crucial to selecting appropriate negotiation strategies (Ingram et al . 1984; 

 Harter and Eads 1985). 



The competitive strategy is the one most frequently written about in the 

 literature on negotiation (Nirenberg 1977; Cohen 1980; Gifford 1985). This 

 approach assumes a zero-sum game in which one party's gain is necessarily 

 another's loss. It also assumes that the resources at stake are limited and 

 that all parties value the same elements of the disputed resources. This 

 approach is an adversarial one, in which the tactics are designed to maximize 

 one's own gain by convincing the other participants to settle for less. These 

 tactics include: making a high initital demand, partial and reluctant dis- 

 closure of information, few and small concessions, inflexibility, the use of 

 arguments and threats, and the taking of strong positional stands. There is a 

 fear of image or positional loss, and the concessions of the other side are 

 often taken as a sign of weakness (Menkel-Meadows 1984; Gifford 1985). 



The cooperative strategy emphasizes compromise as a legitimate means to a 

 fair and equitable result — even when the parties are deciding how to divide a 

 limited resource. The idea is to build and maintain organizational relation- 

 ships based on trust. Thus, a negotiator using this approach makes a fair 

 opening bid, values concessions, initiates concessions to create the obligation 

 to reciprocate, expects reciprocity, is accommodating of the needs of the 

 other parties, and attempts to maintain or even enhance the interorganiza- 

 tional/interpersonal relationships involved (Lowenthal 1982; Gifford 1985). 



While both the cooperative and competitive strategies focus on the 

 opposing positions involved, and each tries to obtain as many concessions as 

 possible from the other side, an attempt is made with the third approach to 

 reconcile the parties' interests. The integrative strategy is most successful 

 where the parties' interests are not directly opposed, and where the issues at 

 stake are numerous and diverse. Here, the negotiators seek to: identify 

 complementary interests, invent solutions, promote positive-sum results in 

 which one party's gain is not necessarily another's loss, separate the people 

 from the problem, focus on underlying interests and needs — not positions, 

 develop objective standards by which to judge options, and exchange information 

 freely (Gifford 1985). 



Several factors should be considered prior to selecting the optimal 

 negotiation strategy for a particular conflict. The most important of these 

 is the negotiating style of the other parties. This is because the competitive 

 strategy can be used to exploit organizations using a noncompetitive approach. 

 If a negotiation process is dominated by an organization using the competitive 

 strategy, the other organizations may be forced to adopt this strategy 

 themselves — or risk exploitation. Two key elements in making this deter- 

 mination are strategies adopted by the other organizations in the past and the 

 negotiation styles exhibited at the beginning of the negotiation process. An 

 organization that generally or initially adopts the competitive approach is 

 likely to continue to do so, unless it can be convinced otherwise (Gifford 

 1985). 



The second factor is organizational power: How powerful a player is a 

 particular organization likely to be? An extremely powerful organization can 



63 



