Integrative Negotiation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 41
About This Presentation
Title:

Integrative Negotiation

Description:

Their positions are 'window open' and 'window closed' ... or nonspecific compensation because it requires a more intimate knowledge of the ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1840
Avg rating:5.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: systema180
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com