◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙

The Steps of Integrative Bargaining:

1. Specify the Problem.

Both sides should agree on how the problem is defined.
a. Try to identify the true problem.
b. Avoid secondary and irrelevant issues. Don’t try to gain a better bargaining position by including several phony issues that you plan to use as "bargaining chips."
c. Avoid minor issues that you can’t do well on if they are not essential to securing an agreement.
d. Separate the people from the problem. That is, don’t attack the other person, even if they act like a "jerk." Such hostility does nothing to solve the problem.

    

2. Specify a Standard.

Identify a "measuring stick" for comparing settlement options. Specify concrete objectives or goals – how will you both know that you have each been fully satisfied with an agreement?
For example, If you were buying a set of deck furniture, you would probably have an objective measure (e.g., measuring tape) to insure that any deck furniture you buy can actually fit within the confines of your deck. If it is the wrong size, it is a less desirable option than one that fits perfectly.
Integrative Bargaining is sort of like two people (say, a husband and wife) buying deck furniture, except that each person comes into the negotiation with their preferred brand and model of furniture already picked out (but subject to change) and with a wider variety of criteria to consider, such as:
-Price,
-Durability,
-Size,
-Comfort,
-Ease of lifting or moving, and/or
-No. of Chairs in the set.
The trick is to decide how to satisfy multiple standards (e.g., getting the most durable chairs for the least money) by comparing different options.

 

An Example:
Farmer Jimbo and Farmer Bo-Jed were brothers. They each owned farms on each side of their father’s homestead. Their father had just died, leaving the farm to his two sons, but not specifying how it should be divided. Jimbo and Bo-Jed were having a disagreement over how to divide the land. The most obvious way would be to split the farmland down the middle. But is that the best way? Farmer Jimbo grows apples and raises goats; Jimbo really prefers hilly land. Farmer Bo-Jed grows wild rice and raises water buffalo; Bo-Jed prefers the marshland in the valley where a creek flows.

 

Drawing: Farmer's Goat
Perhaps a way to frame the problem would be: "How can we divide the land so that we can each grow our preferred crops?" The objective is clear and different ways of dividing the land can be compared to see how well each settlement option meets this objective.
Test yourself:
     When specifying the problem, you should:
Click here if you think this is the best answer. Include lots of minor ("phony") issues, so you can drop them to get what you REALLY want.
Click here if you think this is the best answer. Identify specific, concrete objectives.
Click here if you think this is the best answer. Intimidate the other side. After all, "the person is the embodiment of the problem."
Click here if you think this is the best answer. Be purposely vague.
Click here if you think this is the best answer. Let the other person define the problem, while you keep your objectives to yourself.

 

◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙