Running head: NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 1

Negotiation Theory Exploration

NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 2

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more parties or individuals intended to

resolve disputes. Successful negotiations will produce an agreement about a course of

action or outcome that satisfies various interests. We all negotiate every day in our lives,

from the give and take of individuals in a crowded subway car to serious business

discussions regarding expanding operations into a new country. There are various ways

to approach a negotiation, and a mediator’s style should vary to affect the most successful

outcome for a particular dispute.

A traditional style of negotiation, often referred to as positional bargaining, is one

in which each party chooses a position. Each party makes small concessions until,

hopefully, a compromise is met. Positional bargaining is based on fixed, opposing

viewpoints and tends to result in compromise or no agreement at all (Spangler, 2003).

This method of negotiating is inefficient, produces unwise agreements, and often

endangers the ongoing relationship (Fisher & Ury, 1991).

The purpose of this paper is to present information on two alternative styles of

negotiation: mutual gains bargaining and face negotiation. Section I will discuss the

mutual gains bargaining theory and model, and will compare the differences between it

and positional bargaining. Practical applications such as workplace conflict, labor and

collective bargaining disputes, and international business environments will be explored.

Section II will provide an overview of face negotiation theory, will explore the various

types of “face”, and will discuss its practical applications, focusing on international

business relations and uses by third party mediators.

NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 3

Section I. Mutual Gains Bargaining

Mutual gains bargaining is a theory of negotiation that focuses on “the creation of

value for all parties, by focusing on inventing options that meet all parties’ interests and

by using objective criteria to fairly divide gains” (Movius, Matsuura, Yan, & Kim, 2006,

p. 391). Mutual gains theory is closely related to integrative bargaining, interest-based

bargaining. It contains many of the same features of Fisher and Ury’s (1991) “principled

negotiation” approach.

The goal of mutual gains bargaining is to focus on outcomes that benefit all

parties. It is a collaborative process where parties actually end up helping each other.

The key to this approach is to determine interests over positions; this can be achieved by

asking “Why?” (Spangler, 2003).

Mutual gains bargaining has a prescriptive model that focuses on four sequential

negotiation tasks: preparation, creating value, distributing value and follow-through

(Movius et al., 2006). The first step, preparation, is the most important step in the

process. During this step you will define your team, research and understand your Best

Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), determine your interests, and work to

determine the interests of the other parties (Consensus Building Institute, 2004).

During the value creation stage, you will work with the opposing party to explore

the interests of both sides. It is important to refrain from criticizing the interests of others

during this stage. All parties will brainstorm for ideas to “make the pie larger” and try to

transform single-issue negotiations into multiple-issue negotiations. Following the

creation step, parties will distribute the value. During this phase, objective standards or
NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 4

criteria for “dividing the pie” will be discussed. It is important to use neutral language

and design self-enforcing agreements (Consensus Building Institute, 2004).

The fourth, and final, step of the mutual gains bargaining process is follow-

through. In this step the parties agree to monitoring arrangements and “create contingent

agreements to handle disputes about the future” (Movius et al., 2006, p. 392). The parties

should make it easy to uphold commitments and should commit to improving

relationships (Consensus Building Institute, 2004). The process of mutual gains

bargaining can typically produce more satisfactory outcomes than traditional, positional

bargaining, techniques (Spangler, 2003). With mutual gains bargaining, integrative

solutions can potentially give everyone what they want.

Mutual gains bargaining can be used in practical settings such as the workplace,

during labor relations and collective bargaining disputes, and in international business

transactions. In the workplace, mutual gains bargaining can be used in meetings or

negotiations to meet the needs of several parties. To be used effectively, an individual

should find out what the similarities and differences of what each party wants, and find a

way to focus on a mutual goal in order to build the discussion from a place where

individuals are feeling less threatened and less defensive (Rodley Irons, 2007).

Labor relations and collective bargaining disputes have a history of being very

confrontational encounters centered on power. Mutual gains bargaining offers several

significant changes to these negotiations: at the heart of mutual gains bargaining is the

assumption that the parties will be honest and open; there is an emphasis on shared

concerns, information is openly shared, parties seek the common ground that underlies
NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 5

the problem, and they seek to identify objective criteria that can be employed in making

decisions (Conry & Hale, 2002; Fisher & Ury, 1991).

Mutual gains bargaining is designed to move parties toward maximum mutual

gain and assumes mutual gain is possible. Several changes have been discovered in

negotiations where both parties utilize mutual gains bargaining: “interest-based

agreements account for more than double the number of innovations, especially with

respect to organization, compared to what can be found in traditional agreements”

(Paquet, Gaétan, & Bergeron, 2000, p. 290). In addition to creating more innovations,

interest based bargaining also facilities “a wider variety of innovations, which leads to

more changes in collective agreements, ultimately helping firms adapt to changing

environments” (Paquet et al., 2000, p. 292).

Mutual gains bargaining can be used in international business settings, but may

need to be adapted for a specific area’s customs and cultural norms. Mutual gains

bargaining is “well suited for adaption to East Asian countries,” (Movius et al., 2006, p.

431) specifically Japan, China, and Korea. The concepts of creating value and preserving

relationships, the importance of discerning interests and needs, and the focus on finding

criteria and explanations that are acceptable to parties that need to make difficult

decisions about allocating gains or losses easily translate into East Asian culture. To

increase the effectiveness of mutual gains bargaining, the process should be expanded in

several ways: parties should strive to match their team to their counterpart team in terms

of status and size and the use of middle men is encouraged to identify potential partners

and to verify capabilities and initiate the relationship building process. Additionally,

parties should plan to spend time on the relationship at the outset and work to create a
NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 6

comfortable setting for the negotiations, i.e. engage non-task conversation, use informal

breakout sessions to discuss sensitive issues, be aware of “face” and status concerns, and

be prepared to help counterparts during value claiming conversations (Movius et al.,

2006).

Section II. Face Negotiation Theory

People are constantly attempting to negotiate the way others perceive them – their

public self-image, or “face.” As cited by van Ginkel (2004), Ting-Toomey and Oetzel

(2001) describe “face” as “a claimed sense of desired social self-worth or self-image in a

relational situation” (p. 478). There are two main facets to face negotiation: face concern

and face need. Face concern refers to whose face is an individual trying to save, his own

or someone else’s. Where as face need questions whether autonomy is valued, or

whether inclusion is the primary concern.

There are four types of face that are present in negotiations: face-restoration, face-

saving, face-giving, and face-assertion. Face-restoration is protecting your own

autonomy. This is common in individualist cultures, such as the United States. Face-

saving is protecting the autonomy of another (van Ginkel, 2004). It can also be described

as “people’s attempts to protect or repair their images to others” (van Ginkel, 2004, p.

478). Face-giving is protecting another’s need for inclusion. It is common in Asian,

collectivist cultures where societies view others as more important and place a high value

on inclusion. Face-assertion is protecting your own need for inclusion (Ting-Toomey,

1988).

The appreciation and understanding of face negotiation can be an extremely

useful asset with respect to international business negotiations. As previously discussed,

NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 7

“face” is an important aspect of negotiations with Asian cultures. In China, the process of

mediation can be seen as a series of face-giving actions. “Between fifteen and forty

percent of U.S. managers sent to overseas, operations have been failures” (Matsu & Ting-

Toomey, 1992): individualist cultures tend to operate in an outcome oriented model,

where collectivist cultures tend to prefer a process driven model of negotiation (Ting-

Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). This difference can make many international negotiations

unsuccessful. Even is neither party to the negotiation has experience with “face”

negotiation, a skilled third-party mediator can use these preferences to guide the

mediation in a direction that is favorable to multiple parties (van Ginkel, 2004).

A third-party mediator can play an important role with respect to the climate

(overall character of the situation) and relationship among the parties involved. One way

a mediator can do this is through the successful use of and recognition of “face.” “Face”

can play a role in the process of mediation as part of the interaction or saving “face” may

be an underlying interest in a negotiation. “Face” can also establish the emotional tenor

of the situation, it can influence how much tolerance for disagreement seems possible,

and it can keep conflict moving towards a positive outcome (van Ginkel, 2004).

Conclusion

Face negotiation theory contradicts the philosophy of traditional, positional

bargaining methods, but combines easily with a mutual gains bargaining approach to a

negotiation. The need to save “face” often arises from the need to resist intimidation and

the fear that if a party backs away from a position they will appear weak. By focusing on

mutual interests, taking a team approach, and being aware of and sensitive to the
NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 8

negotiation styles of other cultures the mutual gains and face negotiation theories can be

used to create successful outcomes in most negotiations.

NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 9

References

Conry, T.W. & Hale, C.L. (2002). Does mutual gains bargaining affect negotiator’s

power?: Practitioners’ Perceptions of the affect of mutual gains bargaining on

their power in labor/management negotiations. IACM 15th Annual Conference.

Retrieved on September 18 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=304603 or

doi:10.2139/ssrn.304603

Consensus Building Institute (2004). Retrieved September 19, 2010, from

http://www.cbitraining.com/materials/MutualGains.pdf

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.

New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Matsu, B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1992). Cross-cultural face-negotiation: An analytical

overview. Presentation at Pacific Region forum on Business and Management

Communication, April 15, 1992. Retrieved on September 19, 2010, from

http://www.cic.sfu.ca/forum/ting-too.html

Movius, H., Matsuura, M., Yan, J., & Kim, D. (2006). Tailoring the mutual gains

approach for negotiations with partners in Japan, China, and Korea. Negotiation

Journal, October 2006, 389-435.

Paquet, R., Gaétan, I., & Bergeron, J. (2000). Does interest-based bargaining (IBB) really

make a difference in collective bargaining outcomes? Negotiation Journal, July

2000, 281-296.

Rodley Irons, K. (2007). Focusing on mutual gain in workplace negotiations. Associated

Content from Yahoo, April 16, 2007. Retrieved September 19, 2010, from
NEGOTIATION THEORY EXPLORATION 10

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/203230/focusing_on_mutual_gain_in_

workplace.html

Spangler, B. (2003). Integrative or interest-based bargaining. Beyond Intractability. Eds.

Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of

Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved September 19, 2010 from

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interest-based_bargaining/

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory, in

theories in intercultural communication, edited by Y. Kim and W.B. Gudykunst.

Newbury Park: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. & Oetzel, J G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Ginkel, E. (2004). The mediator as face-giver. Negotiation Journal, October 2004,

475-487.