Strategies and Models of Negotiation

Introduction

Negotiation is not a chaotic process, but an activity that can be systematized, classified, and optimized. Over decades of research in the field of negotiations, scholars and practitioners have developed numerous models and strategies, each suitable for certain situations. Choosing the right strategy is a key factor in success. As Sun Tzu said: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

In this article, we will consider the main strategic approaches to negotiation, from the classic opposition of distributive and integrative models to the Harvard principled negotiation method, and the Thomas–Kilmann model.

Distributive vs Integrative Negotiations

This is a fundamental dichotomy in negotiation theory, defining the basic approach to the process.

Distributive negotiations (distributive bargaining) — the “fixed pie” model. The parties compete for the distribution of a limited resource. One party’s gain equals the other’s loss (zero-sum game). A typical example is bargaining at the market: the lower the price for the buyer, the less profit for the seller.

Characteristics of distributive negotiations:

• One main item of discussion (usually price)
• The parties have opposing interests
• Information is concealed (disclosing reservation price weakens one’s position)
• Focus is on positions, not interests
• Result: one party wins more, the other less

Integrative negotiations (integrative bargaining) — the “expandable pie” model. The parties seek ways to create additional value by satisfying the interests of both sides. This is possible when there are several items for discussion with different priorities for each party.

Characteristics of integrative negotiations:

• Multiple discussion items (price, deadlines, quality, volume, service)
• The parties have both common and differing interests
• Open information sharing increases efficiency
• Focus is on interests and needs
• Result: both parties receive significant value

Example of shifting from distributive to integrative negotiations: Two departments of a company argue over distributing a budget of 1 million rubles (distributive situation). However, if their real interests are discovered, it may turn out that one department needs funds in the first half of the year, and the other in the second. Or, one department may obtain some necessary resources not as money, but in the form of assistance from the other department. Thus, the “pie” expands.

Harvard Principled Negotiation Method

The Harvard method, developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury under the Harvard Negotiation Project, is outlined in the book “Getting to Yes” (1981). It is perhaps the most influential negotiation model in global practice. The method is based on four fundamental principles:

Principle 1: Separate the People from the Problem

Negotiations are conducted by people, and people have emotions, perceptions, values, and prejudices. When the problem is mixed with personal relationships, conflicts arise: criticism of a proposal is perceived as a personal attack. The solution—separate the two levels: at the level of relationships, show respect, empathy, and attention; at the problem level—be firm and principled.

Practical recommendations:

• Do not identify the person with their position. Instead of “You are making an unreasonable demand...” say “This proposal does not take factor X into account...”
• Listen actively and confirm understanding of the counterpart’s feelings
• Allow the counterpart to “let off steam” without reacting aggressively
• Look for a “gesture of goodwill” at the beginning of negotiations to establish trust

Principle 2: Focus on Interests, Not Positions

A position is what a party demands (for instance, “the price must be 100,000 rubles”). An interest is why the party demands it (for example, “we need to fit within the department budget” or “we want to show savings to management”). The same interest may be satisfied in many ways.

A classic example by Fisher and Ury: two sisters argue over an orange. Each’s position is “I want the orange.” But if the interests are discovered, it turns out one wants to squeeze the juice (pulp needed), the other to bake a cake (zest needed). Both can get 100% of what they want.

How to identify interests:

• Ask “Why?” (Why is this important to you?)
• Ask “Why not?” (Why do you disagree with proposal X?)
• Ask “What is most important to you in this deal?”
• Seek shared interests (both sides are interested in long-term relationships, stability, reputation)

Principle 3: Invent Options for Mutual Gain

Before deciding how to divide the “pie,” think how to enlarge it. This principle requires creativity and departing from “either/or” thinking. Techniques for generating options:

• Brainstorming (postpone critique and evaluation—first generate ideas)
• “Expanding the pie” method—add additional elements to the deal
• Logrolling—exchange of concessions on issues with different priorities
• “What if?”—hypothetical scenarios to explore the possibility space

Principle 4: Insist on Using Objective Criteria

Instead of a battle of wills, use objective standards to make decisions: market prices, expert appraisals, precedents, scientific data, legal requirements, industry standards. Objective criteria reduce emotionality and make negotiations more rational.

Win-Win vs Win-Lose Strategy

Win-lose (I win–you lose) — a strategy in which one party seeks to maximize their gain at the expense of the other. This is a competitive approach based on power, pressure, and tactical maneuvers.

When win-lose is justified:

• One-time deal without prospects for further relationship
• Purely distributive situation (one bargaining subject)
• The counterpart themselves uses an aggressive strategy
• Critical situation with limited time

Win-win (I win–you win) — a strategy of seeking a solution beneficial to both parties. This does not mean “half for each”—it means maximizing the total value and distributing it fairly.

When win-win is preferable:

• Long-term relationship with the counterpart
• Integrative situation (many items for discussion)
• Need for cooperation after concluding the deal
• Market reputation matters

Thomas–Kilmann Model

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed a model of five behavioral styles in conflict situations (1974), which is widely applied to negotiations. The model is based on two dimensions: assertiveness—attempting to satisfy one’s own interests, and cooperativeness—attempting to satisfy the other party’s interests.

1. Competition (high assertiveness, low cooperativeness)—“I win, you lose.” Strategy of hard pressure. Effective when: quick, decisive action is needed (crisis); the outcome is critically important to you; the counterpart exploits your flexibility.

2. Collaboration (high assertiveness, high cooperativeness)—“Let’s find a solution beneficial to both.” Requires time and trust, but creates maximum value. Effective when: both parties’ interests are too important for compromise; different perspectives need to be considered; long-term relationships matter.

3. Compromise (moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness)—“Let’s meet in the middle.” A quick, but not optimal solution. Effective when: goals are of moderate importance; a temporary solution is needed; cooperation or competition are impossible; parties are roughly equal in power.

4. Avoidance (low assertiveness, low cooperativeness)—“Let’s not discuss this now.” Postponing or ignoring the conflict. Effective when: the issue is trivial; no chance of satisfying interests; time is needed to gather information; confrontation is riskier than withdrawal.

5. Accommodation (low assertiveness, high cooperativeness)—“Okay, let’s do it your way.” Deliberate yielding to the other party’s interests. Effective when: you realize you are wrong; the issue is more important to the other party; you want to create a “goodwill credit”; preservation of the relationship is critically important.

Stages of Negotiation

Regardless of the chosen strategy, negotiations go through certain stages:

1. Preparation—gathering information, defining goals and BATNA, planning strategy.

2. Opening—establishing contact, defining the agenda, exchanging initial positions, creating a working atmosphere.

3. Exploration—clarifying both parties’ interests, exchanging information, clarifying positions and expectations.

4. Bargaining—exchange of offers and counteroffers, discussion of concessions, searching for solutions.

5. Closing—fixing agreements reached, documenting the agreement, defining next steps.

6. Implementation—fulfillment of agreement terms, monitoring, resolving arising issues.

Negotiation Matrix

The negotiation matrix is a tool for visualizing all discussion items and the positions of the parties. It helps to see the complete picture and find opportunities to create value.

This matrix shows opportunities for logrolling: we can make a concession on deadlines (low priority for us, high for them) in exchange for better warranty terms (high priority for us, low for them).

Practical Tasks

Task 1

Question: A mobile app development company is negotiating with a major retailer for the development of a mobile application for the online store. The retailer insists on a fixed price of 3 million rubles and a timeline of 3 months. The developer company believes a realistic price is 5 million rubles, and the timeline—5 months. Using the Harvard method and the negotiation matrix, propose a negotiation strategy for the developer.

Solution:

Application of the Four Harvard Principles:

1. Separate people from the problem: Do not criticize the retailer’s estimate as “unrealistic.” Instead: “We appreciate that you chose us for this project. Let’s work together to determine the best balance between functionality, deadlines, and budget.”

2. Focus on interests:

• Retailer’s interests: launch before sales season starts, stay within the approved budget, receive a quality product, outpace competitors
• Developer’s interests: fair payment, adequate time for quality work, reputation project (portfolio case), long-term cooperation

3. Generation of options (negotiation matrix):

Proposal (win-win):

• Split the project into 2 phases: MVP (core features) for 3 million and 3 months + full version for 2.5 million and 2 months. The retailer launches in season with MVP, the developer gets fair payment (5.5 million total)
• Alternative: price of 4.2 million for the full version in 4 months + 3 months free technical support + right to use the project as a portfolio case

4. Objective criteria: Provide market rates for development (average hourly cost), comparable competitor projects, data on development timelines for similar applications.

Task 2

Question: Determine which style from the Thomas–Kilmann model best fits each of the following situations, and justify your choice: (a) Negotiation on price with a supplier you have worked with for 10 years; (b) Conflict with a colleague over who will lead a project; (c) A client demands an immediate refund for a defective product; (d) A competitor offers a joint project.

Solution:

(a) Price negotiation with a long-term supplier—Collaboration. Justification: 10 years of joint work means the relationship is highly valued. A distributive approach (competition) risks destroying the partnership. Collaboration enables both to find a mutually beneficial solution: the supplier may offer a discount in exchange for increased volume, exclusivity, or prepayment. This creates value, not just redistributes it.

(b) Conflict with a colleague over project leadership—Compromise or Collaboration. If the project is important and complex—Collaboration: “Let’s split responsibility— you lead the technical part, I handle client communications.” Both receive leadership roles, and the project benefits from the combination of competencies. If the project is minor and not career-defining—Compromise: one leads this project, the other leads the next. Fast, fair solution.

(c) Client demanding refund for defect—Accommodation. The client is right (the product is defective), and maintaining the relationship is critically important. A swift and generous refund (possibly with a bonus—a discount on the next purchase) demonstrates client orientation and builds loyalty. Arguing with a client with a defective product is the worst strategy for reputation.

(d) Competitor offers a joint project—Collaboration with caution. Potentially high value (access to new markets, technologies, resources), but also high risks (leak of information, loss of competitive advantage). The strategy: collaborate within clear boundaries: define which information is shared, what remains confidential, how intellectual property is protected. Use a phased approach: start with a small pilot, and only expand cooperation if it succeeds.