Proposal 4: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS - NEGOTIATION IN PRACTICE

Your task is to choose between one of the proposed negotiation role-play/case study (Proposal 4.1 or
Proposal 4.2).

After you get familiar with the chosen role-play simulation, your task is to analyze each party’s
situation, conditions, perspective, and planned strategy. You should also think of each party’s BATNA
and propose an agreement that could satisfy others.

Useful files: Preparation for negotiation [pdf] and Source of power [pdf]

No matter what case study you choose please try to answer the following questions:

1. What is each partner’s overall goal in the negotiation? Why is this the goal?
2. What issues are most important to each partner in reaching this goal and why are these
issues important? (each side analysis)
3. What is each partner’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)?

Proposal 4.1. NEIGHBOURS

Role A: Chris the home-buyer

Last week Chris bought and moved into a semi-detached property on 93 Poplar Avenue. The house
and garden needs considerable work. Chris being a DIY enthusiast is up for the challenge. Shortly
after Chris moved in, the rickety back garden fence bordering 95 Poplar Avenue, blew down in a
night storm and caused some damage to the neighbour’s property. Having read the house deeds (in
full) Chris knows the fence is joint-owned by both sets of neighbours. Chris sees this as an
opportunity to meet the neighbours for the first time and decides to walk round and knock on the
door of 95 Poplar Avenue to resolve the matter.

Role B: Neighbours Steve & Jane

Steve and Jane have lived at 95 Poplar Avenue for 25 years. They love their house and spend hours in
the garden. Unfortunately, despite much effort they never got on with their previous neighbours at
93 Poplar Avenue because the property was always left in a derelict condition. Then suddenly 93
Poplar Avenue went on the market and in no time a new owner arrived. Both Steve and Jane were
delighted with the change but slightly nervous about who might move in. But before the couple
could meet their new neighbour a major night-time storm blew the back garden fence down and
destroyed a number of Steve and Jane’s garden ornaments. Some of the ornaments have significant
sentimental value. Both Steve and Jane feel frustration and resentment. Whilst talking about the
storm, the fence and the damage, Jane and Steve see their new neighbour walking towards the front
door. Discuss how best to resolve the current situation.

Proposal 4.2. HOUSE ON ELM STREET DECK (Pat & Tracy Role,files attached)

Questions to be answered [Express your own opinion]:

a. Did Pat and Tracy reach an agreement?

THEORY BEHIND (for each case study):

(Reading: [Link] page 398

Citation: „At the outset, it is important to note a fundamental distinction in the negotiation literature
between distributive and integrative bargaining. Distributive bargaining involves the allocation of
limited resources between parties with conflicting interests. In these situations, each negotiator is
usually attempting to claim as much value as possible, which comes at the expense of the other side.
Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, involves the search for mutually beneficial outcomes. This
type of negotiation also involves both the creation and the allocation of limited resources, often by
adding and trading off issues between parties with conflicting yet sometimes compatible interests
(Bazerman & Neale, 1992; Pruitt, 1981). In integrative situations, negotiators can create value, as well
as claim it, and one party's gain is not necessarily at the other's expense (Thompson et al., 2010).
Distributive and integrative approaches to negotiation are, in fact, not entirely separable because
efforts to create value can facilitate value claiming by resulting in more value to claim, and efforts to
create value can affect how it is divided or allocated. Lax and Sebenius (1986) noted the tension
between value creation and value claiming when they stated: "No matter how much creative
problem solving enlarges the pie, it must still be divided; value that has been created must be
claimed" (p. 33)”.

Elements of Principled Negotiation In Getting to Yes, Fisher, Ury, and Patton expand the idea of
integrative bargaining to include a checklist of principles.

These principles are designed to move any negotiation away from distributive bargaining to one in
which all parties are made better off.

The main elements are the following:

1. Know your BATNA. This principle was explained in Lecture 6 (01/04/2020).

Knowing one’s BATNA gives each player more power at the negotiating table. He or she can evaluate
options more critically and be clearer with other parties about what he or she needs to be part of any
agreement. In a scorable game, the BATNA is given to each player. These scores are based on
estimates of preference and on expected value of various outcomes.

2. Distinguish interests from positions.

Fisher, et al. distinguish between "interests," which are the underlying concerns of each party, and
"positions," which are the stands taken by each party on the issues being negotiated.

They argue that by focusing on interests rather than positions, parties can engage in integrative
bargaining and find creative ways to make all parties to the negotiation better off.

Positional bargaining occurs when parties do not focus on interests. In positional bargaining, each
party typically identifies bottom line, opening, and fallback positions before negotiation begins. After
the opening position is offered, each party makes small concessions, based on his or her fallback
strategy. Concessions are made grudgingly, until a compromise position is found or until the parties
reach an impasse. This type of bargaining builds little trust between the parties, as there is no
opportunity to develop a relationship, and no incentive to explore each other's interests. The result is
a process that moves backward from an opening position, rather than upward toward a creative
outcome. Most distributive bargaining follows this positional approach.

Focusing on interests, by contrast, compels the parties to listen carefully to each other to discover
what each feels is really important. Interests define the problem in a way that allows for
collaboration and creativity in fashioning a solution. The endeavor becomes one of joint problem
solving, rather than adversarial positioning.

As discussed in integrative bargaining, the parties using this approach can explore possibilities for
trade offs and joint gains, resulting in a positive-sum, rather than constant, agreement.

3. Invent options without committing

In order to explore the interests of parties at the table, the negotiating process should include the
opportunity to brainstorm possible approaches to problems. This encourages the creativity and joint
problem solving so essential to integrative bargaining. Parties are more likely to engage in this
process if it doesn't tie their hands and lock them into agreements before they are ready. Thus the
understanding should be that parties will not be held to options they propose during the inventing
period.

4. Insist on objective criteria

Criteria to evaluate proposed options should be objective, so each party feels his or her interests are
being protected. Sometimes such criteria are principles that the parties can agree should govern the
outcome, such as fairness or efficiency. Sometimes objectivity is insured by outside expertise, such as
when technical models are used.

The objective criteria themselves can be the subject of much negotiation, and this process can
highlight the underlying aspirations of each party. An agreement on such criteria can free up the
parties to invent options more creatively, knowing that the final evaluation will winnow out those
that don't meet the agreed-upon criteria.

5. Separate the people from the problem

By focusing on the problem rather than on the individuals and personalities at the table, parties can
more easily collaborate on joint problem solving.

Parties can work to identify common interests related to the problem, rather than getting stuck on
differences in style and tactics. This approach can also keep the emotions of the negotiation from
getting out of control; it's usually easier to deal with attacks on ideas than to handle personal
confrontations.

The Fisher, et al. work has its limitations, and there are several good articles* (eg. White, James, "The
Pros and Cons of Getting to Yes," Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 34, No. 1 (March 1984) that critique
the "principled negotiation" approach. You can focus on these critiques and the pros and cons of
principled negotiation when analyzing the case.
*For free when logged in (online reading):

[Link]