1. Negotiation Professor Robert W. Cullen Fall 2007 Week 4

2. Getting to Yes– Fisher and Ury  Integrative Negotiations  Problem Solving Negotiation Model

3. Getting to Yes  Separate the people from the problems.  Focus on interest of the parties.  Invent many options.  Insist on using objective criteria to evaluate options.  Know and develop your “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” BATNA.

4. Four Steps to Integrative Dispute Resolution  Be hard on the substance of the dispute but easy on the people.  Distinguish interests from issues and focus on interests.  Develop options that have potential for mutual gain.  Evaluate potential solutions.

5. Negotiation: A Good Outcome  No Agreement, or else an agreement that: Is better than our BATNA – Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Satisfies Interests:  Ours, well.  Theirs, acceptably.  Others’, tolerably. In an elegant, no-waste solution: among the best of many options.

6. Negotiation: A Good Outcome (cont.)  Is Legitimate – No one feels taken.  Includes Commitments that are well-planned, realistic, and operational.  Is reached efficiently – there is effective Communication..  Helps build a good working Relationship.

7. Benefits of Integrative Bargaining  Increased efficiency.  Better agreements.  Preserving the relationship.  Reducing the danger that the agreement will be repudiated.  Improve organization effectiveness.

8. Problem Solving Assumptions  Problem solving assumes enlightened self interest.  Common interest between the parties.  “Value oriented term of fairness” “legitimacy of the values”  Assumes negotiations involve more than one issue.

9. Competitive Bargaining  Goal: To get the largest possible share of the bargaining range.  How: By demonstrating that the opposing side cannot get a better deal through further negotiation or trial.  Basic Format: Hide minimum (bottom line) or maximum (top dollar) disposition. Determine the deal most advantageous to the client and acceptable to the other side. Tactics can be used to change the oppositions minimum or maximum disposition.

10. The Limited Options of Competitive Dispute Resolution  Conflicts are Often Handled in a Competitive, “Positional” Way.  Disputes can spiral almost automatically through progressive stages in which the disputants harden positions, cease communications, employ advocates, distort perceptions, develop a sense of crisis, and commit ever-increasing amounts of funds, time, and energy.  This progression is sometimes endemic to the system. Such a system can exacerbate conflicts with only the pressure of uncertainty of a decision by a third party causing the conflict to settle.

11. The Limited Options of Competitive Dispute Resolution  Graphically illustrated, the positioning process looks like this: Issue Position Position

12. The Limited Options of Competitive Dispute Resolution  The parties often attempt to change each other’s perspective, something that is rarely achieved. As the inability to persuade becomes more obvious, the conflict escalates.Escalate IssuePosition

13. Escalation No Solution End of RelationshipEscalate IssuePosition

14. Going “Below the Line”  Focusing on interest may have better results. IssuePositionsInterest

15. Going “Below the Line”  Many negotiations deal only with issues and positions, i.e. the negation takes place “above the line.”  To capture the potential of integrative bargaining, the parties must “go below the line” and conscientiously explore each party’s interests to see that they are satisfied.  Moreover, by focusing on interests, it is possible the parties can devise strategies to satisfy those interests that are creative and require less resources than strategies suggested by merely addressing the issues the parties raise and the positions they take.

16. Critique and Comparison 1. The most demanding part of a negotiation is the distributional one. 2. The true dynamics of negotiation is power. 3. Problem solving may be naive. 4. It assumes that people act rationally.

17. Problems for the Problem Solver 1. Opposing negotiator clings to competitive strategies. 2. Impasse is a natural part of competitive theory. 3. It requires both sides to have substantive knowledge and skill. 4. Must have accurate evaluation. 5. Requires positive action to achieve fair and durable agreement. 6. High importance of “shared interest.”

18. Response by Roger Fisher 1. Problem solving is what “intelligent people ought to do.” 2. Problem solving is still the best process for resolving conflict. 3. The use of objective criteria is it is exactly the way in which distributional issues can be resolved.