COOPERATIVE NEGOTIATION

“The most exquisite paradox… as soon as you give it all up, you can have it all. As long as you
want power, you can’t have it. The minute you don’t want power, you’ll have more than you
ever dreamed possible”. (Ram Dass)

“Work on developing a cooperative relationship, so when conflict comes, you believe you are
allies”. (Dean Tjosvold)

“We cannot negotiate with those who say, <What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is
negotiable>”. (John F. Kennedy)

The early approach to conflict management was based on the assumption that all conflict was
bad and would always be counterproductive to organizational goals. Conflict management,
therefore, was synonymous with conflict avoidance. This left the people experiencing the
conflict with essentially only one outcome: a win-lose scenario.

Nevertheless, conflict avoidance is not a satisfactory strategy for dealing with most conflict.
Conflict avoidance usually leaves those people who are being avoided feeling as if they are being
neglected. Also, conflict avoidance usually fails to reconcile the perceived differences that
originally caused the conflict. As a result, the original basis for the conflict continues unabated,
held in check only temporarily until another confrontation arises to set the same unresolved

1
tensions into motion again. Therefore, conflict avoidance strategies are not especially useful in
the long run.

One typical habit in conflict is to give very high priority to defending one’s own interests. If
Cain’s interests clash with Abel’s, Cain is inclined to ignore Abel interests or actively to damage
them. Leaders of nations are expected to defend the national interest and to defeat the interests of
others if they come into conflict. But this is not the only possible response. One alternative that is
highly recommended, where possible, is that of high regard for the interests of both Self and
Other. This implies strong assertion of one’s own interest, but equal awareness of the aspiration
and needs of the other, generating energy to search for a creative problem-solving outcome.

Negotiation is a fact of life; just as we as humans cannot exist without communicating, so we can
barely exist without negotiating1. As the escalation of conflict becomes evident in the world – in
diverse fields such as labour-management, international affairs, business and personal
relationships – the significance of negotiations and the need to negotiate increase.

The subject of negotiations is both timely and timeless. It is timely because almost everything
about our society is increasingly complicated. Today there is more litigation, more cultural
diversity, more regulation, more technology and more globalization. The subject is timeless
because life is a series of endless negotiations.2 In many ways, the negotiating skills we seek to
master are those we practiced as a child but forgot as we became older and more sophisticated.
Anyone with a six-year old is reminded of this on a daily basis. Children are excellent
negotiators:

- they are persistent

- they don’t know the meaning of the word “no”; they know that when we say no, we
often mean maybe

- they are never embarrassed

1
Johnson, Ralph A, “Negotiation basics: concepts, skills and exercises”, SAGE, 1993, pg

2
Acuff, Frank L., “How to negotiate anything with anyone anywhere around the world”, AMACOM Div American
Mgmt Assn, 2008, pg 5, 6

2
 - they often read us better than we read them.

Negotiation is the process of bargaining between two or more parties or according to a free
online dictionary “a discussion intended to produce an agreement”. Spangler adds: “the reason
you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without
negotiating…” 3

There are two styles of negotiating: competitive and collaborative. In a competitive or

distributive negotiation, the parties compete over the distribution of a fixed sum of value. The
key question in a competitive negotiation is “Who will claim the most value?” In this negotiation
process, a gain by one side is made at the expense of the other. Some people refer to this type of
negotiation as zero-sum or constant-sum negotiation. The term win-lose is probably more
representative of what’s involved. In a purely competitive negotiation, the value at stake is fixed,
resources are limited and both side s want to maximize their share. The strategy and tactics used
in these two types of negotiation are different; the main differences relate to the way in which
information is shared, perceptions are created and the relative importance attached to substantive
and relational outcomes.

In this paper I will concentrate only on the cooperative or collaborative negotiation style, known
also as “soft bargaining” or “integrative negotiation”. According to Morton Deutsch, the most
important factors that determine whether an individual will approach a conflict cooperatively or
competitively are the nature of the dispute and the goals each side seeks to achieve. Often the
two sides' goals are linked together, or interdependent.

A collaborative/cooperative negotiation differs from the competitive one in that collaborative

negotiations have the potential to expand the size of the resources available for the negotiators to
divide. Collaborative negotiations do this in two ways. First, they expand the range of items of
interests in a negotiation and thus make the deal bigger. Second, they try to identify and
incorporate issues that the two sides value differently to create additional room for trade-offs and
needed concessions. 4When parties value items differently, they can give some concessions on

3
Morak, Dajana, “Cooperative Negotiation”, GRIN Terlog, 2009, pg 3, 4

3
certain items they value less in exchange for gaining concessions on those they value more,
which adds value for both parties.

The cooperative style is based on a win-win mentality, which is based on mental interests to
reaching common goal. It offers more flexibility and therefore allows also the selection of the
“Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (BATNA). The acronym BATNA was coined by
Harvard Professors R. Fisher and W. Ury to represent the main source of power in negotiation. It
is what someone is going to do if he/she doesn’t reach an agreement. His/her BATNA is his/her
best option outside the current negotiation. This BATNA is power because the better the
BATNA the more someone can demand from the other party in the negotiation. Fisher and Ury
chose the phrase “best alternative” because in most situations there are many alternatives, and
negotiating strategy depends on knowing which alternative is the best.5

Soft bargaining is a strategy chosen by those who do not seek conflict; who do not want an
unpleasant exchange. Soft bargainers strive to create and preserve a positive relationship, but
they use this relationship to accomplish negotiating goals. Hoping to “attract more flies with a
teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar”, they employ this “strategy of nice” and
anticipate reciprocity from others. Cooperation induces and is induced by perceived similarity in
beliefs, attitudes, readiness to be helpful, openness in communication, trusting and friendly
attitudes, sensibility to common interests and de-emphasis of opposed interests, orientation
toward enhancing mutual power rather than power differences, and so on.6

Negotiation specialist Mark Gordon, who coined the term “collaborative bargaining”, says that
the parties should look for creative options and not focus on which concessions to make. “You
have to believe that it’s in your interest to look for ways to benefit your negotiating counterpart.
Your goal is not to hurt them, but to help them, at little cost to yourself – and have them help you
4
Ahlstrom, David, Bruton, Garry D, “International Management: strategy and culture in the emerging world”,
Cengage Learning, 2009, pg 31

5
Brett, Jeanne M, “Negotiating Globally: how to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across
cultural boundaries”, John Wiley and Sons, 2007, pg 11

6
Deutsch, Morton, Coleman, Peter T, Marcus, Eric Colton, “The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and
practice”, John Wiley and Sons, 2006, pg 31

4
at little cost to them. The more creative you are at coming up with things that are good for both
of you the happier both of you will be”. This creativity is only possible if both parties understand
their own key interests and the key interests of the other side.

Collaborators attempt to remain flexible, rather than committing themselves stubbornly to stated
positions. They search for solutions that do not require one party to “lose” in proportion to what
the other “wins”. Collaborators disclose to one another the extent of their authority to
compromise, and they listen to other negotiators opinions and agreements with an open mind.
7
Moreover, maximizing individual gain is not necessarily the primary objective of a collaborative
negotiator. Other values, such as the establishment or improvement of an ongoing relationship
with another party or negotiator, may be more important to a collaborator than the size of the
payoff in the immediate negotiation.

Winning means being able to get an agreement with which both parties can live. Such an
agreement fairly satisfies the interests of both parties and encourages smooth administration once
the pact is consummated. The idea that each side can go to the negotiation table and have all its
need met without making some concessions or having to engage in some give and take is
unrealistic and can make the negotiations extremely difficult.

Amongst the best known proponents of win-win negotiation strategies are R. Fisher and W.Ury,
who produced a model of “principled bargaining” built around four strategies: 8

1) Separate the people from the problem: Involves communicative strategies that accept the
people as human beings and focus on the problem as a separate issue.

2) Focus on interests not positions: Involves avoiding the opposing party’s positional stance,
but looking for the underlying interests; a communication strategy that looks at the
underlying message.

7
Roberts, Simon A, Roberts, Simon, Palmer, Michael, “Dispute processes: ADR and the primary forms of decision-
making”, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pg 137

8
Lewthwaite, Julie, “Managing people for the first time: gaining commitment and improving performance”,
Thorogood Publishing, 2006, pg 78

5
 3) Invest options for mutual gain: Creates or uses external standards that are untouched by
the bargaining process.

Collaborative negotiation can be much less intense because of the parties’ attitude to power
within the negotiation. Where parties set out to balance power, this gives clear message about
the quality of the relationship and the degree to which the parties wish it to continue. This
type of negotiation is aimed at leveling power imbalance within a relationship. As such,
focus is maintained on long-term rather than short-term implications. In a collaborative
negotiation both parties can gain. Time and energy is devoted to jointly solving problems and
to resolving differences. Collaborative negotiation integrates differences. There are no losers
in a collaborative negotiation. Successful collaborative negotiations only produce winners.9

With a solid win-win agreement both parties involved have a stake. Both parties will be
motivated to make the agreement become a reality. This motivation to make the agreement
work is why collaborative negotiation is such an affective approach. Once a collaborative
negotiation is concluded the people involved want to make the agreement work. They are
motivated because they will be gaining. Both parties will be gaining and so both parties will
be committed to making the agreement live.

The strategic points of this type of negotiation are:

1) A focus on mutual interests, not mutually exclusive, and conflicting positions

2) Effective listening to determine the interests behind with the positions

3) Working together not against each other, to come up with creative solutions

But for the win-win strategy to work, both parties need to agree to use it. Both parties have to
play by the win-win rules. So, for the win-win to work, both sides have to trust each other.
You’ve got to focus on interests, not positions. And you’ve got to be committed to seek out
creative solutions actively that are best for both sides.

9
Hazeldine, Simon, “Bare Knuckle Negotiating: knockout negotiation tactics they don’t teach you at business
school”, Cabal Group Limited, 2006, pg 8

6
Win-win types of agreement can lead to better feelings among negotiating partners because each
side views itself as better off under agreement than without it. Positive non-zero sum solutions or
win-win agreements offer gains to both sides with few or no concessions which one of the sides
would regard as a “loss”.

For example, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the positive non-zero sum strategy model was
temporarily made operative in the Emir Feisal- Chaim Weizman agreement at the 1919 Paris
Peace Conference. The heads of both the Zionist and the Pan-Arab national movements pledged
to support each other’s aspirations. Both leaders hoped this coordination would advance their
respective demands for territorial control over parts of the Middle East which the Ottoman Turks
had been forced to evacuate. The agreement became moot when the British and French
governments failed to live up to what the Pan-Arab movement believed to be its entitlement to
sovereignty over most of the territories liberated from Ottoman rules. They felt betrayed when
French troops drove King Feisal and his supporter from Damascus, where he had been installed
as ruler of an independent state.

The terms of the PLO-Israeli interim agreement for peaceful co-existence concluded in
September 1993 to establish a Palestinian Interim Self Government Authority also include many
win-win provisions, including a commitment to cooperation for enhancement of the available
supply of water.

The win-win approach was even more pronounced in the Peace Treaty between the State of
Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan signed on October 26th 1994. For instance, Israel
agreed to acknowledge Jordanian sovereignty over near borderline wells, which Israeli farmers
had drilled on Jordanian territory during their 46years of being officially at war.

7
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acuff, Frank L., “How to negotiate anything with anyone anywhere around the world”,
AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, 2008, pg 5, 6

Ahlstrom, David, Bruton, Garry D, “International Management: strategy and culture in the
emerging world”, Cengage Learning, 2009, pg 317

Brett, Jeanne M, “Negotiating Globally: how to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make
decisions across cultural boundaries”, John Wiley and Sons, 2007, pg 11

Deutsch, Morton, Coleman, Peter T, Marcus, Eric Colton, “The handbook of conflict resolution:
theory and practice”, John Wiley and Sons, 2006, pg 31

Fisher, Roger, Ury, William, Patton, Bruce, “Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without
giving in”, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1991

Guasco, Matthew P, Robinson, Peter R, “Principles of negotiation: strategies, tactics, techniques

to reach agreements”, Entrepreneur Press, 2007, pg 5

Harvard Business School Press, Society for Human Resource Management, “The essentials of
negotiation”, Harvard Business Press, 2005, US

Hazeldine, Simon, “Bare Knuckle Negotiating: knockout negotiation tactics they don’t teach you
at business school”, Cabal Group Limited, 2006, pg 8

Johnson, Ralph A, “Negotiation basics: concepts, skills and exercises”, SAGE, 1993, pg 1

Lewthwaite, Julie, “Managing people for the first time: gaining commitment and improving
performance”, Thorogood Publishing, 2006, pg 78

Morak, Dajana, “Cooperative Negotiation”, GRIN Terlog, 2009, pg 3, 4

8
Nieuwmeijer, L, “Negotiation: methodology and training”, HSRC Press, 1992

Roberts, Simon A, Roberts, Simon, Palmer, Michael, “Dispute processes: ADR and the primary
forms of decision-making”, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pg 137

Schneider, Kupfer, Andrea, Honeyman, Cristopher, American Bar Association. Section of

Dispute Resolution, “The negotiator’s fieldbook”, American Bar Association, 2006