1
Chapter 3
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation
Overview
Integrative negotiation – variously known as cooperative, collaborative, win-win, mutual gains,
or problem solving – is the focus of this chapter. 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. The belief
is that there is a limited, controlled amount of key resources to be distributed and both parties
may want to be the winner. Both may want to win on the same dimension, with their goals being
mutually exclusive which leads to conflict. In integrative negotiations the goals of the parties are
not mutually exclusive. If one side achieves its goals, the other is not necessarily precluded from
achieving its goals. One party’s gain is not necessarily at the other party’s expense. The
fundamental structure of an integrative negotiation situation is such that it allows both sides to
achieve their objectives. A description of the efforts and tactics by which negotiators discover
these alternatives accounts for the major part of this chapter. Our descriptions will draw heavily
on the writings of several authors who have studied the integrative process in great detail. In
addition, we will note recent research findings that have affirmed the validity of particular
strategies and tactics.
Learning Objectives
1. Describe how the integrative negotiation process works and learn the fundamental
strategies of integrative negotiation.
2. Identify and understand key steps in the integrative negotiation process.
3. Factors that facilitate successful integrative negotiation.
4. Why integrative negotiation is difficult to achieve.
What Makes Integrative Negotiation Different?
For a negotiation to be characterized as integrative, negotiators must also practice these requisite
behaviors and perspectives:
– 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 gain.
– Use objective criteria for standards of performance.
I. An Overview of the Integrative Negotiation Process
A. Creating and choosing a free flow of information promotes the development of good
integrative solutions.
2
1. Negotiators must be willing to reveal their true objectives and to listen to each other
carefully.
2. Willingness to share information is not a characteristic of distributive bargaining
situations, in which the parties distrust one another, conceal and manipulate
information, and attempt to learn about the other for their own competitive advantage.
B. Attempting to understand the other negotiator’s real needs and objectives.
1. Understanding the other’s needs, realizing the other party’s priorities are not the same
as your own, can stimulate more exchange of information, have a better
understanding of the nature of the negotiation, and achieve higher joint profits.
C. Emphasizing the commonalities between the parties and minimizing the differences.
1. To sustain a free flow of information and an effort to understand the other’s needs
and objectives, negotiators may require a different outlook or frame of reference.
2. Individual goals may need to be refined through collaborative efforts directed toward
a collective goal. At times the collective goal is clear and obvious, and other it is not
clear or easy to keep in site.
D. Searching for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.
1. The success of integrative negotiation depends on the search for solutions that meet
the needs and objectives of both sides.
2. In this process, negotiators must be firm but flexible.
3. A low level of concern for the other’s objectives may drive one of two forms of
behavior.
a) Making sure that what the other obtains does not take away from one’s own
accomplishments.
b) Attempting to block the other from obtaining his or her objectives because of a
strong desire to win or to “defeat the opponent.”
II. Key Steps in the Integrative Negotiation Process
Pareto efficiency: The goal of creating value is to push the claiming value line to a point where
there would be “no agreement that would make any party better off without decreasing the
outcomes to any other party.”
There are four major steps in the negotiation process:
A. Step 1: Identify and define the problem.
3
1. This is a critical step for integrative negotiation because it sets broad parameters
regarding what the negotiation is “about” and provides an initial framework for
approaching the discussion.
2. Should be comprehensive enough to capture complexities of the situation.
a) Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides.
b) State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness.
c) State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to obtain this goal.
d) Depersonalize the problem.
e) Separate the problem definition from the search for solutions.
B. Step 2: Understand the problem and surface interests and needs.
1. Types of interests:
a) Substantive interests – relate to the focal issues under negotiation – economic and
financial issues.
b) Process interests – related to the way a dispute is settled. They can be both
intrinsic and instrumental.
c) Relationship interests – one or both parties value their relationship with each other
and do not want to take actions that will damage it.
(1) Intrinsic relationship – parties value the relationship both for its existence and
for the pleasure or fulfillment that sustaining it creates.
(2) Instrumental relationship – parties derive substantive benefits from the
relationship and do not wish to endanger future benefits by souring it.
d) Interests in principle – principles deeply held by the parties and serve as the
dominant guides to their actions.
(1) Some principles include: concerning what is fair, what is right, what is
acceptable, what is ethical.
2. Some observations on interests.
a) There is almost always more than one type of interest underlying a negotiation.
b) Parties can have different types of interests at stake.
c) Interests often stem from deeply rooted human needs or values.
d) Interests can change.
e) Surfacing interests.
f) Surfacing interests is not always easy or to one’s best advantage.
g) Focusing on interests can be harmful to a group of negotiators whose consensus
on a particular issue is built around a unified position rather than a more
generalized set of interests.
C. Step 3: Generate alternative solutions to the problem.
1. Inventing options: generating alternative solutions by redefining the problem or
problem set.
4
a) Logroll – successful logrolling requires the parties to establish (or find) more than
one issue in conflict; the parties then agree to trade off among these issues so that
one party achieves a highly preferred outcome on the first issue and the other
person achieves a highly preferred outcome on the second issue.
b) Expand and modify the resource pie – add resources in such a way that both sides
can achieve their objectives.
c) Use nonspecific compensation – allow one person to obtain his objectives and pay
off the other person for accommodating his interests.
d) Cut the costs for compliance – one party achieves her objectives and the other’s
costs are minimized if he agrees to go along.
e) Find a bridge solution – when the parties are able to invent new options that meet
all their respective needs they have created a bridge solution. Successful bridging
requires a fundamental reformulation of the problem so that the parties are not
discussing their positions but disclosing information that will satisfy needs.
f) Superordination – when “the differences in interest that gave rise to the conflict
are superseded or replaced by other interests.”
g) Compromise – compromises are not considered to be a good integrative strategy
except for circumstances where parties are very entrenched and it is unlikely that
a more comprehensive agreement is possible.
2. Generating alternative solutions to the problem as given.
a) Brainstorming – generating as many solutions to the problem as possible. The
following rules should be observed when engaging in brainstorming:
(1) Avoid judging or evaluating solutions.
(2) Separate the people from the problem.
(3) Be exhaustive in the brainstorming process.
(4) Ask outsiders.
b) Surveys – asking a large number of people to list all possible solutions they can
imagine.
c) Electronic brainstorming – A facilitator uses a series of questions to guide input
from participants, who type their anonymous responses into a computer.
D. Step 4: Evaluate those alternatives and select among them.
1. Narrow the range of solution options – focus on those that one or more negotiators
strongly support.
2. Evaluate solutions on the basis of quality, standards, and acceptability – how good are
the solutions? How acceptable are they to those who have to implement them?
3. Agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options – this can be helpful in
narrowing or selecting options.
4. Be willing to justify personal preferences.
5
5. Be alert to the influence of intangibles in selecting options – it is good practice to help
the other party identify intangibles and make them public as part of the evaluation
process.
6. Use subgroups to evaluate complex options.
7. Take time out to cool off.
8. Explore different ways to logroll.
a) Explore differences in risk preference – it is possible to create a package that
recognizes differences in risk preferences.
b) Explore differences in expectations about the likelihood of future events. This
can permit the parties to invent a solution that addresses the needs of both.
c) Explore differences in time preferences – invent solutions that address the parties’
preference of either short-term needs or long-term rewards.
9. Keep decisions tentative and conditional until all aspects of the final proposal are
complete.
10. Minimize formality and record keeping until final agreements are closed.
III. Factors That Facilitate Successful Integrative Negotiation
A. Some common objective or goal.
1. A common goal is one that all parties share equally, each one benefiting in a way that
would not be possible if they did not work together.
2. A shared goal is one that both parties work toward but that benefits each party
differently.
3. A joint goal is one that involves individuals with different personal goals agreeing to
combine them in a collective effort.
B. Faith in one’s problem-solving ability.
1. Parties who believe they can work together are more likely to do so.
2. Expertise in the focal problem area strengthens the negotiator’s understanding of the
problem’s complexity, nuances, and possible solutions.
3. Expertise increases both the negotiator’s knowledge base and his or her self–
confidence, both of which are necessary to approach the problem at hand with an
open mind.
6
4. Direct experience in negotiation increases the negotiator’s sophistication in
understanding the bargaining process and approaching it more creatively.
5. There is also evidence that knowledge of integrative tactics leads to an increase in
integrative behavior.
C. A belief in the validity of one’s own position and the other’s perspective.
1. Integrative negotiation requires negotiators to accept both their own and the other’s
attitudes, interests, and desires as valid.
2. One must believe in the validity of your own perspective—that what you believe is
worth fighting for and should not be compromised.
D. The motivation and commitment to work together.
1. For integrative negotiation to succeed, the parties must be motivated to collaborate
rather than compete.
2. Motivation and commitment to problem solving can be enhanced in several ways:
a) The parties can come to believe that they share a common fate.
b) The parties can demonstrate to each other that there is more to be gained by
working together than by working separately.
c) The parties can engage in commitments to each other before the negotiations
begin. Such commitments have been called presettlement settlements and are
distinguished by three major characteristics:
(1) The settlement results in a firm, legally binding written agreement between
the parties.
(2) The settlement occurs in advance of the parties undertaking full-scale
negotiations, but the parties intend that the agreement will be replaced by a
more clearly delineated long-term agreement which is to be negotiated.
(3) The settlement resolves only a subset of the issues on which the parties
disagree and may simply establish a framework within which the more
comprehensive agreement can be defined and delineated.
d) Create an umbrella agreement that provides a framework for future discussions.
Umbrella agreements manage three negotiation challenges:
(1) Allow flexibility when the relationship is evolving.
(2) Provide flexibility for claiming value when the actual future gains are not
known at the time.
(3) Can be used when all the issues and contingencies have yet to be identified
but the parties know they wish to work together.
E. Trust.
1. Mistrust inhibits collaboration.
7
2. Generating trust is a complex, uncertain process that depends in part on how the
parties behave and in part on the parties’ personal characteristics.
3. To develop trust effectively, each negotiator must believe that both he/she and the
other party choose to behave in a cooperative manner.
F. Clear and accurate communication.
1. Negotiators must be willing to share information about themselves, for example,
revealing what they want and why.
2. Negotiators must understand the communication, or meaning each party attaches to
their statements.
G. An understanding of the dynamics of integrative negotiation.
1. Several studies indicate that training in integrative negotiation enhances the ability of
the parties to successfully pursue the process.
Summary
A high level of concern for both sides achieving their own objectives propels a collaborative,
problem-solving approach. Negotiators frequently fail at integrative negotiation because they
fail to perceive the integrative potential of the negotiating situation. Successful integrative
negotiation requires several processes. First, they must create a free flow of information and an
open exchange of ideas. Second, the parties must understand each other’s true needs and
objectives. Third, they must focus on their similarities, emphasizing their commonalities rather
than their differences. Finally, they must engage in a search for solutions that meet the goals of
both sides. This is a very different set of processes from those in distributive bargaining.
The four key steps in the integrative negotiation process are identifying and defining the
problem, identifying interests and needs, generating alternative solutions, and evaluating and
selecting alternatives.
Various factors facilitate successful integrative negotiation. First, the process will be greatly
facilitated by some form of common goal or objective. The goal may be one that the parties both
want to achieve, one they want to share, or one they could not possibly attain unless they worked
together. Second, they must have faith in their problem-solving ability. Third, the parties must
be willing to believe that the other’s needs are valid. Fourth, they must share a motivation and
commitment to work together to make their relationship a productive one. Fifth, they must also
be able to trust each other and to work hard to establish and maintain that trust. Sixth, there must
be clear and accurate communication about what each one wants and an effort to understand the
other’s needs. Finally, there must be an understanding of the dynamics of integrative
negotiations.
8