A Framework for Conducting Negotiations Win-win negotiation strategies work well in many, but not all situations. Here we will identify issues that favour integrative (win-win) and distributive (win-lose) negotiations and discusses negotiation strategies that are most appropriate in different situations. We suggest a framework for discussing integrative and distributive bargaining. We shall also examine negotiating strategies in win-win and win-lose negotiations. We will also look at factors that either facilitate or hinder win-win negotiations. Lastly, we provide a base framework for conducting negotiations. Five Styles of Negotiation When a negotiation occurs there must always be an assumption that there are at least two pre-existing conflicting viewpoints. If not, then agreement would have been achieved. With these assumptions in mind we will see that there are five fundamental styles for negotiating conflicting positions. From the outset it must be emphasized that during protracted negotiations many, if not all these styles will need to be exercised at some stage or other. They are:- 1. Contending (Competing) This style is used when we try to convince the other party to accept a position that only favours our own interests. This approach requires persuasion, manipulation, concealment of our true position and the use of threats and pressure tactics. 2. Accommodating (Yielding) When this style is adopted the focus on the other party's needs rather than our own. Being accommodating may be used to end negotiations, to leave the other party completely satisfied so we can ask for something later, or because the issues are much more important to the other party than to us. 3. Compromising (Splitting the Difference) All negotiations conducted end up with some form of compromise or another. This occurs when both parties view the issue in fixed-sum terms and settle any differences by each getting a piece of what is at stake. 4. Collaborating (Problem Solving) This is when both parties work together to maximize a joint outcome. Problems are defined in terms of shared goals and interests. The parties work together to invent options that meet both of their needs in an optimal manner. 5. Avoidance (Inaction) The negotiator neither pushes for their own objectives nor shows concern for the other's objectives. The other party will be able to do what they wish (providing they are not dependent on you for some action) or will be constantly frustrated, particularly if they are dependent on you taking some form of action. The avoidance style is used when a negotiator fears conflict, or when issues are seen as insignificant and when one party wants to stall or delay negotiations. Two determinant factors provide an insight as to the approach style a negotiator will take to resolve any conflict. They are determined by the degree of concern and prominence to see their own positional outcome and the degree of concern for the other party's positional outcome. Concern for Own Prominence Outcome Two issues affect the degree of concern a negotiator will have for their own positional outcome. They are (a) the importance of the outcome to the negotiator themselves (b) whether the negotiator is representing other parties If the outcome is important and/or the chief negotiator is representing other parties, then they are most likely to have high concern for their own outcome. This is especially true if outcome importance is high and/or the negotiator is in a weak position relative to their constituency. When concern for their own outcome is high, negotiators are more likely to assume a style (contending or collaborating) in order to achieve that outcome. Conversely, should the negotiator's concern for their own outcome be lower coupled with when the importance is lower, then the individual is probably negotiating on their own behalf. Concern for the Other Party's Prominence Outcome Negotiators are likely to be concerned for the other party's prominence outcome because of strategic or for personal reasons. Strategic reasons are pursued when negotiators cannot achieve their goals without considering what the other party wants. In this scenario, the negotiator will try not to push the other party past their resistance point, keep them in the negotiations, minimize any distrust so as to shape perceptions and behaviours as a means to achieving their own goals. Personal reasons include liking the other party and recognizing that the other party's dissatisfaction can make life personally unpleasant. In this situation, the negotiator's behaviour may contribute to positive feelings but have no significant impact on outcomes. Win-Win and Win-Lose Negotiation Strategies Both parties can neglect the avoidance style and settle for less than the maximum (compromise), or try to optimize the outcome (by collaborating). Most win-win negotiations will be a blend of avoidance, compromising, and collaborating because the range of issues negotiated will vary in importance to all parties. Avoidance is an appropriate negotiation strategy in win-win negotiations when neither party is concerned about the outcome. Here minimum effort is spent reaching an agreement. Compromising is appropriate when it has been determined by both parties that the issue is a genuinely fixed-sum and that any further efforts to invent options that optimize the joint outcome will be fruitless. Finally, collaborative bargaining has the potential to create options that will help all parties to achieve their objectives. Collaborative bargaining is likely to occur when the negotiators have identified a common goal or objective, when all parties have faith in their problem solving ability, there is motivation and commitment to work together, there is mutual trust and clear communication channels and both parties believe the other party's position is valid. A major opportunity in win-win negotiations is in moving the process towards collaboration on all issues where there is a potential to create options that help both parties to achieve (or exceed) their goals. This means that all parties must be willing to look below the surface to understand their own and the other parties' needs and goals. If this does not occur, then the likelihood of collaborative negotiations is slight. Four steps that move negotiations toward collaboration are summarized as follows:- 1. Clearly define and understand your own and the other party's, needs and objectives 2. Create a mechanism for the free flow of information. This means that all parties must be candid and willing to listen to other party's position objectively 3. Emphasise common ground and minimize the differences between (or amongst) the parties. It is here that individual goals need to be integrated with collective goals 4. Search for alternatives that meet the goals and objectives of all parties The strategies for negotiating conflicting positions (contending, compromising, accommodating) will be functions of:- (a) the relative importance of the various issues to the negotiating parties (b) the relative power (or leverage) of the negotiating parties Negotiators should always try to recognize that when the conditions for integrative bargaining are not met (common goal or objective, faith in problem solving ability, motivation to work together, mutual trust, clear communication, and validity of the other party's position) then distributive negotiation strategies should be used. A win-win strategy will be vulnerable when the other party is using a win-lose strategy, because the openness of integrative bargaining can easily be manipulated by win-lose negotiators. Facilitating and Hindering Win-Win Negotiations Five main issues facilitate win-win (integrative) bargaining. They are:- 1. A faith in one's own problem solving ability 2. A belief in the validity of one's position and the other party's perspective 3. The motivation and commitment by both parties to work together 4. The mutual trust granted by both parties to each other 5. The clear, accurate and regularity of communication by both parties All five of these issues must be present to hold any meaningful win-win negotiations. The following four major issues will hinder win-win negotiations. If any of them are present the likelihood of integrative negotiations fades. An unsatisfactory past relationship between (or amongst) the parties A belief that the issue (or issues) can only be resolved distributively A "mixed-motive" of most negotiators (where both parties want to achieve their goals and maintain an ongoing relationship with the other party) makes it difficult for pure integrative negotiations to occur Win-win negotiators are vulnerable to the tactics of win-lose negotiators. This means that many will hesitate to lower their barriers first A Framework for Negotiations The following summarizes an eight-step framework that is useful for planning and conducting negotiations. This framework works well for integrative or distributive negotiations, however, it is important to understand which approach the environment favours. 1) Analyse the other party's proposal in depth 2) Establish your objectives clearly and in writing 3) Formulate your positions on the various issues. Consider your objectives and then determine your optimistic, targeted and worst case positions for each issue. The first three steps are similar when preparing for integrative or distributive negotiations. 4) Analyse the other party's positions and estimate their optimistic, targeted and worst case positions for each issue. If bargaining is likely to be distributive, then the range of probable negotiations is likely to be rigid. If negotiations are likely to be integrative, the probable range of negotiations may increase or decrease, as options are identified or as previous issues evolve. 5) Based on the previous analysis, define and prioritize the issues. Be able to justify and sell your point of view. In integrative negotiations be prepared to discuss how issues will benefit both parties. In distributive negotiations be able to defend your perspective. In both integrative and distributive negotiations, always be able to support your point of view with solid data or information. 6) When developing strategies remember they will need to vary between integrative and distributive bargaining. Strategies that would be more likely to be used in win-win bargaining will focus on leveraging mutual trust. They may include orchestrating the issues (major issues first, most troublesome issues first, or even least troublesome issues first) so that a final accord builds on a solid foundation. In win-lose negotiations strategies should focus on your optimistic position or revealing no position. 7) When selecting members of a negotiating team firstly decided on who the team leader will be. Give considerable thought to deciding of the role of each team member should be granted. When making these decisions pay particular attention to the composition and preparation of the team once it is established that negotiations are likely to be integrative or distributive. 8) Always develop an agenda. In all types of negotiations, the agenda should cover the issues to be discussed, meeting logistics and who should participate. Prior agreement on an agenda gives both parties to a negotiation, time to prepare and think through their positions. Agendas are important in both negotiation scenarios. Conclusions Here we have discussed win-win (integrative) and win-lose (distributive) bargaining as separate issues. Negotiations usually occur along a continuum that ranges from nearly pure win-win to nearly pure win-lose. The challenge facing all negotiators is identifying the context for a specific situation and then developing a strategy that is most effective. A clear understanding of the approaches for conducting a negotiation, together with an understanding of the level of concern for your own side and the other's party's prominence outcomes, provides a base framework for developing effective negotiation strategies. In most bargaining situations the actual strategy will be a blend of approaches which evolves during the negotiation process. For example, initial discussions could be distributive, with broader issues being negotiated within a relative integrative framework. Reference. Some of the material has been adapted from the work of Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders, and John W. Minton, Negotiation, 3rd edition (Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-256-20832-8. | 
