Negotiation strategies for distributive and integrative

Distributive Negotiations – the Fixed Pie

When two teams enter negotiations with the goal of claiming as much value as possible the
negotiations are termed as Distributive negotiations. The seller wants to go after the best price
they can obtain. The buyer wants to pay the lowest price to achieve the best bargain.
A distributive negotiation usually involves negotiators starting talks with no pre-existing
relationship. This type of negotiation also involves being unlikely to develop a long-term
relationship. Simple, every day examples include buying or selling a car or a house. Purchasing
products or services are simple business examples where distributive negotiation bargaining is
often employed. Even friends or business colleagues can drive a hard bargain just as well as any
stranger.
Distributive Bargaining strategies
Play your cards close to your chest – Give little or no information to the other side. The less the
other negotiator knows about our interests, the better our position. This can include why we
want to make the purchase, our preferences, or the point at which we’d decline to deal.
Expressing eagerness or need reveals a weakness which could be exploited.
The opposite is equally true – Try to obtain as much information from the other side as you can.
Any further information uncovered is potential leverage to negotiate a better deal. The only
information you should give away is the fact we have alternative options. This includes other
sellers we can purchase from at a competitive price. Reminding the seller of their competition
shows our willingness to walk if necessary. It also lets the seller know there will be no negative
consequences for us.
Make the first offer – Whatever the first offer is will generally act as a negotiation anchor. This
then becomes the point on which the rest of the negotiation will revolve. Try to make the first
offer to ensure discussions set off in your favor.
Be realistic – Being too greedy or too stingy will likely result in no agreement. So, keep
expectations realistic.
Integrative Negotiations
The word integrative means to join several parts into a whole. Integration implies cooperation,
or a joining of forces, to achieve something together. It usually involves a higher degree of trust
and a forming of a relationship. Both teams want to walk away feeling they’ve achieved
something that has value. Ideally, this means each team getting what they want.
In the real world of business, the results often tilt in favor of one side over the other. This is
because it’s unlikely that both sides will come to the table at equal strength when talks begin.
Nonetheless, there are many advantages when both teams take a cooperative approach. Skillful
mutual problem-solving generally involves some form of making value-for-value concessions.
This is usually in conjunction with creative problem-solving.
Generally, integrative negotiations involve looking to the future. They also tend to involve forging
long-term relationships to create mutual gains. Reaching a mutually beneficial outcome is often
described as the win-win scenario.
Integrative Negotiation strategies
Multiple Issues – Try to introduce multiple issues. Multiple issues provide opportunity for
Integrative negotiations. In contrast, distributive negotiations generally revolve around the price
or a single issue. In integrative negotiations, each side wants to get something of value while
trading something which has a lesser value.
Sharing – To fully understand each other’s situation, both sides must realistically share as much
information as possible. This helps each side understand the other’s interests. You can’t solve a
problem without knowing the parameters. Cooperation is essential.
Problem Solving – Find solutions to each other’s problems. For example, offer something
valuable to the other side which is of lesser value to you. If you can make this trade while realizing
your objective, you have integrated your problems into a positive solution.
Bridge Building –Relationships offer greater security and the promise of future success.
Distributive, Integrative and Compatible negotiations

Distributive Negotiations
When the negotiating parties find that their interests and objectives are the same and they are
negotiating “fixed Pie” (finite amount in the thing being distributed or divided amongst the people
involved) the negotiation is referred to as Distributive negotiation. In Distributive negotiation the
proportion to be distributed is limited and each party wants to claim as much as possible for itself.
Any value claimed by one party in this type of negotiation is at the expense of the other party. This
scenario generally is very competitive and does not encourage cooperative behavior. During
distributive negotiations parties tend to follow these approaches:

• Play your cards close to your chest – Give little or no information to the other side. If one
party Expresses eagerness or reveals a weakness the other party is likely to exploit to their
advantage.
• Try to extract as much information from the other side and use it as leverage to negotiate a
better deal.
• Whatever is used as the first offer will generally act as a negotiation anchor upon which
the rest of the negotiation will revolve.
• If both parties try to claim excessively (for example being too greedy or too stingy) the
negotiation is likely to result in no agreement

Integrative negotiations
The word integrative means to join several parts into a whole. Conceptually, this implies some
cooperation, or a joining of forces to achieve something together. Usually involves a higher degree
of trust and a forming of a relationship. Both parties want to walk away feeling they’ve achieved
something which has value by getting what each wants. Ideally, it is a twofold process. In
integrative negotiations the interests or objectives of the parties are related and not mutually
exclusive. Any value claimed by one party is not at the expense of the other party. The parties
negotiate to create or generate value and both parties may achieve mutual gains beyond what they
could achieve independently. This is potentially a win-win scenario. Each party may do a tradeoff
to gain in an interest that is important to her in exchange for the other party gaining in interest that
is important to them. Integrative negotiations often have following characteristics:

• Multiple Issues – Integrative negotiations usually entails a multitude of issues to be

negotiated, unlike distributive negotiations which generally revolve around the price, or a
 single issue. In integrative negotiations, each side wants to get something of value while
trading something which has a lesser value.
• Sharing – To fully understand each other’s situation, both parties must realistically share
as much information as they can to understand the other’s interests. You can’t solve a
problem without knowing the parameters. Cooperation is essential.
• Problem Solving – for a win-win solution both parties need to find solutions to each other’s
problems. If you can offer something of lesser value which gives your counterpart
something which they need, and this results in you realizing your objective, then you have
integrated your problems into a positive solution.
• Bridge Building – Integrative negotiations often require parties to engage in long term
relationships that offer greater security and long-term benefits.

Compatible Negotiations
In compatible negotiations the interests or objectives of the parties are the same and not mutually
exclusive. In the negotiations often both parties desire identical or nearly identical outcome. The
parties do not need to make any tradeoff.
 Different Types of Interests in Negotiations

There are four types of interests’ parties in Negotiation have:

(1) substantive interests
(2) process interests
(3) relationship interests
(4) interests in principle.
Substantive Interests. Substantive interests are issues of substance, i.e. the core reason the
parties are in dispute. Often a party transform this substantive interest into their position. Position
is defined as stance on an issue, such as we are willing to pay up to $350K for a property whose
market value is only $120K. When we move away from positions and focus more on interests,
we may identify the reason why the party has that particular position. For example, in this case
the party os loss averse and may feel that $350K represents potential loss if the property in not
purchased. Substantive interests are the WHY’s of negotiation interests.
When the parties and the negotiator understand all of the parties’ substantive interests, they are
equipped with the knowledge necessary to get past their positions and explore how differing and
non-conflicting interest can be satisfied leading to win-win negotiation.
Process Interests. Process interests are related to how the negotiation unfolds. For instance,
knowing that the other party has “logistician personality”- the are Precise on the details and Rigid
in negotiation, you may adapt a process that will showcase you as someone who relies on facts
and you are action and result orientated. If the parties get satisfaction from the fulfillment of their
process interests, the negotiation may lead to a resolution of the issue.
Relationship Interest. Relationship interests are related to the value the parties place on their
own relationships with one another. Parties have reason to be concerned about the way the
resolution of the dispute will affect their relationships. There are two types of relationship
interests: (1) intrinsic and (2) instrumental. Intrinsic interests are the value that the parties place
on the relationship itself, i.e. the personal meaning of the relationship to the parties. For example,
in divorce negotiations involving children, parents are often concerned about how the divorce will
impact the children and each parent. Parents with children will have to maintain a relationship
even after the divorce. Instrumental relationships are the interest’s parties derive from the
substantive benefits the parties derive from their relationship. This can be when there is a dispute
over the terms of a contract for which the parties, even after the dispute is resolved, will continue
doing business together. When the parties understand the value of the relationship at stake, they
are better equipped to handle the problem and come to a resolution that will benefit them in all
aspects rather than just addressing the issue that brought them to the negotiation in the first place.
Interests in Principle. These are interests like fairness, what is right, and what is acceptable. In
essence this is the parties’ moral values in the outcome of the negotiation. Often certain parties
will not enter into a resolution to an issue that goes against their moral value.
Seven elements of negotiation
Every negotiation, according to Roger Fisher of Harvard's Program on Negotiation, has seven
distinguishable elements that are interconnected. They are:

1. Interests
2. No agreement Alternatives (BATNA)
3. Relationship
4. Options
5. Legitimacy (Criteria)
6. Communication
7. Commitment

During your preparation, you can use these 7 elements to create your game plan. Regardless of how you
negotiate, the 7 elements are always present in negotiations. What changes is the importance of one over
the other. An example is having your interests met in negotiation might far outweigh the future
relationship you will have with the other party.

Eleement1-INTERESTS

Negotiating based on interests has many positive attributes to it. But what does 'interests' mean?

· I want him to pay me

· I want the radio to stop being so loud
· I want my money back

The above are what you want to accomplish. To create a greater chance of a mutually beneficial
agreement, negotiate on interests over positions. When you negotiate on positions, both sides have a
tendency to dig their heels in, get stuck in their thoughts, spend most of the negotiation defending their
position and attacking the others. Interest based negotiating on the other hand creates more of a
collaborative environment and expands your options. By doing this, its creates a win-win opportunity
compared to the combative me versus you/win-lose situation. Using the above listed examples of
positions, possible interests behind them could include:
Position Interest
I want him to pay me I feel like I was cheated and disrespected
I want the radio to stop being so loud I need my rest, I go to bed early because I work the early shift
I want my money back I paid for a service that I feel I did not get and I am frustrated
Your interests represent your needs, hopes and concerns.
It is great you know your interests, but in order for the negotiation to get a successful outcome, the
agreement must be beneficial to both parties. You have to figure out the other party's interests too.

Figuring out their interests provides you with many benefits. For one thing, it prepares you on how they
may or may not respond to your needs. Also, knowing their interests helps you find out what their
alternatives are.

Element 2-Alternatives

Figuring out your interests allows you to figure out your BATNA and WATNA.

BATNA and WATNA are acronyms for Best-Alternative-To-A-Negotiated-Agreement and Worst

Alternative-To-A-Negotiated-Agreement. You compare your alternative to the possible agreement that is
on the table. You weigh your best alternative and worst alternative with the possible agreement and find
out what is best for you.

You need to figure out what is best for you in the current situation by weighing it against your alternatives
to getting an agreement. Figuring out your alternatives is key to your preparations for the negotiation.

Generally, you do not want to accept an agreement that is worse than your BATNA.

As is the case with finding interests, you also need to know your other party's alternatives. Just like you
will weigh your potential agreement against your alternative, they should do the same. If a party to the
negotiation does not know their alternative- help them! Yes, help them. Raising awareness of the party's
alternatives, especially in stalemates can help generate movement. A few points to consider while
identifying alternatives:

• Do we need to negotiate or can we satisfactorily meet our interests in other ways?

• Identify and articulate our best/doable alternatives to a negotiated agreement.
• Fully understand the implication, consequences, risks and costs of your and their BATNA.
• Select and improve our BATNA
• Identify the best and worst alternatives open to the other side.
• How can we make their BATNA worse for them? (i.e., keep them at the table)

The BATNA goes beyond your bottom line of what may be acceptable – it provides an alternative on
which to measure if the proposed or potential terms or solutions offered in negotiation will serve your
interests better than what you can achieve elsewhere. Your bottom line is the resistance point below
or beyond which it makes no sense at all to accept the deal offered. Your BATNA should be above your
bottom line, and the more you can develop your BATNA during the preparation process, the more you
move the potential gains above your bottom line. During the preparation phase, you should be looking
 to identify, develop and accurately calculate your potential BATNA. The more you develop your
BATNA, the stronger your bargaining power becomes.

Similarly, during the preparation phase, you should attempt to identify or calculate the other side’s
BATNA, for this will provide you with the upper limit (guide) to how far you may push your proposals –
this is particularly important when you are placing your opening bid so that you may position your
proposal as close to the other side’s BATNA as possible without exceeding their BATNA. In the absence of
knowing their BATNA, you run the risk of anchoring your first proposal to low (below what they are willing
to offer), having it accepted (or negotiated down further) and leaving considerable value behind on the
table. This is known as the ‘winners curse’. Alternatively, you may set your Aspiration Price or point to
high, bidding above their BATNA and running the risk that the other party may become offended by, or
will not taking the offer seriously, and subsequently walking away from the negotiation.

In summary, your BATNA sets the lowest limit and their BATNA sets the upper limit within which the
bargaining range is framed. This bargaining range is known as the ZOPA - Zone of Possible Agreement, a
concept we will later discuss in this series. Suffice to say, that by strengthening your BATNA and weakening
the other side’s BATNA you move the bargaining range further in your favour and away from your
reservation point. This is the power of having and knowing BATNAs.

When a party has a strong BATNA they become less dependent upon negotiating an outcome with the
other party -they are more likely to set higher objectives or reservation point and take a tougher, more
confident approach to achieve those objectives. In contrast, where a party has a weak or non-existent
BATNA they become more dependent upon accepting a sub-optimum but satisfactory deal or rejecting
the deal altogether
Eleement3-Relationship

An important question to ask yourself before you begin your negotiation is, "How important is the
relationship we have with the other party?"

The value of the relationship should determine things such as how hard will you press certain issues, how
tough of a stand will you take.

If maintaining the relationship is more important than this particular issue/conflict you are having, is it
really worth damaging, possibly beyond the point of fixing? This is a very important question to ask
yourself.

If the relationship will not exist after the negotiation concludes, you might not care how they feel or really
be all too concerned with their emotions, right? Wrong -Consider your reputation. You might never
interact with this person or group again, but keep in mind they might talk to other people in your field or
market.

Good negotiating relationship is needed to address differences and conflicts. Hence Plan and prepare to
build and maintain a good working relationship. Be respectful, trustworthy and unconditional
constructive.

As a strategy to move negotiation in right direction, Separate people issues from substantive issues.

Often the people or relationship issues become entangled with the substantive issues or problem to be
resolved. Conflict over substantive issues or the ‘real problem’ then tends to spill over into conflict
between people. People then identify one another as being part of the problem and this becomes a
significant barrier to reaching an agreement - you cannot shake hands with closed fists.

BE HARD ON THE PROBLEM AND SOFT ON THE PEOPLE

Positional bargaining often represents this entanglement of people and problem issues, where people
frame positions to represent their interest and then enter a contest of wills over positions rather than the
substantive interests to be resolved.

People or emotional issues may also be based upon unfounded fears, bias or assumptions (expectancy
theory) and this may lead to defensiveness, hard bargaining and a competitive response from the other
party (self-fulfilling prophecy). Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991), suggest that we employ the following
strategies to separate the people issues from the problem:

• Not deduce the other party’s intentions from your fears or assumptions. Instead,
search for the truth through strategies such as active listening, empathy and use of
objective criteria
• Try to take a walk in the other party’s shoes as a means of seeing the problem through
 their lens – this may lead to better understanding and less defensiveness.
• Be Soft on the People and Hard on the Problem
• Do not ignore the people problems – disengage them from the substantive problem
and treat them separately
• Discuss each other’s perceptions, make them explicit and recognize them as being
legitimate without attacking them so that we may gain a better understanding of
concerns
• Allow the other party to vent and release their feelings so that you may then focus
upon the problem

However, the people issues may also become the problem. We should recognize this and deal with the
people issues directly and separately from the substantive issues.

Eleement4-: Options

Options are the full spectrum of possible agreements. When brainstorming options, each option must
meet the needs of both parties- not just you! Here some key points to generating options:

· List all options first, not leaving anything out. After all possible options have been listed, then go over
each and determine if they meet each party’s needs.
· Write them down on paper or a board without giving credit to who said what. This helps move in the
collaborative direction instead of confrontation. Often it is useful to use the 'mind map' method
to listing options. It is simple- you put the issue in the middle of the paper, and then draw out
branches for each possible option.
· Looking at options helps move away from the idea that there are only two options- We win or they
win. You are expanding the pie (of options) here.

Exploring options is key to negotiation. The simple reason is the parties get the satisfaction that they are
taking ownership of the issue(s) and have a direct say in how it can possibly be resolved.

Element 5: Legitimacy (Criteria)

How do you prove your offer or options are fair? How do you prove the other side's offer is not fair?
finding a neutral, external standard defines the legitimacy of the offers being made.

Ask yourself, how would such a deal be viewed by a third party?

If it is a money situation, is charging 9% the usual Industry accepted rate? If it is a contract dispute, is it a
commonly accepted practice to expect a deposit back?
As the negotiator, knowing accepted standards will help solidify your offers, possibly lessen theirs, and
even create a new option(s). A few guidelines on what can offer legitimacy:

· Fairness should be a governing consideration.

· Use external criteria and objective standards as a basis to legitimize your preferred options
and as a shield against unreasonable proposals from the other side.
· Use demonstrable “fairness” of the process and outcome to persuade them of the merits of
a proposal.
Element 6: Communication

For people to understand each other (not necessarily agree), there has to be a clear line of communication,
that goes in each direction equally.

If you want more misunderstandings in life, don't communicate... with anyone.

Communication in negotiation is one of your greatest tools. Depending on how you use it, it could be your
best or worst tool. Communication ranges from what you say, how you say it, body movements,
positioning, what you do not say, when and how you do not move and gestures.

The type of communication style you use greatly determines your negotiation style. Some quick tips for
communicating effectively are:

· Use Open ended questions. Using them is the best way to get more information, make sure you
understand them, clarify the issues, and also as a way to deflect attacks.
· Listen actively. Don't just wait for them to finish to get your counter-point in, but rather use empathy
while the other is talking to try and fully understand their point of view. Show you are listening.
simple nodding might work.
· Speak for a purpose – think through the timing and impact of what you wish to say? Be clear and
concise.
· Speak on your own behalf, not for others. Do not assume what they feel/think.
· Use "I" statements, "I feel frustrated when you missed the deadline because I then have to slow
production down." It will work much better compared to saying something like, "You are lazy
and never meet deadlines."
· Summarize and reflect. Being a part of the process most times is equally important as the issues.
Everyone wants to be able to speak and know that they are being heard. You can accomplish
this by using such phrases as, "If we understand correctly what you are saying is..." and, "you
seem angry because..."
· Be relaxed. being stiff and rigid in posture can send the wrong message to the other party that
you are not being open minded and not really giving them your attention.
· it is fine to take notes, but do not scribble and write while looking down the entire time the other
person is speaking.

Element 7: Commitment

Making sure the agreement reached is realistic and that both sides can keep their end of it is crucial to the
process. If there is not a legitimate chance of either of the parties being able to be committed, they will
just end up back at the mediation table or even in court.
Consider an example of negotiation between a debt collection agency and the person who owes the debt.
If the person owing the debt agrees to pay $1,000 a month to the agency, but also has to pay $800 in rent
and takes in $1,800 a month in salary that would mean the person has no money left to eat... or do
anything else for that matter!

Before making commitment, it is useful to ask yourself questions such as:

· "Is this something you think you can stick with?"

· "Given the situation, do you think that can be done?"
· "Can you afford this on your salary?"
· "Only you know if you can stick with this plan, what do you think?"
· "Do you want to take a little time to think about it?"

The questions can also be asked to the other party as well:

· "Is this something you think he/she can commit to?"

· "What will happen if they do not hold up their end of the deal?"

These questions can help slow down or pause the negotiation to help everyone take a breath to see if the
terms are something that each can stick with.

Commitments are not only what people will do, but it can also state what they won't do. Making sure both
sides can commit to the agreement ensures that the time and effort everyone has dedicated is not wasted
by agreeing to something that is not realistic.

commitment, as a key concept of negotiation, represents making firm agreement with a pledge regarding
a future intended course of action’. Once made, commitments may reduce your own and the other party’s
range of options – for this reason it is important that you seek to prevent the other party from committing
prematurely, or alternatively, secure an early commitment that is favourable to you. Commitments can
also create tension between fixing negotiators into a favourable position and locking you out from other
more desirable positions or courses of action.

Similarly, strategies that allow you to make a commitment, such as developing a strong Best Alternative
to an Agreement – BATNA, or imposing the pressure of deadlines, restrict the other party’s options.
However, it is recommended that you exercise caution in using commitments to force the other party into
accepting an agreement as they may be less committed to seeing the agreement through

Commitments involve a:
• Degree of finality (how and when the agreement is to be fulfilled by)
• Degree of specificity (the performance measure) and;
• Statement of consequences (what will happen if the promised outcome does not
materialise as proposed)
Also, commitment requires follow up, for the failure to act on a commitment may result in loss of future
credibility, trust or belief that parties will follow through on any agreement or pledge in future.

Similarly, if a party cannot deliver on a promise, they are likely to lose face. These observations should
provide you with sufficient motivation to live up to your commitments or alternatively do not make
commitments or promises that you cannot or do not intend to honour.

The principled negotiation approach strengthens the commitment of all parties involved. If an agreement
results in one party feeling that they have been manipulated into accepting an agreement that is
unfavourable and/or incurs an unacceptable cost to them, it would be safe to assume that their level of
commitment to completing or making that deal work would be low.

Well crafted, written, formal and legally enforceable agreements (contracts) are used to clearly spell out
and bind commitments. Alternatively, other, less formal strategies, such as ‘contingency bets’, risks to
relationships and reputation, joint problem solving (providing ownership in rather than imposing
decisions) etc, may be used to strengthen commitments and make them self-enforcing.
 An Example on Package Reservation Value (PRV)
During multi-issue negotiations instead of using a reservation value for each issue (such as lowest salary I
will accept is $80K, lowest annual bonus I will accept is 20K, lowest joining bonus I will accept is $10K and
the lowest stock option I will accept is 1000) you should use your scoring system to calculate an overall
reservation value. The problem with having a separate reservation value for each issue is that your options
become limited. You may not want a salary below $80K, but are you sure you would not be willing to
accept lower salary is the potential employer makes significant concessions on many of the issues you
value? Often, we set an arbitrary reservation value on each issue (such as salary, annual bonus, joining
bonus, stock options etc.) because we think that anything beyond that limit will be unfair to us. However,
doing so only limits the negotiator’s flexibility. If the other party cannot stay within your limit on one
particular issue but can more than make up for it with other concessions, you both may stand to lose
because of the limit you have set.

For example, if your BATNA is to accept a salary from company XYZ that has offered you $80K fixed salary,
joining bonus $10K, annual bonus 20K and 1000 stock, Entering the specifics of company XYZ in your
scoring system will give you the total value of that offer. This is your Package reservation value (PRV). Now
in your current negotiation, you know not to accept any offer that gives you a total value less than your
PRV. Continuing our example suppose your scoring system is as follows:

Component Unit Points/Unit Point value of XYZ offer

Salary 5K 10 160
Annual Bonus 5K 5 20
Signing bonus 5K 7.5 15
Stock 500 10 20
PRV 215
Your PRV is 215 which is points according to your scoring system of the offer from XYZ (i.e. your BATNA).

Continuing our example suppose the potential employer is willing to make you following offer:

Salary 70K; Annual Bonus:30K; Joining Bonus: 20K; Stock: 1500. According to your scoring system this will
result in 230 points as shown below:

Component Unit Points/Unit Offer from new Point value of XYZ

potential employer offer
Salary 5K 10 70 140
Annual Bonus 5K 5 30 30
Joining bonus 5K 7.5 20 30
Stock 500 10 1500 30
The value of offer 230
This offer is worth 15 points more to you according to your scoring system than the offer from XYZ (your
PRV). By rejecting the offer because of your individual issue reservation value on salary you stand to lose
on a better offer.
 challenges and strategies for multiparty negotiations
With more than two parties sitting at the table, there is greater potential for turbulence to
seethe beneath the apparent calm. Each party may even have a separate and hidden agenda
of their own. Status can have implications as the authority levels of the representatives might
be mismatched. This could result in a power struggle that might tie up the various
discussions, that interplay throughout the discussions and at different levels.

The information challenges

Multiple parties may bring to table multi prism of issues, viewpoints and perspectives-
leading to multiple myriad of facts and figures, projections, expert opinions, and extraneous
analysis.

The People challenges

During multiparty negotiations, we are no longer dealing with one-on-one discussions where
there is usually some degree flow. Multiple parties face challenges as they strive to achieve
their individual objectives, while facing the pressing issues of staying cohesive and
maintaining a unified direction. Multiple Personalities may clash making meaningful
communication difficult. Parties may get pressurized making an agreement for an
agreement’s sake. A weak or patched agreement is like threading your way through wearing
a blindfold and hoping for the best – it seldom works out very well.

In the simpler world of a two-party negotiation, each party generally takes turns in their
exchanges, as they proceed along the way. In a multiparty negotiation, finding order and
process can be harder than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. Who starts? Who
does what next? Who determines the agenda? Since there are many differing issues, and of
relative importance, we need a way to figure out how to visualize a common design. This is
especially more difficult when we meet head-on with the hardnosed or dominant personality
pressing to have their way, and not caring for the interests of rest of the group.
The multitude of strategies challenges

In Multiparty negotiation each party invoke its own negotiation strategy and tactics to
achieve their objectives. The more players involved, the more the interplay of strategies
become increasingly and even perilously complex. Each party will also be responding to the
strategy and tactics of each of the other parties.
One of the challenges facing us in these thorny negotiations, is deciding how we will counter
the differing strategies used by our counterparts. We may either deal with them on a one on
one basis, or collectively as a group. We might be faced with hard bargaining issues while
trying to find ways to develop creative solutions.

The Coalition challenges

There is also the challenge where a party might face the coalition(s) of two or more other
parties. So now we must also deal with the added stress and pressures of coping with the
coalitions attempt to dominate our position. Or, they may contrive to force their own
resolution of issues between themselves or, by making side agreements during a break in
talks. Sometimes, these coalitions can force the group into complying with a common
perspective, while trampling on our own views about an issue or agreement.
Options and solutions in handling the multiparty negotiations

1. Non – Agreement Consequences:

Make the parties to understand what costs and consequences may occur, should the
group fail to reach a negotiated agreement. In other words, what are our alternatives and
what are the alternatives of the other members of the group. We should be careful that
we don’t over inflate what we perceive as the strength of our alternative options, and
over embellish the options of our counterparts.

2. Decision Making:

Try and establish with the group how the group will arrive at making decisions,
regarding any and all components of the agreement - unanimous consensus, majority
rule, or some other form of decision-making process?

3. First agreement objective:

Rather than aspire to get a consensus on a single whole package solution, think about
trying instead to obtain a first agreement that can be improved or revised later. The
reason this might be a better option, is because it considers all the barriers that need to
be overcome, to dispel the dark cloud that would otherwise loom over the complex
negotiation panorama. This is especially useful strategy where if we try to get a group
consensus- the other parties may act stubborn and become positional and
confrontational.
 4. Managing the Process:

Filling in the Information Frame:

To make an informed decision, we need to make certain we are all in this group picture
together. We need to ensure that we are able to base our decisions soundly by getting all
the relevant information so we may fully understand the ‘big picture‘. The chairperson
will be of great assistance in allotting relatively equal time, to all the parties to present
their visions and concerns.

Breakaway meetings:
Consider short one on one breakaway meetings to iron out differences, address unique
concerns, build bridges that you discover are not achievable in the group environment.

Keep emotions in check: Long arduous sessions and strong viewpoints, can act like a
searing flame that brings emotions to the boiling point. It is wise to use some vehicle to
vent the steam, such as taking a break and bring the emotional temperature down to
some manageable level.
Preparation: Lack of preparation, can only undermine our presentation and reduce our
credibility to the other negotiators.

Positive Discussion Strategies

To achieve full exploration of information, and exchange or brainstorm ideas in a productive

manner, get the group to agree for the process of using techniques such as Delphi Technique.
 Barriers to Negotiating a wise Agreement

Sometimes negotiations fail for good reasons. There simply isn’t a zone of agreement and the
negotiators are better off going with their best alternatives. Often, however, negotiations fail when
mutually beneficial agreements were possible. The consequences of failure may be mild—a deal isn’t
consummated that could have been done. In other cases, lives are lost, valuable resources are
irretrievably destroyed, or relationships are damaged beyond repair, all because the negotiators
weren’t able to overcome barriers to agreement.

There are broadly five key types of barriers to negotiated agreement:

A. structural barriers

One way of defining structural impediments is by defining what are not structural impediments.
Structural impediments are not:
• Individual beliefs, preferences, or identities;
• Differences between one group or institution and another.

Instead, structural impediments are:

• Formal and informal rules that regulate an entire system of interaction;
• The physical limitations of an environment.

Structural barriers are impediments that arise because of the way the negotiation is structured—
i.e. who participates, what the issues are, what linkages exist with other negotiations. For example,
the wrong people (or too many people) may be negotiating, or the agenda may be too narrow or too
broad, or communications channels may be non- existent.

Assessments of structural barriers help negotiators decide how to shape (or reshape) the structure of
their negotiations. Consider the following examples:

• You are negotiating a large industrial supply contract with a new customer. Early on you
realize that the representative for the other side doesn't have any real authority to make
concessions or commitments, but is just a messenger for his boss. In response, you press to
move the negotiations up a level.

• You are representing a small country engaged in a dispute with a neighbour over a border
area. Each claims the area exclusively and the negotiations have deadlocked. In response you
expand the negotiations agenda to include other outstanding issues of trade and security and
work out a package deal that includes a joint economic zone.
 Structural barriers Ways to overcome the barriers
The wrong parties are at the table. Invite in allies and attempt to exclude adversaries.

Too many parties are at the table. Reduce the number of parties by convincing some to be
represented by others.

No zone of potential agreement seems to exist. Take actions "away from the table" to transform
alternatives to agreement.

Action-forcing events such as deadlines limit Explore ways to relax action-forcing events.
flexibility.
There is no time pressure to reach agreement Set up action-forcing events.

The parties lack good channels for Develop new channels for communication, perhaps by
communicating. using third party mediators or facilitators.

Parties are locked into incompatible positions. Focus on interests and identify opportunities to enlarge
the pie.

The sequence in which issues get negotiated is Alter the sequence in which issues get negotiated.
disadvantageous.

institutional barriers

Institutional barriers are type of structural barriers that arise out of internal political and
organizational dynamics within institutions (businesses, governments) that complicate negotiations
between them. For example, a negotiating representative may be so constrained by internal political
differences within her side that she can only offer lowest-common-denominator positions to the other
side, or one side may be so disorganized that it can’t negotiate effectively.
Discriminatory laws, policies, guidelines, or procedures are examples of policy barriers, or sometimes
called institutional barriers are that systematically discriminate or disadvantage certain groups of
people. They are often the result of a lack of awareness of people involved in writing legislation and
policies or the lack of awareness and experience of those who lead and facilitate procedures.

Examples:
• A legislation that do not recognize persons with mental health conditions or intellectual
disabilities with legal capacity, which risks to discriminate during an emergency by not taking
their consent
• A humanitarian organisation which policy states that they will employ candidates who are
psychologically, intellectually and physically fit to work.
• Cash transfer policies that segregate persons with disabilities, or have a registration
procedure that is too complex to understand for persons with mental health conditions or
intellectual disabilities.
To overcome institutional barriers:
• Analyse policies and procedures together with persons with disabilities and other at-risk
groups to identify barriers, during, for instance, focus group discussions.
• Adjust your own organisation's policies and procedures to remove institutional barriers and
create conditions which are conducive to the inclusion of women and men with disabilities
and other diverse backgrounds.
• Engage policy makers/decision makers to highlight institutional barriers in the laws, policies
and procedures they can shape. Involve representative groups in your advocacy work.
• Provide specific support or reasonable accommodation to individuals in the community to
ensure they can access services and participate equally despite institutional barriers.

Institutional barriers to agreement are not as intransigent as belief systems, but they can be quite
difficult to overcome. In relatively peaceful social settings, the institutional structure and its
consequences for distribution of resources are likely to be relatively fixed, whereas in failed states the
institutional structure is likely to be in a rather severe state and in flux. These two extremes, and the
wide range of intermediate possibilities, present different challenges to reaching an agreement. In
relatively stable situations, the debate is likely to revolve around particular rules or the distributional
consequences of particular legal frameworks. Women’s ownership of property and ability to divorce,
for example, were key issues to the first generation of feminists in the United States. Changing these
rules was important to reaching an agreement over women’s moral, legal, and intellectual equality. It
took 72 years for the most fundamental of these laws---the right to vote---to be changed

B. Strategic barriers—pernicious interactions among negotiators’ rational strategies for advancing

their interests. For example, negotiators’ mutual fears of vulnerability if they reveal their true
interests may lead to breakdowns or mediocre deals.

Negotiation can be metaphorically compared to making a pie and then dividing it up. The process
of conflict resolution affects both the size of the pie, and who gets what size slice.

The strategy of each party may affect the size of the pie in a variety of ways. On the one hand,
spending on avoidable legal fees and other process costs shrinks the pie. On the other hand,
negotiators can together "create value" and make the pie bigger by discovering resolutions in
which each party contributes special complementary skills that can be combined in a synergistic
way, or by exploiting differences in- relative preferences that permit trades that make both parties
better off.

Negotiation also involves issues concerning the distribution of benefits, and, with respect to pure
distribution, both parties cannot be made better off at the same time. Given a pie of fixed size, a
larger slice for you means a smaller one for me.

Because bargaining typically entails-both efficiency issues (that is, how big the pie can be made)
and distributive issues (that is, who gets what size slice), negotiation involves an inherent tension
- often referred to as the "negotiator's dilemma. when it comes to the distributive aspects of
bargaining, full disclosure -- particularly if unreciprocated by the other side - can often lead to
 outcomes in which the more open party receives a comparatively smaller slice. To put it another
way, unreciprocated approaches to creating value leave their maker vulnerable to claiming tactics.
On the other hand, focusing on the distributive aspects of bargaining can often lead to unnecessary
deadlocks and, more fundamentally, a failure to discover options or alternatives that make both
sides better off.

Even when both parties know all the relevant information, and that potential gains may result from
a negotiated deal, strategic bargaining over how to divide the pie can still lead to deadlock (with
no deal at all) or protracted and expensive bargaining, thus shrinking the pie.

For example, suppose Nancy has a house for sale for which she has a reservation price of $245K. I
am willing to pay up to $295K for the house. Any deal within a bargaining-range from $245K to
$295K would make both of us better off than no sale at all. Suppose we each know the other's
reservation price. Will there be a deal? Not necessarily. If we disagree about how the $50K
"surplus" should be divided (each wanting all or most of it), our negotiation may end in a deadlock.
We might engage in hardball negotiation tactics in which each tried to persuade the other that he
or she was committed to walking away from a beneficial deal, rather than accept less than $40K
of the surplus. Nancy might claim that she won't take a nickel less than $285K, or even $294K for
that matter. Indeed, she might go so far as to give a power of attorney to an agent to sell only at
that price, and then leave town in order to make her commitment credible. Of course, I could. Play
the same type of game and the result would then be that no deal is made and that we are both
worse off. In this case, the obvious tension between the distribution of the $50,000 and the value
creating possibilities inherent in any sale within the bargaining range may result in no deal.

Overcoming Strategic Barriers

How do contending parties find ways to increase confidence where they are mutually vulnerable and
don’t trust each other? Broadly useful techniques for fostering cooperation—or at least compliance—
in the absence of trust include:

1. verification regimes—arrangements to observe each other’s actions as a way of reducing

mutual uncertainty and increasing transparency;

2. Incrementalism—proceeding in a series of small, mutually verifiable steps, making future gains

contingent on meeting current obligations and embedding current negotiations in a larger context so
as to avoid end-game effects;

3. hostage-taking—having each side deposit substantial resources (e.g., a large sum of money)
into an escrow account supervised by an independent party, with the understanding that the proceeds
will be forfeited in the event of noncompliance; and

4. outside guarantors—involving powerful external parties as guarantors of the agreement with

the understanding that they will punish noncompliance.
 C. psychological barriers (Cognitive barriers)

Cognitive barriers ate characteristic biases in negotiators’ perceptions and judgements.

These are a by-product of the way the human mind processes information, deals with risks and
uncertainties, and makes inferences and judgments. Research by cognitive psychologists during
the last fifteen years suggests several ways in which human reasoning often departs from that
suggested by theories of rational judgment and decision making.

For example, negotiators faced with uncertain outcome if they don’t reach agreement (such as
litigating a personal injury lawsuit) may be over-confident about their chances of winning, or those
enmeshed in bitter conflicts may vilify and depersonalize “the enemy.”

Common psychological barriers include:

1. rigid mental models- People orient themselves in novel or complex situations by using
preexisting interpretative frameworks, or “mental models,” to decide to what they should pay
attention. Mental models provide the crucial link between observation and interpretation
allowing us to “make sense” of what is going on.
2. Overconfidence - Negotiators often are overconfident that future uncertainties will be
resolved in their favor.16 When both sides in a lawsuit believe they will prevail in court, for
example, someone (perhaps everyone) is falling prey to overconfidence that may preclude an
out-of-court settlement. Overconfidence is a manifestation of a deeper desire on the part of
negotiators to make themselves feel competent and secure.
3. loss aversion- Research in cognitive psychology has revealed that people tend to be
lossaverse—more sensitive to potential losses than to equivalent gains
4. partisan perceptions - the parties experience selective perception—they interpret each
other’s actions in ways that confirm their pre-existing beliefs and attitudes. They even
unconsciously overlook evidence that challenges their stereotypes. They may also adopt a
zero-sum mentality that causes them to cast the negotiation in purely distributive terms.
Finally, their behaviour may contribute to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Overcoming Psychological Barriers

Mediation often can play a useful role in overcoming psychological barriers, in part because the
mediator can deal with the parties separately. In addition, mechanisms that help to establish a
common basis of "facts" also can be helpful in tempering overconfidence. In legal disputes, for
example, process such as fact-finding and mock trials may provide the contending parties with
independent assessments of likely outcomes if the case goes to trial.
D. cultural barriers—differences in communication styles, norms and worldviews, as well as the
inherent ethnocentrism of members of different cultures. For example, negotiations may be
complicated by differing beliefs about what will create value or who should legitimately make
decisions.

Cultural differences can seriously impede productive negotiation. In part, this is because members of
a culture tend to be ethnocentric—seeing their own group’s values as universal and superior to those
of other groups—which can reinforce partisan perceptions.

Analysing Culture

Cultures can be analysed on four progressively deeper levels—artifacts, communication styles, norms,
and assumptions.

Artifacts are the visible signs and symbols that differentiate one culture from another, including
ceremonies and styles of dress.

Communication styles include preferences for directness or indirectness, use of eye contact, and use
of nonverbal communication.

Social norms are shared rules that guide “right behaviour,” such as what constitutes an “agreement”
(formal versus informal, relationships versus contracts) and attitudes toward time and timeliness.

Assumptions are the deeper, often unspoken, beliefs that infuse and underpin social systems. These
beliefs are the air that everyone breathes but never sees. Examples include beliefs about what creates
“value” and how decisions should be made.

Diagnosing Cultural Barriers

Negotiators should seek to predict how cultural differences are likely to affect the negotiation. The
table below lists some diagnostic questions for probing deeper cultural assumptions.

Diagnostic Questions:

Power - What sorts of people will be chosen to represent the side? Will they be chosen on the basis
of expertise and experience or personal connections and status? How will internal decisions get
made? Will it be done by consensus or through the use of authority? How important is “face”?

Value - Is the culture more collectivist or more individualistic? How much weight is placed on
relationships as opposed to formal contracts? What is it that causes people to implement agreed
terms? Reputation? Fear of reprisal? What causes offense and what doesn’t?

Substance - What is negotiable and what is non-negotiable? Once made, what kinds of agreements
are treated as binding? Are agreements reduced to writing or kept more informal?

Process - What are acceptable “moves” in the game? How important are protocol and other
formalities? Is communication direct or indirect? What does “yes” mean? What does “no” mean?

How important are non-verbal cues? What are norms concerning truth telling? How are disputes
about implementation handled?
Overcoming Cultural Barriers

The best way to avoid and overcome cultural barriers is to invest in learn about a culture. The best
way to do this, in turn is to live in it for some time and, crucially to learn the language. Language
shapes thinking and understanding a language makes a big contribution to understanding the basic
world-view of a cultural group.

When this is not possible, it still is worth gaining some familiarity with the culture by learning about
geography, history and politics, as well as by reading (cautiously because they can be quite superficial)
analyses of the culture. But this should be supplemented by reading translations of the best fiction
produced by the culture in question, since this provides deeper insight into the norms and basic
assumptions.

Finally, it often is useful to engage the services of a “cultural interpreter,” someone who you trust to
act as a bridge. As one accomplished international diplomat put it, “you need somebody who really
knows the cultural context, because it's easy to make mistakes."
Fine-tuning Negotiation strategies based on the strengths and weaknesses of team members

Consider the always-15-minutes-early co-worker thrust into a situation where she must work

with a free-spirited artist. Creative people aren’t always clock-watchers, and this artist proves

it by wandering in a few minutes late most days. Our first instinct may be to blame the artist

for not keeping to a tighter schedule. Discipline is important. However, the always-early co-

worker might also need some scrutiny here. Perhaps she needs to loosen up and give her co-

worker some space – creative ideas need some freedom to flow.

If we explore such partnerships, we can see how the different players on a team may

contribute in unique ways. Sometimes that may be irritating. However everyone has their

weaknesses – just as they have their strengths. With a better understanding of personality

types, those differences need not interfere with team collaboration. Strategically applying

this information may even enhance a team’s efforts.

Introverted and Extraverted Team Members

Advantages

To appreciate how Introverts and Extraverts work together, we need a little more in-depth

understanding of those terms. Most people know the social aspect: Introverts gain energy

from time alone, whereas Extraverted personality types thrive among other people. In this

respect, Extraverts can effectively play the social front person and do the networking and face

time with outsiders. Meanwhile, the Introvert might manage the “quiet work” behind the

scenes.
But to better understand each personality type’s value to a team, we must look deeper.

Extraverts are experiencers and have a willingness to try things more readily than Introverts.

(This is especially true if the Extravert trait is paired with the Prospecting trait.) In this sense,

Extraverts are outgoing not only socially but experientially. Introverts more typically stop and

look a situation over before trying it out, and they are more likely to look before they leap.

As with a car, a collaborative venture might benefit from having both an accelerator and a

brake. The “go-go” Extraverted people’s accelerators push their points forward, while the

more reticent Introverted individuals’ slow it down to analyse and improve– making both

approaches and attitudes vital

Potential Problems

While both Extraverts and Introverts can gain from expanding their comfort zones to include

a little of the other’s style, insisting on it can cause conflict. There’s nothing wrong with

fostering adaptive behaviours that stretch a person’s capabilities and broaden their skill set.

However, that needs to be balanced with an appreciation for the person’s core personality

traits. It’s better if expanding one’s comfort zone is voluntary rather than forced.

There also must be flexibility and respect both ways. The Introvert must trust the Extravert’s

impulse to accelerate, while the Extravert respects the Introvert’s need to slow the process

down when necessary. This takes confidence in the other person, ample communication, and

a willingness to be flexible. Learning to negotiate differences in personality styles is a skill

worth developing and starts with awareness.

Intuitive and Observant Team Members

Advantages

A visionary and a pragmatist walk into a bar. The visionary says to the bartender, “I can almost

taste a frothy beverage possessing elements that will interact in such a way as to satisfy me

to the depths of my soul.” The pragmatist says, “Give me a beer.”

The scenario illustrates the mind-set differences between Intuitive and Observant partners.

Intuitive personality types can think in more unorthodox ways – to help us move forward.

(Another example of Intuitive thinking is Elon Musk, who as a child, convinced himself not to

fear the dark when he realized that darkness was only the absence of photons. “It’s really silly

to be afraid of the absence of photons,” Elon told his young self.

Intuitive personalities frequently imagine potential blueprints for progress or new methods

of doing things. But, alone, that is potentially just so much dreaming. Something else is

needed.

That’s often where the practical – and frequently brilliant – Observant folk come into play.

Observant partners take those ideas and the blueprints and make them work. They also

maintain the methods once they’re in place. When you team up Intuitive people with

Observant people. With two Intuitive people working together, you may have an abundance

of ideas. But if you’re setting up a team endeavour, ideas will only take you so far. With two

Observant people, efficiency and results will rule the day, but growth may be limited. But put

the differing personality traits together, and there is the potential for magic.
Potential Problems

Observant team members might enjoy the vision of the Intuitive folks... up to a point. Then

they may be eager for Intuitive people to stop talking and theorizing and get on with it.

Endless theorizing and dreaming can never end soon enough for Observant personalities as

they wait for Intuitive co-workers to actually “do” something. Yet the Intuitive team members

may be doing quite a bit – just not in ways the Observant members may see as valuable.

Also, new ideas may even be a threat to some Observant partners, particularly if they also

rely on the orderly Judging trait, as Sentinel personality types do. They can be a little gun-shy

with change. If new ideas are coming at them too fast and furious, they may feel that things

are off-kilter. It can be maddening for them when an Intuitive person refuses to settle into

the tried and true – even for a short time.

On the Intuitive side, being a somewhat uncommon trait, some might get a sense that they

are “special.” Most come of age understanding the power of their broad, Intuitive nets. They

are always gathering information in ways that suit the other aspects of their personalities.

They likely recognize their own abilities to process what they collect in unique ways.

Some Intuitive personality types might look condescendingly at Observant people as too

concrete. This can be damaging in a working relationship. But what is more Intuitive than

grasping how much someone with a different style adds to the mix? There is a certain genius

in efficiently keeping things running smoothly in a timely manner. It can be vital to success.

The sooner the Intuitive person appreciates that genius in their Observant associates, the

better.
Feeling and Thinking Team Members

Advantages

It might be fun to view a Thinking and Feeling partnership like the “good cop, bad cop” role

play in negotiation. Instead, we have the “rational cop” and the “sensitive cop.” The rational

cop comes at a venture from a logical, cost-benefit direction that highlights a starker

effectiveness. Meanwhile, the sensitive cop approaches the same venture from a more

“human place” where the needs of others are highlighted. Instead of getting a confession, our

cops get a finished product or idea that is rationally functional while responsive to the needs

of others. Such a combination can be helpful when an endeavour must appeal to both the

head and the heart.

Potential Problems

Again, any disadvantages facing these team members are probably the result of intolerance

to each other’s style. Here, the Feeling person may be put off by the calculating and colder

approach of the Thinking person, and the Thinking partner by the touchy-feely approach of

the Feeling personality. Notice that we describe these perceptions in extremes. Usually, it’s

extreme thinking that causes such conflicts to arise. It may seem to one like too much of the

other’s characteristics are driving the efforts. “She’s heartlessly strategic, and she’s taking

away the company’s spirit.” “He’s such a softy, and we’re losing all of our rigor because of it.”

As an example, in a business setting, laying off employees might be something that Thinking

types would see as a rational, cost-cutting measure that leads to the greater good. Better to

cut a few now than cut everybody later. While it might sound cold, it might also be true. On
the other hand, Feeling personality types might focus on the lives of those being sacked.

Again, it’s a worthy and compassionate consideration. But, if each type stands their ground

without compromise, conflict is likely to be the only result.

Thinking personalities might grow impatient with what they see as resistance to the best

solution. Meanwhile, “Feeling” personalities may continue to struggle in search of a more

humane path. Tensions rise as each team member thinks in terms of their own efforts being

the only direction that’s worthwhile. Thinking people can be stubborn based on the perceived

truth of their logic. Feeling people can be overzealous in their mission to help others, even

when it’s impractical or even impossible.

Learning to compromise and not take their own positions so seriously can go a long way

toward finding a solution. Compromise will turn, “It’s either my way or no way,” into, “It’s my

way – and it’s your way too.” The partners involved need to remember and appreciate what

each brings to the table. Then compromise becomes easier. Often, if people earnestly take

the time to look for synergy, they’ll find it.

Prospecting and Judging Team Members

Advantages

The Judging and Prospecting traits in our framework can be robust. What a difference a single

trait among many can make. For example, a Sentinel (Judging and Observant) differs

significantly from an Explorer (Prospecting and Observant). And yet there’s only one trait

difference with every other personality trait running parallel in the two categories. While
some Diplomats and Analysts are Prospecting, others are Judging. But all Sentinels are

Judging, and all Explorers are Prospecting.

While Sentinels value orderliness, tradition, and loyalty, Explorers are spontaneous, always

looking for the next “thing,” and are independent. Can this odd couple ever come together?

These personality types can work well together if they “get” each other and lay some ground

rules.

A prevailing theory that is still in the realm of hypothesis has types similar to a Sentinel and

an Explorer finding marital bliss with one another, especially as the individuals get older. It

does make sense. Explorer personality types may realize that their live-in-the-moment

philosophy may not serve them well when it comes to security and stability. Falling in love

with those who plan and follow the rules can complement their more impulsive nature.

On the other hand, Explorers’ impetuosity can be exciting and add some spice to the lives of

Sentinels. Even stalwart Sentinels may sometimes grow a little tired of playing it so safe for

so long. Both personalities may benefit from such a pairing if one doesn’t overwhelm the

other. Besides, how much of literature and drama is dedicated to convincing us of the idea

that opposites can attract?

As with marriage, so it may be with other partnerships – they can be complementary if each

understands, tolerates, and even appreciates the gifts of the other. Depending on the

venture, there may be a time or activity that calls for a careful approach that follows the rules

and procedures precisely. At other times, a situation might call for thinking more flexibly on

one’s feet
This yin-yang situation between these team members can be a powerful combination if

appreciated. But only if the parties apply some effort and seek to understand and respect

each other.

Potential Problems

Those with the Prospecting personality trait rely on their nonconformity and sense of freedom

to do what they do best. If they feel too boxed in, or if their freedom of thought or movement

feels stifled, they will become anxious. Prospecting types will feel like their hands are tied,

and the last thing you want to do with Prospecting types is to tie their hands unnecessarily.

They sometimes just won’t settle for it. They will somehow “get loose” and be themselves –

even if that means breaking away completely.

Unfortunately for this combination of traits, those with the Judging personality trait are

looking for a clear, established direction and stable predictability. They are unlikely to take

many unplanned chances. They are looking for standards and firm boundaries, and they will

not feel secure without those things. In some sense, being boxed in is exactly where these

personality types want to be.

Turbulent and Assertive Team Members

Advantages

The Turbulent and Assertive traits reflect our confidence levels and sensitivity to the

criticisms and the opinions of others. This colours almost everything a person does.

Assertive people generally get the good press. Boldness is seen in many cultures as attractive

and desirable. Plenty of self-help books describe building confidence while there are few, if

any, dedicated to enhancing our insecurities and hypersensitivity. There clearly can be a

cultural bias – optimism and confidence are often viewed as preferable to pessimism and

uncertainty. And it’s true. Confidence and boldness can be most useful in an endeavor in

obvious ways.

But Turbulent personality types continuously strive to improve themselves and project that

need to more positively develop into anything they are doing. They are likely to always be

wanting to nudge things toward “better.” If that is recognized and appropriately utilized

within a team, it can lead to innovation and progress. Turbulent personalities want things to

improve. And who doesn’t want that kind of energy on a team?

It also helps to have the Turbulent person on board with just enough doubt to keep things

real. They are more likely to see the problems. They may notice what needs fixing long before

the Assertive personalities have a clue. Assertive team members can be so confident that they

gloss over problems or minimize difficulties. There is value in having someone with a mind-

set (and perhaps the courage and conviction) to say, “What if that doesn’t work?”
Potential Problems

The reason confidence gets good press is that it is typically linked with leadership and winning.

The Turbulent person may pick up on the vibe that others sometimes see them as the “B

Team.” This can feed into their insecurities. It may not matter that it’s just the biased

perceptions of others.

On the other hand, Turbulent personality types may automatically assume that Assertive

confidence, being so different from their own style, is a form of smugness. They may see

people with the Assertive trait as full of themselves. This can colour their willingness to

cooperate with their fellow team members.

If the Turbulent person is dismissed too easily by others, then their gift of doubting might be

lost. If the Assertive person is pigeonholed as arrogant, there may be a disregard for their

useful positive energy. Recognizing and accepting that there is something different but

valuable being expressed by both Assertive and Turbulent personality types can help mitigate

any bias either way.

 Distributive Bargaining
Definition: Distributive bargaining is a competitive bargaining strategy in which one
party gains only if the other party loses something. It is used as a negotiation strategy
to distribute fixed resources such as money, resources, assets, etc. between both the
parties.

Description: Distributive bargaining is also known as zero-sum negotiations because

the assets or the resources which need to be distributed are fixed. So, all the
negotiations will have to happen by taking that into context.

The ultimate aim, under distributive bargaining approach, is not to come to a win-win
kind of situation but that one side wins as much they can. Both parties will try to get
the maximum share from the asset or resource which needs to be distributed.

We end up using distributive bargaining approach in our daily lives as well when we
shop. Usually, distributive bargaining approach works well with products which do not
have a fixed price. For example, if you go to the supermarket and buy some products,
you won't be able to bargain because they have a fixed price. Either you can buy the
product or leave it.

Let's understand distributive bargaining approach with the help of another example.
You go to market to buy a rug. You are visiting the shop for the first time and if the rug
is of adequate quality, both the parties might not see each other again. The
shopkeeper will quote you one price, rather than any lower rate as suggested by you.

In distributive bargaining approach, both the parties try to know each other's walk-
away-value to take a decision. After that, they make a deal in that it is closer to their
own goal rather than adjusting according to the competitors.

In case the rug cost you Rs 1000, and you give a counter offer of Rs 800. The
shopkeeper loses Rs 200. He/she would try to limit the loss and try selling the at
around Rs 900-950.
Car buying is a classic example of a distributive bargaining situation. Why? When we
walk into a dealership, chances are we're going to work with somebody we've never
met before and likely will not see again. So the relationship aspect is not important,
but getting a great deal is. On the other side of the bargain is the car salesperson,
whose main job is to make the best possible deal for their employer. Even though
things may be friendly on the surface, this type of bargaining is somewhat adversarial
by nature. Most people are somewhat wary of a car salesperson, and the car
salesperson is highly trained to extract your dollars.

Why Is Distributive Bargaining Important?

Distributive bargaining is important because there are some disputes that cannot be
solved in any other way -- they are inherently zero-sum. If the stakes are high, such
conflicts can be very resistant to resolution. For example, if budgets in a government
agency must be cut 30 percent, and people's jobs are at stake, a decision about what
to cut is likely to be very difficult. If the cuts are small enough that the impact on
employees will be minor, however, such distributive decisions can be made more
easily.

Process and Strategy in Distributive Negotiations

The process of distributive negotiation involves the interplay of one's walk away value
-- the minimum or maximum one can accept before "walking away" from the deal --
and the adversary's walk away value. The trick is to get an idea of your opponent's
walk away value and then try to negotiate an outcome that is closer to your own goals
than theirs. Whether or not parties achieve their goals in distributive bargaining
depends on the strategies and tactics they use.

Information is the key to gaining a strategic advantage in a distributive negotiation. You

should do your best to guard your information carefully and also try to get information
out of your opponent. To a large extent, your bargaining power depends on how clear
you are about your goals, alternatives, and walk away values and how much you know
about your opponents'. Once you know these values, you will be in a much stronger
position to figure out when to concede and when to hold firm in order to best influence
the response of the other side.
The 5 Steps of Distributive Bargaining

1. Define your limits

Each party in a distributive bargaining negotiation needs to know their resistance and
target points relative to the desired outcome. Resistance points are the points at which
the parties will break negotiations if crossed, while target points are the point at which
each party would like to see a settlement reached. These are not typically shared with
the other party sitting across the table from you. Sometimes you discover these points
only when you cross them and the other party reacts.

2. Obtain information

You need to try to obtain information about the other party’s target and resistance
points, if you can. This information can be obtained or assessed either indirectly or
directly. Indirect assessment means determining what information the other party used
to set his or her resistance point and target point. You may find yourself making
assumptions about the basis for the other party’s thresholds or ask around to see if
you can find out anything useful. Direct assessment doesn’t usually occur in the
distributive bargaining process as the parties usually don’t want to directly reveal
accurate or precise information about their target and resistance points.

3. Make an opening offer

Another step in a distributive bargaining scenario is making an opening offer. Opening

offers can anchor a negotiation situation and set the tone for the process. The attitude
with which the opening offer is given is also important. Remember, you send a
message to the other party with your opening offer. An exaggerated opening offer is
usually coupled with a tough competitive stance. In this case, be sure to have viable
alternatives ready in case he goes below the other party’s resistance point.

4. Make concessions

Once the negotiations begin with the opening offer, the parties must make
concessions. Without concessions, there is no negotiating. Concession making should
be done in good faith. This step can continue as long as the negotiating parties
wish. At some point, one party needs to signal the other party with both their actions
and their words that the concessions are almost over and it’s about time to close the
deal.

5. Hopefully, close the deal

There are several tactics for closing a deal. You might use a closing tactic known as
“assume-the-close” where you act as though the deal is concluded even if you aren’t
quite finished. This is in the hope that the other party will agree with you and stop
negotiating at that point as well. You can also offer a “deal sweetener” as a special
concession thrown in at the end of everything. Or you might just reach an agreement
that doesn’t violate anyone’s resistance points.
5 Proven Distributive Negotiation Strategies
The following five strategies from Harvard Business School professors Deepak
Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman’s book Negotiation Genius will help you maximize the
amount of value you claim in your negotiations:
1. Focus on the Other Party’s Reservation Value. In addition to determining your
reservation value, it is also important to try to estimate the other party’s
reservation point. When you do so, you can estimate the zone of possible
agreement, or ZOPA—the range of deals that both parties would accept. For
example, if you’re willing to spend up to $3,000 on the seller’s used car and
believe the seller might be willing to part with it for $2,500, the ZOPA ranges
from $2,500 to $3,000.

2. Avoid Making Unilateral Concessions. Once each party has made an initial
offer, avoid the trap of making another concession before your counterpart
has reciprocated with one of her own. If the other party won’t match your
concession, it may be time for you to bow out of the negotiation

3. Be Comfortable with Silence. Negotiators often are inclined to make undue

concessions or retract their offer when their counterpart seems to be taking
too long to respond. But keep in mind that your partner’s silence may be
strategic, designed to make you uncomfortable and cave in. When you speak
when it’s their turn to do so, “you will be paying by the word.”

4. Label Your Concessions. As human beings, we have an innate tendency to

reciprocate the gifts and concessions we receive from others. Due to this
powerful norm of reciprocity, we tend to make a concession of our own when
offered one by a counterpart in a distributive negotiation. At the same time,
to escape such feelings of obligation, negotiators can be motivated to
undervalue or overlook one another’s concessions, For this reason, it is
important in distributive bargaining to draw attention to your concessions by
labelling them. That is, clarify how costly the concession will be to you and
make it clear that you’re reluctant to give this value away.

5. Make Contingent Concessions. To further reduce the ambiguity of your

concessions, you might explicitly tie your concessions to specific actions by
the other party. Make it clear that you will only make your concession if the
other party meets your expectations. Here’s an example: “I’m willing to pay
more if you can promise me early delivery.”
Soft Bargaining
Soft bargaining is a negotiation strategy in which primary emphasis is on the
preservation of friendly relationships with the other parties. While this approach
reduces the level of conflict, it also increases the risk that one party will be exploited
by others who use hard bargaining techniques.

Hard Bargaining
Hard bargaining strategies emphasize results over relationships. Hard bargainers will
insist that their demands be completely agreed to and accepted before any agreement
is possible. While this approach avoids the need to make concessions, it also reduces
the likelihood of successfully negotiating an agreement, and usually harms the
relationship with the other party as well.