You are on page 1of 15

Unit-1

by- Anoop Singh Rathore

Negotiation is a process by which the involved parties or group resolve matters of dispute by holding discussions and coming to an agreement which can be mutually agreed by them. It also refers to coming to closing a business deal on some product. It also means exchange of negotiable instruments such as bills of exchange, cheques etc in exchange of goods, service or money.
Meaning of Negotiation in different fields:-

1. General: Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict. 2. Banking: Accepting or trading a negotiable instrument. 3. Contracting: Use of any method to award a contract other than sealed bidding. 4. Trading: Process by which a negotiable instrument is transferred from one party (transferor) to another (transferee) by endorsement or delivery. The transferee takes the instrument in good faith, for value, and without notice of any defect in the title of the transferor, and obtains an indefeasible title.

What is the different between Negotiation and bargaining

Negotiation- win-win situation- both parties are trying to find a mutually acceptance solution to a complex conflict Bargaining- win - lose situation ( haggling over prices)

Characteristics of negotiation situations Negotiation is one of several mechanisms by which people can resolve conflicts. Characteristics: 1. There are two or more parties- that is, two or more individuals, groups, or organizations. Although people can "negotiate' with themselves - as when someone debates whether to spend the afternoon studying, playing tennis, or going to the football game - we will discuss negotiation as an interpersonal or inter-group process. 2. There is a conflict of interest between two or more parties that is, what one wants is not necessarily what the other one wants and the parties must, therefore, search for a way to resolve the conflict.

3. The parties negotiate because they think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal that way than by simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them or let them have. Negotiation is largely a voluntary process. It is a strategy pursued by choice; seldom are we required to negotiate. 4. The parties, at least for the moment, prefer to search for agreement rather than to fight openly, have one side capitulate, permanently break off contact, or take their dispute to a higher authority to resolve it. 5. When we negotiate, we expect give and take. We expect that both sides will modify or give in somewhat on their opening statements, requests, or demands. Although the parties may at first argue strenuously for what they want, each pushing the other side for concessions, usually both sides will modify their positions and each will move toward the other. 6. Successful negotiation involves the management of intangibles as well as the resolving of tangibles (e.g., the price or the terms of agreement). Intangible factors are the underlying psychological motivations that may directly or indirectly influence the parties during a negotiation. 7. A negotiation situation searches for agreement between individual.

Elements of Negotiation

Negotiation Process + Behaviour + Substance (Agenda) Process- The way individuals negotiate with each other is called the process of negotiation. The process includes the various techniques and strategies employed to negotiate and reach to a solution. Behaviour- How two parties behave with each other during the process of negotiation is referred to as behaviour. The way they interact with each other, the way they communicate with each other to make their points clear all come under behaviour. Substance- There has to be an agenda on which individuals negotiate. A topic is important for negotiation. In the first situation, going for the late night movie was the agenda on which you wanted to negotiate with your parents as well as your friends. To conclude, negotiation is simply a technique, a discussion among individuals to reach to a mutual agreement where everyone gains something or the other and conflicts are avoided.

Models of negotiation:
1. Win Win Model - In this model, each and every individual involved in negotiation wins. Nobody is at loss in this model and everyone is benefited out of the negotiation. This is the most accepted model of negotiation. Let us understand it with the help of an example: Daniel wanted to buy a laptop but it was an expensive model. He went to the outlet and negotiated with the shopkeeper to lower the price. Initially the shopkeeper was reluctant but after several rounds of discussions and persuasion, he quoted a price best suited to him as well as Daniel. Daniel was extremely satisfied as he could now purchase the laptop without burning a hole in his pocket. The negotiation also benefited the store owner as he could earn his profits and also gained a loyal customer who would come again in future. 2. Win Lose Model - In this model one party wins and the other party loses. In such a model, after several rounds of discussions and negotiations, one party benefits while the party remains dissatisfied. Please refer to the above example once again where Daniel wanted to buy a laptop. In this example, both Daniel and the store owner were benefited out of the deal. Let us suppose Daniel could not even afford the price quoted by the storeowner and requests him to further lower the price. If the store owner further lowers the price, he would not be able to earn his profits but Daniel would be very happy. Thus after the negotiation, Daniel would be satisfied but the shopkeeper wouldnt. In a win lose model, both the two parties are not satisfied, only one of the two walks away with the benefit. 3. Lose Lose Model - As the name suggests, in this model, the outcome of negotiation is zero. No party is benefited out of this model. Had Daniel not purchased the laptop after several rounds of negotiation, neither he nor the store owner would have got anything out of the deal. Daniel would return empty handed and the store owner would obviously not earn anything. In this model, generally the two parties are not willing to accept each others views and are reluctant to compromise. No discussions help. Let us understand the above three models with an example from the corporate world. Mike got selected with a multinational firm of repute. He was called to negotiate his salary with Sara- the HR Head of the organization. Case 1 - Sara quoted a salary to Mike, but Mike was not too pleased with the figure. He insisted Sara to raise his salary to the best extent possible. After discussions Sara came out with a figure acceptable to Mike and she immediately released his offer letter. Mike

got his dream job and Sara could manage to offer Mike a salary well within the companys budgets - A Win win Situation (Both the parties gained) Case 2 - Sara with her excellent negotiation skills managed to convince Mike at a little lower salary than he quoted. Mike also wanted to grab the opportunity as it was his dream job and he was eyeing it for quite some time now. He had to accept the offer at a little lower salary than expected. Thus in this negotiation, Mike was not completely satisfied but Sara was - A win lose negotiation Case 3 - Mike declined the offer as the salary quoted by Sara did not meet his expectations. Sara tried her level best to negotiate with Mike, but of no use.-A lose lose model of negotiation. No body neither Mike nor Sara gained anything out of this negotiation. 4. RADPAC Model of Negotiation RADPAC Model of Negotiation is a widely used model of negotiation in corporates. Let us understand it in detail Every alphabet in this model signifies something: R - Rapport A - Analysis D - Debate P - Propose A - Agreement C - Close R - Rapport: As the name suggests, it signifies the relation between parties involved in negotiation. The parties involved in negotiation ideally should be comfortable with each other and share a good rapport with each other. A - Analysis: One party must understand the second party well. It is important that the individual understand each others needs and interest. The shopkeeper must understand the customers needs and pocket, in the same way the customer mustnt ignore the shopkeepers profits as well. People must listen to each other attentively. D - Debate: Nothing can be achieved without discussions. This round includes discussing issues among the parties involved in negotiation. The pros and cons of an idea are evaluated in this round. People debate with each other and each one tries to convince the other. One must not lose his temper in this round but remain calm and composed. P - Propose: Each individual proposes his best idea in this round. Each one tries his level best to come up with the best possible idea and reach to a conclusion acceptable by all. A - Agreement: Individuals come to a conclusion at this stage and agree to the best possible alternative.

C - Close: The negotiation is complete and individuals return back satisfied. Let us again consider Mike and Saras example to understand RADPAC Model R - Rapport between Mike and Sara. They must be comfortable with each other and should not start the negotiation right away. They must first break the ice. The discussions must start with a warm smile and greetings. A - Both Mike and Sara would try their level best to understand each others needs. Mikes need is to grab the opportunity while Sara wants to hire an employee for the organization. D - The various rounds of discussions between Mike and Sara. Mike and Sara would debate with each other trying to get what they want. P - Mike would propose the best possible salary he can work on while Sara would also discuss the maximum salary her company can offer. A - Both Mike and Sara would agree to each other, where both of them would compromise to their best possible extent. C - The negotiation is complete and probably the next course of action is decided, like in this case the next step would be generation of the offer letter and its acceptance.

Stages of Negotiation
In order to achieve a desirable outcome, it may be useful to follow a structured approach to negotiation. For example, in a work situation a meeting may need to be arranged in which all parties involved can come together. The process of negotiation includes the following stages: Preparation Discussion Clarification of goals Negotiation towards a WIN-WIN situation Agreement Implementation of a course of action

1. Preparation
Before any negotiation takes place, a decision needs to be taken as to when and where a meeting will take place to discuss the problem and who will attend. Setting a limited timescale can also be helpful to prevent the disagreement continuing This stage involves ensuring all the pertinent facts of the situation are known in order to clarify your own position. In the work example above, this would include knowing the rules of your organisation, to whom help is given, when help is not felt appropriate and the grounds for such refusals. Your organisation may well have policies to which you can refer in preparation for the negotiation.

Undertaking preparation before discussing the disagreement will help to avoid further conflict and unnecessary wasting time during the meeting.

2. Discussion
During this stage, individuals or members of each side put forward the case as they see it, that is their understanding of the situation. Key skills during this stage are questioning, listening and clarifying. Sometimes it is helpful to take notes during the discussion stage to record all points put forward in case there is need for further clarification. It is extremely important to listen, as when disagreement takes place it is easy to make the mistake of saying too much and listening too little. Each side should have an equal opportunity to present their case.

3. Clarifying Goals
From the discussion, the goals, interests and viewpoints of both sides of the disagreement need to be clarified. It is helpful to list these in order of priority. Through this clarification it is often possible to identify or establish common ground.

4. Negotiate for a WIN-WIN Outcome


This stage focuses on what is termed a WIN-WIN outcome where both sides feel they have gained something positive through the process of negotiation and both sides feel their point of view has been taken into consideration. A WIN-WIN outcome is usually the best outcome, however it may not always be possible but through negotiation it should be the ultimate goal. Suggestions of alternative strategies and compromises need to be considered at this point. Compromises are often positive alternatives which can often achieve greater benefit for all concerned rather than holding to the original positions.

5. Agreement
Agreement can be achieved once understanding of both sides viewpoints and interests have been considered. It is essential to keep an open mind in order to achieve a solution. Any agreement needs to be made perfectly clear so that both sides know what has been decided.

6. Implementing a Course of Action


From the agreement, a course of action has to be implemented, to carry through the decision. Failure to Agree: If the process of negotiation breaks down and agreement cannot be reached, then re-scheduling a further meeting is called for. This avoids all parties becoming embroiled in heated discussion or argument, which not only wastes valuable time but can also damage future working relationships. At the subsequent meeting, the stages of negotiation should be repeated. Any new ideas or interests should be taken into account and the situation looked at afresh. At this stage it may also be helpful to look at other alternative solutions and/or bring in another person to mediate. Informal Negotiation: Apart from situations when it is appropriate to employ this more formal process of negotiation, you will no doubt encounter one-to-one situations where there is a need to negotiate informally. At such a time when a difference of opinion arises, it might not be possible or appropriate to go through the stages set out above in a formal manner. Nevertheless, remembering the key points in the stages of formal negotiation may be very helpful in a variety of informal situations.

Types of negotiation
These two approaches align more or less with the two main types of negotiation:

Distributive Distributive negotiation is a way of dividing up a single, fixed quantity where a gain to one side results in a loss to the other. While both sides may benefit from the deal, one side will definitely benefit more than the other. Integrative Integrative negotiation involves a more collaborative approach, where both sides work together in the hopes of achieving the greatest possible benefit for both sides. Even in a negotiation where theres direct competition between the two sides, there are often opportunities for collaboration. Its rare to find a negotiation thats purely distributive or purely integrative. Most fall somewhere in between, but its important to understand each type on its own. Distributive negotiation is often referred to as zero-sum negotiation. Its goal is the acquisition of value. At the end of the negotiation, the person who can claim the most value is the winner. Distributive negotiation is often used in situations where theres a single, fixed issue to be negotiated, and where the greatest concern is getting the best possible value. You may have thought of situations such as buying an expensive item such as a car or a house, or perhaps bartering a price for an antique. A key difference between the two types of negotiation is how information is handled in distributive negotiation. In distributive negotiation, the goal is to withhold as much information as possible, putting the other side at a disadvantage. Its also important to try to find out as much information as you can about the other side, to create a greater advantage for yourself. In distributive negotiation, future relationships are not a priority. In a purely distributive negotiation, youll likely never meet with your negotiating opponent again. Your relationship with this person is typically the farthest thing from your mind. In purely integrative negotiation, both sides cooperate to achieve the greatest benefit. This type of negotiation requires that you be good at both creating value and claiming it. Your goal is to create as many options with as much value as possible for both sides. And then you need to claim the best value for yourself among the options youve helped create. This can result in both sides getting exactly what they want, but in most cases it requires that each side compromise slightly to get what it values the most. So instead of trying to get the biggest piece of the pie, or focusing on a single issue, you consider other options other types of value. The more options you have, the more likely youll be able to claim value in the negotiation. Parties in integrative negotiations seek creative options rather than focusing on which concessions to make.

Unlike in distributive negotiation, to be successful at integrative negotiation, you need to share information. There are several ways negotiators can do this:

discuss key issues related to their situation, including why they want to make a deal and what their real interests are, as well as their business constraints be up-front about their preferences among options and issues, and reveal any additional resources or capabilities that match the other sides interests Selecting the right negotiation type There are pros and cons for each type. The most common analogy for these two types of negotiations is the pie. In the case of distributive negotiation, the pie represents the whole of whats available, and each side fights to get as much of it as possible. Integrative negotiation looks to enlarge the pie so that both sides get what they need.

Integrative negotiation may seem to be the weaker of the two types. After all, distributive negotiation is about going after what you want while protecting what you have, whereas integrative negotiation requires negotiators to consider the interests of the other side. However, integrative negotiation isnt negotiating from a position of weakness, but is rather a way to create and claim value. It says Lets work together on this. Well both benefit, but heres what I want out of the deal. Most negotiations should be handled using an integrative approach, as it has more potential for creating lasting agreements and relationships. There will, however, always be negotiations in which a distributive approach will yield results, and it can also play a part in an integrative negotiation, when appropriate. Conflict in business is unavoidable. In fact, business is built on the premise of competition between the various players buyers are looking for the best price, and sellers are looking to make a profit. In order to survive in this environment, negotiation is essential. There are two main types of negotiation: distributive and integrative. In distributive negotiation, a gain by one side represents a loss to the other. The practitioners of this type of negotiation act accordingly. Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, involves collaboration and uses creative ways for both sides to benefit.

Fundamental Strategies to Distributive Bargaining


Fundamental distributive bargaining strategies are used by negotiators when both sides are trying to gain the majority share of a limited resource. Distributive bargaining strategies are valuable when negotiations concern a single issue and maintaining personal relationships is not essential.

Distributive bargaining negotiators seek to gain the maximum value for their side by forcing the other side to accept a deal that is not advantageous to its position.

Goal Strategies Every action distributive negotiators take is aimed at gaining an advantage over the opponent. Distributive negotiators only accept settlements that are favorable to their side of an issue. Successful distributive bargaining negotiators are combative and learn how to intimidate, stall and conceal information that would be favorable to the other side's argument. Because distributive bargaining strategies are all aimed at winning an argument, negotiators may even attempt to ridicule or intimidate an opponent. Target Strategies Distributive bargaining is focused on specific targets that must be attained to win the argument or discussions. Negotiators will set a target point, such as 75 percent of a limited resource, and will not back down until the objective is met. Part of this strategy involves setting target points that are expected to be reached throughout the negotiating process. Negotiators will focus their arguments on reaching each target before allowing the discussion to move on to the next point. Reservation Strategies Reservation strategies involve setting minimal values that negotiators cannot go beyond. When negotiations approach the reservation point, negotiators will display resistance to continue further bargaining aimed at changing the reservation point. Examples of a reservation point are the minimum price one side is willing to pay or accept for a product or service. Distributive bargainers try to deflect the negotiations in another direction when their opponent attempts to move the reservation point up or down. Brinksmanship Strategies Being able to walk away from negotiations precisely at the most advantageous point is a fundamental distributive bargaining skill or strategy. When negotiations are seemingly at an impossible deadlock, skilled negotiators will make the other side believe the discussions are on the brink of collapse by getting up and acting as though they are walking away from the table. This alternative strategy has value when one side knows its opponent has no choice but to accept a deal that may not be advantageous to its position. Confusion Strategy Distributive bargaining negotiators may attempt to create confusion by disguising a negotiator's authority, or making statements that are contradictory or do not seem to apply to the discussion. Confusion may be created by one side not appearing to take notes, or by appearing to have a lack of interest in the outcome of the discussion. One valuable strategy in distributive bargaining is the attempt by one side to portray the issue as not very important or to suggest the issue is merely an unpleasant distraction.

Tactics and techniques for distributive bargaining Many consider collective bargaining to be the foundation of the business relationship between employer and employee. During the contract negotiation process, representatives from companies and labor unions are required to bargain in good faith. Beyond this, there are many

tactics and techniques that can be used by both sides to achieve their desired objectives. An analysis of a few of these methods can lead to a greater understanding of the negotiation process, and put you in a better position to bargain in the future. What is distributive bargaining? In the book entitled Labor relations and collective bargaining: Cases, practice, and law, Carrell and Heavrin define it as a type of labor negotiations viewed as a win-lose situation. In addition, resources are viewed as fixed and limited, and each side wants to maximize its share. When distributive bargaining is used, each side views an increase from the current contract as a gain or win for them, and a loss for the other group. Although other types of bargaining are used, distributive bargaining remains the most common method of negotiation. Since both management and union will be attempting to secure the better deal, it is important for the negotiators to be aware of a few positioning tactics that may be used by the other side. Good guy/bad guy. This tactic is used by one side to apply pressure to the other group. This gambit begins with an individual making strong demands, accusations or threats, before leaving the room. After the bad guy is gone, another individual from the same side steps in to diffuse the situation. This person is the good guy, who only wants what is best for everyone. The good guy will suggest that the opposing side agree to a certain term before the bad guy returns. Good guy/bad guy is an effective way of applying pressure, without confrontation. To defend against this tactic, an easy move is to simply identify to the other side that you know they are using the technique. Since good guy/bad guy is such a well-known ploy, people are usually embarrassed when caught using it and will likely back away when confronted. Vise. This is a simple tactic that has the ability to produce incredible results. During the negotiation process, the vise gambit is used following a proposal from the other side. After listening intently to the offer, the individual simply replies: Im sorry youll have to do better than that. The power aspect of the vise tactic comes from the next move: remaining quiet not saying a word. Letting the other side make the next response puts the pressure on them. If this tactic is used on you, a suitable response would be: Exactly how much better than that do I have to do? This response should pin the other side to specifying an exact amount required for a deal. Bracketing. This technique involves setting your initial proposal an equal distance from the objective as the other sides proposal. For example, if your main objective is to acquire 15 vacation days and the company offers 10 days, your initial proposal should be 20 days. The key to bracketing is to get the other side to state their offer first. If the other side gets you to state your offer first, they can then bracket your number. After both sides have announced their initial offers, each can give in slightly until finally coming to an agreement. Hopefully this figure is exactly halfway between the bracketed number your objective. Nibbling. Using this tactic allows you to get a little bit more at the end of the negotiations, even after both sides have agreed on everything. Nibbling works because people psychologically feel better after reaching an agreement. It is not uncommon for people to be anxious, uptight or unsure leading up to and during a negotiation. Once the agreements have all been made,

everyone is free to relax and enjoy the accomplishments of their deals. This is the opportune time to nibble. To use the gambit, people will say something such as By the way, you can give us cant you? One method of countering the nibble is to gently make the other person feel cheap. Point out that you have just made a great deal and there is no way the other side could be asking for more, all while maintaining a big grin on your face so they do not take your comment too seriously. There are also a few unethical negotiating gambits that may be used against you. A few of the more well-known are the decoy, red herring, and planted information. The decoy is used to take your attention away from the real issue in the negotiation, and involves arguing an unimportant point in an attempt to gain approval for your real objective. The red herring adds an additional twist to the decoy gambit. With the red herring, the other person makes a false demand that he will later remove, but only in exchange for a concession from your side. Using the planted information tactic involves leaving confidential information in the open for the other side to accidentally see. Once the other side views the information, the hope is that they will act based upon the false data. Once they have made their move, they must accept responsibility for their assumptions and should not cry foul later. If unethical gambits are used against you, there is no point in getting upset. To avoid unnecessary concessions because of unethical practices, simply recognize the gambits and smoothly counter them. To this point, we have covered tactics and techniques that may be used to give one side the edge over the other in negotiating. It is also important, however, to discuss the attributes of both a successful negotiator and effective negotiating session. Lets refer to Ed Brodow list of ten tips for successful negotiating: 1. Develop negotiating consciousness. 2. Become a good listener. 3. Be prepared. 4. Aim high. 5. Be patient. 6. Focus on satisfaction. 7. Dont make the first move. 8. Dont accept the first offer. 9. Dont make unilateral concessions. 10. Always be willing to walk away. Two of these tips stand out as key points for a successful negotiating process: be prepared, and always be willing to walk away. 1. What is best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)? BATNA (best alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is a better alternative to a negotiation (the alternative that one would take in case of not reaching an agreement). Before any negotiation, we

must determine our BATNA and thus know when no agreement is better and retire (when possible agreement less favorable than our BATNA), for example, if we calculate that we can charge a client 1000, that amount will be our BATNA when negotiating with a second client, in this case, our goal is to reach an agreement where we pay 1000 or more and preferably, should offer a lower figure, we know that it is preferable to a non- agreement and seek the first customer. Some peculiarities of BATNA is dynamic, ie constantly changing, and it is psychological, ie based on a personal perspective, which tends to be subjective (eg, a seller might consider that his product is worth much more than actually worth). 2. What is Hardball Tactics? We now turn to a discussion of hardball tactics in negotiation. Many popular books of negotiation discuss using hardball negation tactics to beat the other party. 16 Such tactics are designed to pressure negotiators to do things they would not otherwise do and their presence usually disguises the users adherence to a decidedly distributive bargaining approach. They also can backfire, and there is evidence that every adversarial negotiator is not effective negotiators. 17 Many negotiators consider these tactics out-of-bounds for any negotiation situation. 18 The followings are the hardball tactics Dealing with Typical Hardball Tactics Ignore Them Discuss Them Respond in Kind Co-opt the Other Party Typical Hardball Tactic Good Cop-Bad Cop Lowball/Highball Bogey The Nibble Chicken Intimidation Aggressive Behavior Snow Job

KEY STEPS IN INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION PROCESSS There are four major steps in the Integrative Negotiation Process: Identify and define the problem Understand the problem and bring interests and needs to the surface Generate alternative solution to the problems Evaluate those alternatives and select among them. 1. IDENTIFY AND DEFINE THE PROBLEM The problem identification step is often the most difficult one and it is even more challenging when several parties are involved. Negotiator need to consider five aspects when identifying and

defining the problems. Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides. State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to attaining this goal. Depersonalize the problem Separate the problem definition from the search for solution. 2. UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM FULLY Identify interest needs Many writers have stressed that a key step in achieving an Integrative Agreement is the ability of the parties to understand and satisfy each others interest.2 Identifying interest is a critical step in the Integrative Negotiation Process. Interests are the underlying concerns, need or desires that motivate a negotiator to take a particular position. However, in as much as satisfaction may be difficult and understanding of the underlying interest may permit them to invent solutions that meet their interest. More so, several types of interests may be at stake in a negotiation and that type may be intrinsic (the parties value it in and of itself) or instrumental (the parties value it because it helps them derive other outcomes in the futures. 3 TYPES OF INTERESTS Substantive Interests - related to the focal issues under negotiation Process Interests are related to the way a dispute is settled Relationship Interests indicate that one or both parties value their relationship with each other and do not want to take actions that will damage it. Finally, Lax and Sebenius point out that the parties may have interests in principles concerning what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable, what is ethical, or what has been done in the past and should be done in the future. Some observation on Interests (a) There is almost always more than one type of interest underlying a negotiation (b) Parties can have different types of interest at stake (c) Interest often stem from deeply rooted human needs or values (d) Interest can change (e) Surfacing Interests is not always easy or to ones best advantage (f) Focusing on interests can be harmful (g) Generate alternative solutions. The search for alternative is the creative phase of the Integrative Negotiation. Once the parties have agreed on a common definition of the problem and understood each others interests, they need to generate a variety of alternative solution. The objective is to create a list of options or possible solution to the problem; evaluating and selecting from among those options will be their task in the final phase. Several techniques have been suggested to help negotiators generate alternative solutions. These techniques fall into two general categories. 4

i. Redefining the Problem or Problem Set: This technique call for the parties to define their underlying needs and develop alternatives to meet them. Five different methods for achieving integrative agreements have been proposed and are highlighted below: 5 ii. Expand the pier: This involves beginning negotiations with shortage of resources, this is not possible for both parties to satisfy their interests or obtain their objectives under current condition. A simple solution is to add resources expand the pie. a. Logroll for logrolling to be successful, parties are required to find more than one issues in conflict and to have different priorities for those issues. 6 Logrolling is frequently done by trial and error as part of the process of experimenting with various packages of offers that will satisfy everyone involved. However, logrolling may be effective when the parties can combine two issues, but not when the parties take turns in successive negotiation. More so, logrolling is not only effective in inventing options but also as a mechanism to combine options into negotiated packages. Neale and Bazerman identify a variety of approaches in addition to simply combining several issues into a package. 7 Three of these in particular, relate to the matters of outcome probabilities, and timing in other words what is to happen, the likelihood of it happening and when it happens. b. Exploit differences in risk preference. c. Exploit differences in time preferences - Use nonspecific compensation A third way to generate alternatives is to allow one person to obtain his objectives and pay off the other person for accommodating his interests. For nonspecific compensation to work, the person doing the compensating needs to know what is valuable to the other person and how seriously she is inconvenienced. - Cut the costs for compliance: Through cost cutting, one party achieves her objectives and the others costs are minimized if she agrees to go along. - Find a bridge solution: This involve a situation whereby parties invent new options that mete all their respective needs. 3. GENERATING ALTRNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM AS GIVEN: In addition to the techniques mentioned above, there are several other approaches to generating alternative solution. These approaches can be used by the negotiators themselves or by a number of other parties. Several of these approaches are commonly used in small groups. These include: Brainstorming: In brainstorming, small groups of people work to generate as many possible solutions to the problem as they can. Someone records; the solutions without comment, as they are identified participants are urged to be spontaneous, even impractical and not to censor anyones ideas. The success of brainstorming depends on the amount of intellectual stimulation that occurs as different ideas are generated. The (a) Avoid judging or evaluating solutions (b) Separate the people from the problem

(c) Be exhaustive in the brainstorming process (d) Ask outsider However, the disadvantage of brainstorming is that it does not solicit the ideas of those who are present at the negotiation. 4. EVALUATE AND SELECT ALTERNATIVES: The fourth stage in the Integrated Negotiation Process is to evaluate the alternatives generated during the previous phase and to select the best ones to implement. When the challenge is a reasonable, simple one, the evaluation and selection steps may be effectively combined into a singly step. For those uncomfortable with the Integrative Process, though we suggest a close adherence to a series of distinct steps: definitions and standards, alternative, evaluating and selection. The following guidelines should be used in evaluating options and reaching a consensus. 8 Narrow the range of solution options Evaluate solution on the basic of quality, and acceptability Agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options Be willing to justify personal preferences Be alert to the influence of intangibles in selecting options Use subgroups to evaluate complex options Take time out to cool off Explore different ways to logroll.
FACTORS THAT FACILITATE SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION

We have stressed that successful Integrative Negotiation can occur if the parties are predisposed to finding a mutually acceptable joint solution. Many other factors contribute to a predisposition toward problem solving and a willingness to work together to find the best solution. These factors are also the preconditions necessary for more successful integrative negotiation. These factors includes:- some common objective or goal - faith in ones problem solving ability - a belief in the validity of ones own position and the others perspective - The motivation and commitment to work together. - Trust - Clear and accurate communication In conclusion, whether a negotiation is distributive or integrative, negotiation should focus on substance which will produce a mutually beneficial agreement at lower cost and also focus on relations in which the parties maintain civil relations of mutual recognition and respect and improve their joint problem solving ability.