Editing Negotiation (section)

== Types ==
[[File:Moscow negotiations paaskivi yrjokoskinen nykopp paasonen 1939.png|thumb|[[J. K. Paasikivi]], Finnish Counselor of State and the future [[President of Finland]], arrived from negotiations in [[Moscow]] on October 16, 1939. From left to right: [[Aarno Yrjö-Koskinen]], Paasikivi, [[Johan Nykopp]] and [[Aladár Paasonen]].]]
Negotiation can take a variety of forms in different contexts. These may include conferences between members of the [[United Nations]] to establish international norms, meetings between combatants to end a military conflict, meetings between representatives of businesses to bring about a transaction, and conversations between parents about how to manage childcare.<ref>Chris Honeyman & Andrea Kupfer Schneider, eds., The Negotiator's Handbook (Dispute Resolution Institute Press, 2017; Victor Kremenyuk, ed., International Negotiation. JosseyBass, 2nd ed. 2002)</ref> [[Mediation]] is a form of negotiation where a third party helps the conflicting parties negotiate, usually when they are unable to do so by themselves. Mediated negotiation can be contrasted with [[arbitration]], where conflicting parties commit to accepting the decision of a third party. Negotiations in the workplace can impact the entire organization's performance.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Swann Jr. |first1=William B. |last2=Johnson |first2=Russell E. |last3=Bosson |first3=Jennifer K. |date=2009 |title=Identity negotiation at work |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191308509000057 |journal=Research in Organizational Behavior |language=en |volume=29 |pages=81–109 |doi=10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.005|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two primary types of negotiation: distributive negotiation and integrative negotiation.<ref>Richard Walton & Robert McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations [McGraw-Hill 1965]; Leigh Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator [Prentice-Hall 2001]; I William Zartman & Victor Kremenyuk, eds., Peace vs Justice: Negotiating Forward- vs Backward-Looking Outcomes. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005]</ref> The type of negotiation that takes place is dependent on the mindset of the negotiators and the situation of the negotiation. For example, one-off encounters where lasting relationships do not occur are more likely to produce distributive negotiations whereas lasting relationships are more likely to require integrative negotiating.<ref>{{cite book |last=Shell |first=G Richard |url=https://archive.org/details/bargainingforadv1999shel |title=Bargaining for Advantage |date=1999 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=9780670881338 |location=United States |url-access=registration}}</ref> Theorists vary in their labeling and definition of these two fundamental types.

=== Distributive negotiation ===
{{See also|Zero-sum game|Win-lose game}}

'''Distributive negotiation''' (also known as '''Win-lose game'''), compromise, positional negotiation, or hard-bargaining negotiation attempts to distribute a "fixed pie" of benefits. Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions, where it is assumed that any gain made by one party will be at the expense of the other. Haggling over prices on an [[open market]], as in the purchase of a car or home, is an example of distributive negotiation.

In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme or fixed position that they know will not be accepted, and then seeks to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value. A distributive negotiation often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship with each other and are unlikely to do so again shortly, although all negotiations usually have some distributive element.<ref name=":0">Saner, Raymond. ''The Expert Negotiator'', The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2000 (p. 40)</ref> Since [[prospect theory]] indicates that people tend to prioritize the minimization of losses over the maximization of gains, this form of negotiation is likely to be more acrimonious and less productive in agreement.<ref>{{cite book|last=McDermott | first=Rose | title=Prospect Theory and Negotiation | editor-last=Avenhaus | editor-first=Rudolf | editor2-last=Sjösted | editor2-first=Gunnar | chapter=Negotiated Risks | publisher=Springer | location=Germany | date=2009 | isbn=978-3-540-92992-5 | pages=372 }}</ref>

=== Integrative negotiation ===
{{See also|Non-zero-sum game|Win-win game}}

Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, win-win, or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often value various outcomes differently.<ref>John Nash, "The Bargaining problem", Econometrica XVIII 1:155–162, 1950; G C Homans, Social Behavior. Harcourt, Brace and world, 1961</ref> While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie") by either "compensating" the loss of one item with gains from another ("trade-offs" or [[logrolling]]), or by constructing or reframing the issues of the conflict in such a way that both parties benefit ("win-win" negotiation).<ref>{{cite book| title=Creative Experience | last=Follett | first=Mary | publisher=P Smith | location=United States | date=1951 }}</ref>

However, even integrative negotiation is likely to have some distributive elements, especially when the different parties value some items to the same degree or when details are left to be allocated at the end of the negotiation. While concession by at least one party is always necessary for negotiations,<ref name="Langlois"/> research shows that people who concede more quickly are less likely to explore all integrative and mutually beneficial solutions. Therefore, early concession reduces the chance of an integrative negotiation.<ref>{{cite journal|last2=Hufmeier|last3=Loschelder|last4=Schwartz|last5=Collwitzer|date=2011|title=Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself in the opponents shoes helps to walk towards agreements|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=101|issue=4|pages=771–790|doi=10.1037/a0023801|pmid=21728447|last1=Trotschel|url=http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/771.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.728.9853}}</ref>

Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the formation of a relationship, although [[INSEAD]] professor Horacio Falcao has stated that, counter-intuitively, trust is a helpful aid to successful win-win negotiation but not a necessary requirement: he argues that promotion of interdependence is a more effective strategy that development of trust.<ref>Falcao, H., [https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/seven-myths-win-win-negotiations The Seven Myths of Win-Win Negotiations], ''INSEAD Knowledge'', accessed 3 December 2023</ref> Integrative negotiation can also involve creative problem-solving in the pursuit of mutual gains. It sees a good agreement as one that provides optimal gain for both parties, rather than maximum individual gain. Each party seeks to allow the other party sufficient benefit that both will hold to the agreement.

Productive negotiation focuses on the underlying interests of both parties rather than their starting positions and approaches negotiation as a shared problem-solving exercise rather than an individualized battle. Adherence to objective and principled criteria is the basis for productive negotiation and agreement.<ref name="AgainstGridlock-p1">Gregory Brazeal, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1730725 "Against Gridlock: The Viability of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation"], ''Harvard Law & Policy Review'' (Online), vol. 3, p. 1 (2009).</ref>

===Text-based negotiation===
Text-based negotiation refers to the process of working up the text of an agreement that all parties are willing to accept and sign. Negotiating parties may begin with a draft text, consider new textual suggestions, and work to find the middle ground among various differing positions.<ref>World Trade Organization, [https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/fish_09oct20_e.htm WTO members search for compromise as text-based negotiations on fishing subsidies continue], published 9 October 2020, accessed 15 October 2020</ref>

Common examples of text-based negotiation include the redaction of a [[constitution]], [[law]] or [[sentence (law)|sentence]] by a [[constitutional assembly]], [[legislature]] or [[court]] respectively. Other more specific examples are [[United Nations|United Nations']] negotiation regarding the reform of the [[UN Security Council]]<ref>United Nations, [https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/01/488342 Previewing work ahead, UN Assembly President says Member States must agree a bold post-2015 agenda], published 15 January 2015, accessed 16 October 2020</ref> and the formation of the [[international agreement]] underpinning the [[Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]] (RCEP) in the Asia-Pacific Region,<ref>[[CNA (TV network)|CNA]], [https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/rcep-negotiations-signing-expected-2020-12062560 15 nations complete 'text-based' negotiations for RCEP, signing expected in 2020], accessed 15 October 2020</ref> where the parties involved failed in 2019 to agree on a text which would suit [[India]].<ref>[[CNA (TV network)|CNA]], [https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/india-will-not-join-rcep-trade-deal-12062880?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_24082018_cna India will not join RCEP trade deal in blow to sprawling Asian pact], published 4 November 2019, accessed 16 October 2020</ref>

{{anchor|Singleu}}Such negotiations are often founded on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". For example, this principle, also known as the '''single undertaking approach''', is often used in [[World Trade Organization]] negotiations,<ref>World Trade Organization, [https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/work_organi_e.htm How the negotiations are organized], accessed 29 January 2024</ref> although some negotiations relax this requirement.<ref>Winslett, G., [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-trade-review/article/abs/critical-mass-agreements-the-proven-template-for-trade-liberalization-in-the-wto/1411D2BF2BAC8046E2A45EE23B316CB7 Critical Mass Agreements: The Proven Template for Trade Liberalization in the WTO], published online by [[Cambridge University Press]], 20 July 2017, accessed 29 January 2024</ref> The principle formed part of the British negotiating approach for the Brexit deal following the UK's [[Withdrawal from the European Union by the United Kingdom|withdrawal from the European Union]].<ref>Hope, C., [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/11/theresa-may-tell-ireland-nothing-agreed-terms-brexit-row-deal/ Theresa May to tell Ireland 'nothing is agreed' on terms of Brexit as row over deal intensifies], ''The Telegraph'', published 11 December 2017, accessed 29 January 2024</ref>

=== Integrated negotiation ===
''Integrated negotiation'' is a strategic attempt to maximize value in any single negotiation through the astute linking and sequencing of other negotiations and decisions related to one's operating activities.

This approach in complex settings is executed by mapping out all potentially relevant negotiations, conflicts, and operating decisions to integrate helpful connections among them while minimizing any potentially harmful connections (see examples below).

''Integrated negotiation'' is not to be confused with ''integrative negotiation'', a different concept (as outlined above) related to a non-zero-sum approach to creating value in negotiations.

Integrated negotiation was first identified and labeled by the international negotiator and author Peter Johnston in his book ''Negotiating with Giants''.<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://negotiatingwithgiants.com|title=Negotiating with Giants|last=Johnston|first=Peter D|publisher=Negotiation Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0980942101|location=United States|pages=Pages 4 to 5}}</ref>

One of the examples cited in Johnston's book is that of J. D. Rockefeller deciding where to build his first major oil refinery. Instead of taking the easier, cheaper route from the oil fields to refine his petroleum in Pittsburgh, Rockefeller chose to build his refinery in Cleveland, because he recognized that he would have to negotiate with the rail companies transporting his refined oil to market. Pittsburgh had just one major railroad, which would therefore be able to dictate prices in negotiations, while Cleveland had three railroads that Rockefeller knew would compete for his business, potentially reducing his costs significantly. The leverage gained in these rail negotiations more than offset the additional operating costs of sending his oil to Cleveland for refining, helping establish Rockefeller's empire, while undermining his competitors who failed to integrate their core operating decisions with their negotiation strategies.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/titan00ronc_0|title=Titan, The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr|last=Chernow|first=Ron|publisher=Penguin Random House|year=2004|isbn=978-1400077304|location=United States|pages=Pages 111 to 112}}</ref>

Other examples of integrated negotiation include the following:
* In sports, athletes in the final year of their contracts will ideally hit peak performance so they can negotiate robust, long-term contracts in their favor.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=22 January 2014|title=Athletes' performance declines following contract years.|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140122170622.htm|journal=ScienceDaily}}</ref>
* A union needs to negotiate and resolve any significant internal conflicts to maximize its collective clout before going to the table to negotiate a new contract with management.
* If purchases for similar goods or services are occurring independently of one another across different government departments, recognizing this and consolidating orders into one large volume purchase can help create buying leverage and cost savings in negotiations with suppliers.
* A tech start-up looking to negotiate being bought out by a larger industry player in the future can improve its odds of that happening by ensuring, wherever possible, that its systems, technology, competencies, and culture are as compatible as possible with those of its most likely buyer.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Negotiating with Giants|last=Johnston|first=Peter D.|publisher=Negotiation Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0980942101|location=United States|pages=Page 4}}</ref>
* A politician negotiating support for a presidential run may want to avoid bringing on board any high-profile supporters who risk alienating other important potential supporters while avoiding any unexpected new policies that could also limit the size of their growing coalition.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Negotiating with Giants|last=Johnston|first=Peter D.|publisher=Negotiation Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0980942101|location=United States|pages=168}}</ref>

=== Bad faith ===

When a party pretends to negotiate but secretly has no intention of compromising, the party is negotiating in [[bad faith]]; for example, when a political party sees political benefit in ''appearing'' to negotiate without having any intention of making the compromises necessary to settle.<ref>"negotiating in bad faith", an example of use of [https://web.archive.org/web/20120821234341/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bad+faith "bad faith"] definition in Oxford Online Dictionary</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=IBHS Union Voice |url=http://unitas.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/bad-faith-negotiation/ |title="Bad Faith Negotiation", Union Voice |publisher=Unitas.wordpress.com |date=2008-12-03 |access-date=2014-08-24}}</ref>

Bad faith negotiations are often used in [[political science]] and [[political psychology]] to refer to negotiating strategies in which there is no real intention to reach compromise or a model of [[Information processing (psychology)|information processing]].<ref>example of use – "the Republicans accused the Democrats of [https://web.archive.org/web/20120821234341/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bad+faith "negotiating in bad faith"], ''Oxford Online Dictionary''</ref> The "[[inherent bad faith model]]" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by [[Ole Holsti]] to explain the relationship between [[John Foster Dulles]]' beliefs and his model of information processing.<ref>Douglas Stuart and Harvey Starr, [https://www.jstor.org/pss/3791139 "The 'Inherent Bad Faith Model' Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger"], ''Political Psychology''{{subscription required}}</ref> It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent:<ref name="Gilbert & Fiske inherent">"...&nbsp;the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one's opponent&nbsp;...", ''The handbook of social psychology'', Volumes 1–2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey</ref> A state is presumed implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are [[John Foster Dulles]]' position regarding the Soviet Union.<ref name="Gilbert & Fiske inherent" />{{POV statement|date=June 2011}}