Keep decisions tentative and conditional until a
final proposal is complete
• Minimize formality, record keeping until final
agreements are closed
 Factors That Facilitate Successful
Integrative Negotiation
• Some common objective or goal
• Faith in one’s own problem-solving ability
• A belief in the validity of one’s own position
and the other’s perspective
• The motivation and commitment to work
together
Factors That Facilitate Successful
Integrative Negotiation
• Trust
• Clear and accurate communication
• An understanding of the dynamics of
integrative negotiation
 Why Integrative Negotiation
Is Difficult to Achieve
• The history of the relationship between the
parties
– If contentious in past, it is difficult not to look at
negotiations as win-lose
• The belief that an issue can only be resolved
distributively
– Negotiators are biased to avoid behaviors necessary
for integrative negotiation
 Why Integrative Negotiation
Is Difficult to Achieve
• The mixed-motive nature of most negotiating
situations
– Purely integrative or purely distributive situations
are rare
• The conflict over the distributive issues tends to
drive out cooperation, trust needed for finding
integrative solutions