CHAPTER 3
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative
Negotiation
整合型谈判
(expanding the pie 增大蛋糕)
Approach: a comparative view
Negotiations As Joint Problem Solving
In an integrative bargaining situation, “it may be
possible for the negotiators to enlarge the pie before
cutting it. In order to squeeze out potential joint
gains, the negotiators must do some joint problem
solving” (Raiffa, 1982)
Pareto Efficient Frontier
“An agreement is defined as Pareto efficient when
there is no other agreement that would make any
party better off without decreasing the outcomes to
any other party.”
“With any Pareto inefficient agreement, there exists an
alternative that would benefit at least one party without
injuring any party.” (Neale & Bazerman, 1991)
Your goal as a negotiator to reach Pareto optimality
in a negotiated agreement.
Q: why don’t most outcomes end up on the frontier?
Pareto Efficient Frontier
The Negotiator’s (Prisoner’s dilemma)
The non-separability of integrative and distributive negotiations
“Value that has been created must be claimed” (Lax & Sebenius,
1986)
But tactics that claim value can impede its creation
Pareto Efficient Frontier
Scoring Systems
• Develop one.Use it!
• Why?
– “Quantitative information helps the recipient of
that information”
(Raiffa, 1982)
– Consider and quantify all issues
– Aids in determining overall reservation price
– Allows you to compare package deals, multiple
offers, etc.
– Quick assessment of trade-offs, concessions, and the
like
Distributive vs. Integrative Negotiations
Distributive
•Involve only one issue
•Simply dividing the pie
•“Almost strictly
opposing interests” –
each party is attempting
to maximize his/her
share of the fixed-pie
payoff
•Involves fixed-sum
games – one person’s
gain is another
person’s loss (win-lose
situation)
Integrative
•Involve multiple issues
•Opportunity for
enlarging the pie
•Can increase the
benefits available to each
side by “capitalizing on
differences in parties’
preferences”
•Always involves
distributive component
Tools and Strategies
•
•
•
•
Scoring Systems
Interests vs. Positions
Package Deals
Sharing Information
Scoring Systems
• Develop one.Use it!
• Why?
– “Quantitative information helps the recipient of that
information”
(Raiffa, 1982)
–
–
–
–
Consider and quantify all issues
Aids in determining overall reservation price
Allows you to compare package deals, multiple offers, etc.
Quick assessment of trade-offs, concessions, and the like
Sample Scoring System
Weighted
Issue
Issue
1 Compensation
2 L ocation
3 Vacation
Option Values Weights (W)
Options Values (V)
(W*V)
50%
$200,000
100
50
$190,000
80
40
$180,000
50
25
$170,000
30
15
30%
London
New York
Tokyo 60
S ingapore
Siberia 0
100
60
18
30
0
30
18
20%
4 weeks100
3 weeks90
18
2 weeks35
7
20
100%
9
Sample Scoring System
Weighted
Issue
1Compensation
2 L ocation
3 Vacation
Issue Option
Weights
50%
30%
20%
100%
Values Options
(W*V)
$200,000
(W)
$190,000
$180,000
$170,000
100
80
50
30
London 100
New York
Tokyo 60
S ingapore
Siberia 0
30
60
18
30
0
4 weeks100
3 weeks90
2 weeks35
20
18
7
Values (V)
50
40
25
15
18
9
Sample Scoring System
Issue
1
Compensation
2 L ocation
3 Vacation
Issue
Weights (W)
50%
30%
20%
100%
Opti ons
$200,000
$190,000
$180,000
$170,000
London
New York
Tokyo
Singapore
Siberia
4 weeks
3 weeks
2 weeks
Weighted
Option Values
Values (V)
(W*V)
100
50
80
40
50
25
30
15
100
60
60
30
0
30
18
18
9
0
100
90
35
20
18
7
Sample Scoring System
Issue
1Compensation
Issue Weights
(W)
50%
Options
$200,000
$190,000
$180,000
$170,000
2Location
30%
London
New York
Tokyo
Singapore
2 weeks
3Vacation
100% 20%
Siberi35
a
Option
Weighted
Values
(V)
Values (W*V)
50
100
40
80
25
15
50
30
30
18
100
18
9
60
0
60
20
18
30
7
0
4 weeks
100
3 weeks
90
Sample Scoring System
Issue
Weights
(W)
1 Compensat
50%
ion
Issue
100%
2 L ocation
30%
Option
Options
$200,00
0
$190,00
0
$180,00
0
2$170,00
eeks
0
L ondon
Values
(V)
100
Weighte
d
Values
(W*V)
50
80
40
50
25
30
35
15
7
100
30
Good scoring systems are…
• Complete
– All important issues are identified and quantified
• Measurable
– Provides a common metric for comparing qualitatively different issues
• Operational
– Can be used to sort out specifics re what sets of alternatives are
preferable to others
– Allow for someone else to negotiate on your behalf
• Useful
– Easily allows to translate qualitative issues to quantitative ones
– Keep your scoring system flexible and dynamics, you may want to add
issues or outcomes during the negotiation.
Computers and Spreadsheets
• Advantages
– Quickly and efficiently track the effect of changes in
information (if you have a clearly thought-out scoring
system)
– Save time and mental resources (think while the other
side punches the calculator…)
• Disadvantages
– Can get drawn into interacting with your computer
instead of your counterpart
– You can lose flexibility – letting your tool drive, rather
than facilitate, the process
Don’t let your scoring system control you
Interests vs. Positions
• “Your position is something you have decided upon.Your
interests are what caused you to so decide.”
• “Interests define the problem.”
• “For every possible interest there usually exist several
possible positions that could satisfy it.”
• “When you look behind opposed positions for the
motivating interests, you can often find an alternative
position which meets not only your interests but theirs as
well.”
(Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991)
So….
• Separate Positions from Interests
-Positions are prone to ego-involvement
-Positions endanger ongoing relationship
• Focus on Interests, not Positions
-Interests may differ
- Risk and time preferences may differ
-Expectations may differ
Issue by Issue vs. Package Deals?
• Issue by issue
– Becomes a sequential distributive negotiation
– More contentious–impasse more frequent
– Takes longer
• Package deals understanding interests and priorities
– Finding issues to trade off – give them what they want
and get what you want in return
– Flexibility (real and perceived)
– Improves outcomes and efficiency
– Exception
Getting Information for Integrative Agreements
• Build trust and share information
• Ask diagnostic questions to understand priorities and
interests
– Listen to the answers
– Don’t be afraid to rephrase questions and to seek
clarifications (ask why and why not)
– Ask about preferences for different scenarios
(generate more options)
• Give away some information about preferences and
priorities
What information should I share?
• Give away some information
--Priorities among issues(i.e., rank ordering)
– DO NOT reveal your preferences for specific alternatives on
particular issues (or your reservation price)
– Honest on priorities
– Negotiator’s individual gain not hindered by revealing
priorities among issues (i.e., rank ordering)
– If both sides strategically misrepresent their value tradeoffs,
then inefficient contracts will often result
How flexible should I be?
• “Firm with respect to one’s ends (i.e., one’s
interests)
… flexible with respect to the means to these ends,
continually seeking new alternatives until a
mutually acceptable one can be found.”
(Pruitt, 1983)
• Think creatively about possible alternatives–do not
search for a single answer
Negotiator Toolbox: Integrative Negotiation
Strategies
• Prepare a scoring system
--Analyze issues, BATNAs, and reservation prices---think
about interests underlying positions
• Use the negotiations to collect information about integrative
possibilities
– Make a proposal incorporating all issues
– Ask what is wrong with your proposal
– Ask diagnostic questions and listen; don’t argue
– Build trust and be cooperative---share integrative
information (do not disclose your reservation price)
– Trade off when there are differences in preferences
– Be firm on interests, but open to options