little bit on this. So in integrative

negotiation, both sides try to find out

what the other side needs. This is

really the key point. They want to

understand each other. Now, again, it

sounds great in theory, very difficult to

execute. Why? Because if both sides are

not both working towards win-win, then

one side is going to win. That's the side

who's secretly trying to win-lose.

Because I'm going to be honest with you.

I'm going to tell you a lot of

information. I'm going to tell you all of

those things that usually I'd be trying

to keep secret. I want you to understand

me. I want you to understand me. I want to

understand you. You want me to understand.

When it's mutual, we have a much better

chance to have a maximal outcome, rather

than fighting over every point, rather

than taking a strong stand, rather than

giving a dollar discount, giving 50 cent

discount, giving 10, rather than doing

this kind of idea. It's possible that we

find out what both sides want is

different. And we can give different

things to both sides. Integrative

negotiation generally moves through four

stages. Stage 1, stage 2, stage three, stage

4. Let's take a look at these stages a

little bit. Stage one is to find the

common problem. So we need to understand

what is it that's different between us.

Stage two is understand more. Let me

understand what do you want, why do you

want it? right? You don't...want

the hot dog. why don't you want the hot

dog? You're on a diet. What kind of diet?

Oh, you're not allowed to eat bread. How

about half the bread? Oh, no bread, OK. Now

I understand--understand the needs. Stage

3-- brainstorming to think up solutions.

Think up solutions, come up with ways to

make both sides happy. And then Stage

Four--

Take the solution that is best for both

sides. That's not compromise. That doesn't

mean half and half. It means pick the

solution from your list of solutions,

possibilities to help both sides get

what they want. Key to this is you need

to really work towards this idea of

mutual benefit, and also you need to

avoid being personal. I think in the

example we just saw, was...

interesting when we look at the job

interview. We didn't get personal. We

didn't say, "You know, I don't like your

attitude or you're being too forceful.

You're asking for too much." We often do

that in distributive bargaining, so we're

trying to make the other side look bad.

We're trying to make the other side

saying, "You don't compromise. Yyou don't

give in enough. You're not working

together." We say that because we want to

push the other side to give in more. In

this case, we try not to say those

things. We don't accuse the other side of

something. We don't say you're not giving

in. We don't say that they're trying to

push on something too hard. Rather we

just stay open, and we say, "Explain more.

Why do you want that? What's up with that?

What's the deal on that? Can I understand

you more? Let me understand." And by

understanding more, I can maybe find

something there, like: hey you eat the

hot dog I'll eat the bread, or hey take

the lower salary now, but then you're

going to get lower tuition costs after

you come to work for us. That's pretty

cool.

"A number of tactics are helpful in

moving through these four stages." We're

going to look at tactics a little bit

more in the next unit of this. But just

to mention a few things here to help us

keep going. In the first stage, both sides

share their information by stating what

the problem is. A buyer may complain

about the product they receive were

defective as in quality problems. The seller

may complain about the product quality

was acceptable. So here we seem to have a

problem that's you know insurmountable.

One side thinks the quality is bad. The

other side thinks the quality is okay.

How can we overcome that? Well, the way to

do that is don't argue over who is wrong,

and who is right. In other words, don't

focus on that disagreement area. We

disagree about this quality. OKay, well I

think the quality is good. You think the

quality is bad. What can we do? Let's not

talk about that so much. Let's try to

talk about some other things. What are

some of the other things we can talk

about? Well, we can do things like try to

define the problem more clearly, that is

explain to me what is it about the

quality that was the problem when you

sold it to your customers. What happened?

What is it the customers found? What is

it they felt? What do they report to you?

What .....what were the

complaints they had? Explain to me more.

Show the facts. Okay, let me just list the

facts. Product A had this problem,

Product B had this problem. Let me just

show you the facts. In this way, it's not

personal. Don't come to a solution too

fast. Don't instantly say you must give

me something. You must replace this

defective product. You must return my

money. Rather at the beginning, we try to

de-emphasize a solution too early, and we

try to explain the situation more. Let me

help you understand what happened, and

let me listen to you to explain why you

did what you did. And I can explain why

I did ...

what I did. Okay. After we get a little bit of

understanding, understanding the situation

understanding the context, now we go to

stage two. Find interest and needs. What is

it you need? So in this one, we need to

explain what do I want, right? Now at the

beginning, we were talking about things

like our targets, our goal package.

Remember? and that's useful, but here

we're trying to stay more open. So we're

going to say, "What is it I really want?" So

in my case of a defective product, I

don't really care about the defective

product. What I care about is my

customers. I bought your product. My

customer said it had a problem. What is

it I want? I want my customers to be

satisfied, to not complain. So you need to

begin to ask yourself what do you want?

and then explain that to the other side.

You need to try to understand what does

the other side want. So you ask yourself

questions like "What do I want? how

important is this to me? how important is

this relationship to me?" Something we've

talked about previously, so both sides

try to understand each other, and by

understanding each other, they may get a

better idea of what the problem is. And

then we do a little bit of brainstorming.

We try to come up with solutions. The key

point here is to not criticize solutions,

not to shoot down solutions, but to

generate as many solutions as possible,

thinking outside of the box, expanding

the pie, coming up with different ideas.

Think of as many as possible, be creative

and think of anything. Don't criticize

ideas as being bad. Just come up with a

list. Generate ... as many

ideas as possible for what could

possibly be a solution. Then in the end,

you're going to stage four. You're going

to choose one of those solutions.

And then you choose the solution that's

maximal for both sides. Okay, so I think

why did I cover integrative bargaining

second and distributive bargaining first?

And the reason is because I think it's

very easy for us to believe or feel, "Hey

integrative bargaining is wonderful.

Everyone gets together. Everyone is happy.

It's win-win. We should always work to

win win." But I want you to keep in mind

that's easy to say. It's hard to do. The

key part of having a successful

integrative negotiation is that both

sides are being integrative orientation,

or holding integrative orientation. They

both want to win-win. You don't know that

that's always true for the other side.

They'll tell you, "I'm being honest." Are

they being honest? Are they telling you

the truth? Is that really what they're

thinking? It's not easy to know, maybe

impossible to know, maybe you need to

have a track record or history so we

could say: "Well, if maybe this one time, I

believe you and then if it's successful,

then later next time, two months later,

six months later, a year later, we

negotiate, I know I can trust you. You

know you can trust me." So at some time I

have to make that sacrifice. At the same

time, you may believe you make that

sacrifice, but then in this specific deal

that is not true, and you end up losing.

So you need to ask yourself at the

beginning, as we said, "How important was

that relationship? How important was

getting that deal?" We may lose a deal. We

may get a bad deal because you thought

you were working towards win-win, but you

weren't. Then you may consider that if

your job depends on it, and you need to

maximize this deal, are you ready to take

that chance that trusting the other side

is going to really get you what both

sides want?

I'm not sure. That's something you need

to judge. So there's no easy answer, but I

do want to emphasize: Be careful. Don't

assume everything's win-win. Don't just

go up to another group during our RPG

and say, "Hey I'm win-win. You're win-win

Let's be win-win. Let's be integrated."

Yeah, okay. It's possible, but it's not

likely. So be careful. Think about it,

maybe establish some relationships, and

know who you can trust, and who you can't

trust. All right, Well, that's a happy

ending, right? We have integrated

negotiation. Good luck with your

integration! Win-win. Expand the pie. Think

out the box, there's a bunch of phrases

like this. Good luck with your

negotiations! See you next time!