Negotiation can take different forms depending on the situation, the relationship between the parties and the value available to negotiate.
Three approaches are particularly useful to understand:
- Distributive negotiation: claiming value from a limited resource.
- Integrative negotiation: creating value by exploring different interests and possible trade-offs.
- Principled negotiation: the Harvard approach, which seeks agreement through interests, options and objective criteria.
“The most difficult thing in any negotiation, almost, is making sure that you strip it of the emotion and deal with the facts.”
Howard Baker
Distributive negotiation
The “Win-Loss” Value Claiming = The Hard Style
These are typical negotiations : situations in which the stakes are fixed in advance and one of the parties wins what the other loses.
Distributive negotiation is most often used in the business world where economic issues are at stake. Behavioral patterns suitable for this type of negotiation include: cautious communication, distrust, threat, and pretense.
To sum up, distributive negotiation assumes that the parties are engaged in an intense conflict.
Negotiating the hard way is especially painful in relationships. The counterpart is more of an adversary and considered an enemy. The primary goal is to win at the expense of all common sense. In this style of negotiation, everything is based on the requirement without any concession in return.
Example
You are selling a used company vehicle.
- Your asking price: €30,000
- The buyer offers: €24,000
- Your minimum acceptable price: €27,000
- The buyer’s maximum: €28,000
If price is the only variable, the negotiation is essentially distributive. The negotiable value lies between €27,000 and €28,000.
The question becomes: who captures more of that €1,000?
Integrative negotiation
The Value-Creating Negotiation “Win-Win” = The Soft Style
This type of negotiation corresponds to the zone of consensus. It implies a desire for compensation on both sides. It is this type of strategy that should be favored, a priori, to take into account the mutual interests of the parties.
It is characterized by a reasoned, constructive negotiation, where the balance of power is equalized. Each partner makes concessions to reach a balanced agreement. Trust, the search for alternative solutions, listening and understanding are essential here.
In the soft style, the other party is treated as a friend instead of an enemy. Here, the emphasis will be on finding an agreement rather than a victory.
The soft negotiator proceeds by making offers and concessions. He shows his confidence in the other party, tries to be friendly, and is ready to give in if it seems to be the only solution to avoid a confrontation.
The gentle negotiator focuses his interest on his relationship with his vis-à-vis. This method is widely used because it gives quick results.
Certainly, if both parties show generosity and open-mindedness, there is every chance of reaching an agreement. Even if there is no guarantee that this type of soft negotiation is judicious and prudent.
Example
Return to the €100,000 machine.
The buyer initially asks for a lower price. But discussion reveals that:
- the seller wants to protect the selling price;
- the buyer mainly needs to reduce immediate cash expenditure;
- delivery timing matters more to the seller;
- maintenance matters more to the buyer.
The negotiation can now include:
price + payment terms + delivery date + maintenance + training + warranty.
The parties have not magically eliminated conflict. They have expanded the negotiation.
This is the essence of integrative negotiation: Before fighting over how to divide the pie, ask whether you can make the pie bigger.
The reasoned negotiation. Harvard
This style of negotiation form the intersection between the needs of all stakeholders, as the common goal is to choose together the solution that best benefits all parties. The partners focus on finding common interests in order to find a rational agreement based on objective criteria.
Reasoned negotiation is based on four principles:
- Deal separately with questions of people (the relational dimensions) and the issue of the discussions (the problem).
- Focus on the interests at stake and not on the positions (the primary demands).
- Collectively explore several possible solutions.
- Seek an agreement based on objective and verifiable criteria.
In the long term, negotiation based on the win-win relationship is preferred. This often places the transaction in the context of reasoned negotiation, the objective of which is to reach an agreement based on the interests of both parties.
Reasoned negotiation, systematized by a team of Harvard professors, is an alternative to current commercial negotiation practices. It promotes the transparency of its method and it aims to respect the dignity of people and to find a balanced agreement that allows the partners to pursue their relations over the long term.
Exemple : From Positions to Interests
Imagine two departments negotiating over a limited annual budget.
Marketing says: “I need €500,000.”
Operations replies: “Impossible. You can have €300,000.”
Those are positions.
Principled negotiation asks what lies underneath them.
Marketing may need €500,000 because a product launch is approaching. Operations may resist because it needs cash to replace equipment carrying a major production risk.
Now the discussion can move from: €500k versus €300k
to: How can we protect both the launch and operational continuity?
That change does not guarantee agreement. It simply gives negotiators more information with which to build one.
“Negotiation is not a policy. It’s a technique. It’s something you use when it’s to your advantage, and something that you don’t use when it’s not to your advantage.”
John Bolton
In Summary
Distributive negotiation asks: How much value can I claim?
Integrative negotiation asks: Can we create more value before dividing it?
Principled negotiation asks: What are our underlying interests, what options exist, and what objective criteria can help us reach a sound agreement?
Effective negotiators need all three perspectives.
The objective is not to be permanently “hard” or permanently “soft”. It is to understand where value can be created, where it must be divided, and how to negotiate both without unnecessarily damaging the relationship.
KNOWING THE METHOD IS EASY.
USING IT UNDER PRESSURE IS DIFFERENT.
Your team understands interests, positions and value creation. But what happens when time is running out, information is incomplete and the other side refuses to move?
Put the concepts into practice through a realistic negotiation simulation, followed by a structured executive debrief.
BRING NEGOTIATION SIMULATIONS INTO YOUR ORGANISATION →
Go Further
Want to explore the concepts behind distributive, integrative and principled negotiation in greater depth?
Getting to Yes – Roger Fisher, William Ury & Bruce Patton
The classic introduction to principled negotiation developed through the Harvard Negotiation Project. It explores interests rather than positions, options for mutual gain and the use of objective criteria.
What Is Distributive Negotiation? – Harvard Program on Negotiation
An introduction to value claiming, bargaining ranges and the dynamics of negotiations in which parties compete over a limited amount of value.
What Is Integrative Negotiation? – Harvard Program on Negotiation
A practical overview of value creation, identifying different interests and expanding the range of possible agreements.
The Manager as Negotiator – David Lax & James Sebenius
A major contribution to negotiation thinking, particularly useful for understanding the tension between creating value and claiming value.