The Author, Shivam Jasra is Managing Partner, Jasra and Jasra Law Office. He is a alumnus of King's College London.

INTRODUCTION

In negotiation, parties generally see two ways to negotiate a dispute, which can either be collaborative or competitive. It is completely at the will of the parties that which of the afore-said strategies they are going to use because both the strategies have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

Collaborative negotiation often creates collective or joint outcomes and is considered as a win-win situation for both the parties, However, Competitive negotiation, often creates individual or distributive outcomes which creates a win-lose situation for both the parties. Usually, the negotiating parties, try to draw a balance between the two strategies rather than choosing one of them to influence the negotiated outcomes. Therefore, it is not wrong to say that, collective and individual outcomes in negotiation are significantly influenced by the balance negotiators draw between collaborating and competing in negotiation.

The aim of this essay is to discuss the importance of balancing the collaborative and competitive strategies by negotiators to influence negotiating outcomes and also the importance of both the negotiation strategies for getting desired outcomes. Specifically, the paper agrees with the statement and argues that collective and individual outcomes are significantly influenced by the balance the negotiators draw between collaborating and competing in negotiation. The paper is organized as follows: the first part is the basic introduction to negotiation and how collaboration is used in negotiation for value creation and creating a win-win outcome for the parties. The second part will discuss the role of competition for claiming more value in negotiation from the other party. The final part is the tension between collaboration and competition for getting desired outcomes followed by the conclusion.

CONCEPT OF NEGOTIATION

Negotiation is a fact of life. Every individual negotiates in their life with other people every day. Some classic examples would be a negotiation between a man and his boss regarding a salary raise, negotiation between two strangers to agree on a price for a house, two lawyers trying to make a negotiated settlement of a lawsuit arising out of a car accident. All these are negotiations. Negotiation is considered as a basic instrument of getting what you want from others. It is the back-and-forth communication between the parties, when they have some interests in common and some opposed interest to reach out a settlement.[1]

Like Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain said that “People negotiate even when they don’t think of themselves as doing so”. He mentioned a classic examples like negotiation between husband and wife to decide a suitable place for dinner.[2] Therefore, we can say that negotiation has become an indispensable part of our life, since it is used as an essential tool for solving disputes which may arise in our social, business or family life. It can be said that if these disputes are not negotiated and settled, these unresolved disputes can cause substantial costs to the parties to the dispute.

Negotiation is often considered as to be taking an “Adversarial Approach” wherein each party proceeds with tactics and objectives which promotes ‘I win’ or ‘I win better than you’ philosophy.

The outcomes of any negotiation can be classified in 4 categories:

  • Win-Win (we both win - could also be described as compromise)
  • Lose-Lose (all parties lose)
  • Win-Lose (I win and you lose)
  • Lose-Win (I lose and you win)

Negotiation can essentially be considered as a 4-stage process. The 4-stages are ‘Preparation to negotiate phase’, ‘Opening Phase’, ‘Bargaining Phase’ and ‘Closure Phase’. The first stage consists of gathering information, understanding your counter-party, establishing a rapport, knowing your objectives and planning. The second stage is the ‘opening phase’ where both the parties meet each other and explain what they need from each other and tries to make an impression on the other side and influence their thinking. The third stage being the ‘bargaining stage’ consists of coming closer to the objective of the negotiation while convincing the other party of the appropriateness of your demands and making the other party to concede on those demands. The fourth and the last stage is the ‘closure phase’ where all the arguments made in the opening and bargaining phases are combined to seal an agreement.

COLLABORATION IN NEGOTIATION FOR VALUE CREATION

Collaborative negotiation is a strategy where both the parties have a common goal in mind. They try to achieve their goal by creating more value out of the deal, so that both the parties can get more and distribute it fairly. It is also known as integrative, interest based or problem-solving negotiation.

It is more of a course of action rather than a definition. It is an attitude which the parties to a dispute adopt towards problem solving. In collaborative negotiations, both the parties to the dispute are constantly seeking mutual benefits by creating more value and create a win-win outcome. In a win-win outcome, both the parties after negotiating a deal leave the table after gaining something of value. When the parties try to find strategies to enlarge the pie rather than getting a bigger slice and also use conservative strategies to secure an ample slice, the outcome is collective, and is considered as a win-win situation.[3]

Creating value in negotiation means “After signing of the negotiated agreement, both the parties should believe that the outcome of the negotiation leaves them as well off as they would have been in the event of no agreement between the parties.”[4] Value creators believes that, negotiators should be cooperative and inventive to conclude an agreement that yields considerable gain to each party.

Both the parties while using the collaborative approach must forget their initial concerns and positions. They should work hand in hand and go on a joint quest towards a creative path to maximize their joint and individual outcomes.[5] The parties must learn how to work together for their mutual gains and getting desired outcomes which will benefit everyone. Communication and information sharing are a major aspect of collaborative negotiation which helps negotiators to create value jointly. The parties can use various techniques such as brainstorming to invent creative solutions to their problems.

Collaborative negotiation treats ‘relationship’ between the parties as a valuable element while seeking an equitable agreement. Each party’s reputation, pride, principles and sense of fairness are duly taken into consideration as the negotiation stage on a rational reasonable and fair level.

For wise solutions, reconcile interests not positions

For creating value while negotiating a deal, the negotiators should always focus on the interests of both parties rather than their positions. Fisher and Ury in ‘Getting to yes’ stated that Interest define the problem. They say that “the basic problem in negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in conflict between each side’s needs, desires, concerns and fears. Such desires and concerns are known as interests.” Interests of negotiating parties plays a major role in negotiation and motivate them to negotiate a deal.[6]

A Perfect Example of looking on interests rather than positions would be the ‘Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty’.[7] The dispute between Egypt and Israeli was regarding the ‘Egyptian Sinai Peninsula’ which was occupied by Israel since the 6-day war of 1967. Whenever they tried to sit and negotiate a deal, their positions stopped them from getting a desired outcome. However, focusing on the interests of the parties rather than their positions helped them in developing a favorable solution. Egypt’s interest lied over Sinai’s sovereignty, however, Israel’s interest lied in their security and they did not want Egyptian forces to stay on the borders.

The deal between Israel and Egypt was negotiated by the president of Egypt and prime minister of Israel, which satisfied the interests of both parties rather than positions. Egypt got the sovereignty over Sinai and for the security interest of Israel, a large part of Sinai was demilitarized by Egypt. This had the effect of giving Egypt sovereignty and Israel security, which shows how focusing on interests rather than positions help in getting collective and joint outcomes.

Invent options for mutual gains

For collaborative negotiation, inventing new and creative options rather than bargaining on one position creates mutual benefits. The Sinai example discussed above clearly states this principle. A creative option invented during the above-mentioned Egyptian-Israel peace treaty often makes the difference between a deadlock and agreement between the parties. Inventing options acts as the most powerful asset of a negotiator where he can invent new options by being creative (expand the pie) and then divide it.

To invent creative options, the negotiators need to separate inventing from deciding, broaden the options, look for mutual gains and invent ways of making the decisions easy. Brainstorming before negotiation plays a major role in inventing more and more ideas as possible to solve the main problem of negotiation.

Is Collaboration Important?

Collaborative negotiation is an important aspect of negotiation and it is said to be more advantageous from competitive negotiation strategy. Negotiators view collaborative negotiation as a fair process that derives a win-win outcome. It also considers relationship between the parties as a valuable element and also seek an equitable and fair agreement.

Some of the factors that show collaborative negotiation as an important part of negotiation are:[8]

  • Win-Win Approach: Rather than assuming a fixed pie like in competitive negotiation, the parties try to enlarge the pie to create a win-win situation for both the parties, where both of the parties can leave the table with something valuable in their hand. They tend to create value to get a win-win outcome.
  • Fair-Process: Collaborative negotiation yields a fair process unlike competitive negotiation where even when one party leaves a table after winning, the end result is not often satisfying. Collaborative negotiation ensures a fair process by distributing the outcome in fair and equitable manner.
  • Joint Problem Solving: Both the parties in collaborative negotiation take benefit of the opportunities to work together on a single problem. The parties try to convert their individual positions into interests and desires of both the parties and free themselves from any jealousy and competition to get a beneficial outcome for both of them.
  • Transparency and trust: Collaborative negotiation works on the principle of transparency between the parties. Both the parties create trust in each other, so that both of them share their information (interests and desires) before even the other party asks for it.
  • Building Relationship: The most important thing in collaborative negotiation is to maintain and build relationship between the parties. Both the parties tend to be fair to gain the trust of other party for future commitments and deals.

So, we can conclude by saying that in Collaborative negotiations, all the decisions between the parties are taken together and the payoffs are equally distributed between them. There is a truthful exchange of information between the parties and a mutual commitment to find a suitable solution by brainstorming and other techniques for a desired outcome.

COMPETETION IN NEGOTIATION FOR VALUE CLAIMING

Competitive bargaining also known as hard, distributive or positional bargaining is done by the negotiators with the intention of maximizing their own gains over the gains of whom they are negotiating with. In this negotiation strategy, the negotiator tries to gain the maximum he can at the expense of other party’s gain and tries to create a I win - you lose situation.[9]

It is said to be the polar opposite of Collaborative negotiation, as in competitive negotiation, the relationship between the parties is considered as of no value. The parties rather than finding a solution for a mutual benefit, tries to benefit themselves. The negotiators in this strategy rather than enlarging the pie for creating value, assumes that there is a fixed pie and they will get a bigger piece of it. Competitive negotiation is also considered as positional bargaining, where the parties try to hold to their positions and are inflexible towards the interests of the other party. They are dominant towards others to maintain their position rather than fulfilling the interests of both the parties.

The negotiators who are value claimers and accept competition as their negotiation strategy, tend to see collaborative strategy and this drive for mutual gains as naïve and weak minded. For competitive negotiators, “negotiation is being hard and tough bargaining”.[10] They make the other negotiator believe that what they are offering is much more than what they are getting in return. For getting the best deals for themselves, competitive negotiators try intimidating and mislead the other negotiator.

The negotiator in order to win and make the other party lose by using competitive strategy follow a common strategy, they start bargain on a high price, then concede slowly, try to exaggerate the value of concessions, hide information from the other party and make commitments only to agreements highly favorable to them. It also involves a hostile behavior by the parties to each other offers and interests.

To maximize their share in negotiation, the parties use hard bargaining tactics, like threat, argumentation and forceful speaking. During the negotiation, the most hostile move, a negotiator can do is to threaten to walk away from negotiations, retaliate harshly to the interests of other party if their demands are not met and may intimidate their adversaries.

To explore the distributive aspects of bargaining, the negotiators on the basis of pie analogy, search for pie-slicing strategies while competing in negotiation. The negotiator tries to analyze the essentials of the negotiating deal which are the Alternatives, BATNA (Best alternative to a negotiated agreement), Reservation value of each party and ZOPA (Zone of possible agreement). The most valuable information in negotiation is a negotiator’s BATNA. After knowing the BATNA, the parties try to make out their reservation value. The reservation values of both the parties derive the ZOPA, where the bargaining surplus is to be divided.

To get most of the bargaining surplus by using the competing strategy, negotiators tends to use these strategies to get a favorable piece of pie:[11]

        1. Try to identify and improve their BATNA.
        2. Determining a reservation point but not revealing it.
        3. Figuring out the other party’s BATNA,
        4. Making the first offers,
        5. Reanchoring if the other party open’s first,
        6. Making bilateral offers with facts,
        7. Appeals to norms of fairness and do not fall for even split ploy.

The historical example of competitive strategy was the ‘Lehman Brothers Negotiation’[12] between Lewis Glucksman, the Co-CEO, Lehman Brothers with Peter G. Peterson, the Chairman of Lehman brothers, the large investment banking firm. Lewis Glucksman, the Co-CEO employed the hardest sort of tactics to gain control of the company from the CEO. He abruptly demanded the full control of the firm by making a thinly veiled threat that unless his demands are met, he will start a civil war against the company. When the CEO and others try to make a mutual settlement, he conveyed the impression that ‘he cannot do anything even if it leads to the destruction of the firm’. Ultimately Peterson, the CEO of Lehman Brothers left with a money settlement and Lewis Glucksman took over as CEO of the shaken firm. Finally, this led to the selling of Lehman Brothers at a bargain price to American Express.

The ‘Brexit negotiations’ is another perfect example of competitive bargaining between the European union and the United Kingdom. During the negotiations, the negotiators of the European union adapted a ‘relentless, dominant and uncompromising approach’. It is also said that EU’s strategic approach is a usual approach of rigidity and flexibility because they believe that they are the stronger party. The European union even after being on a stronger side, employed various strategies to increase it’s bargaining power and exert significant control over the negotiation. They even forced the United Kingdom to sign various concessions such as the role of ECJ and 39 billion pounds financial settlement.[13]

The European Union stuck on its principles on the belief that negotiating the deal is important for the United Kingdom. The European union thinks that if they will keep insisting on a no deal phenomenon, the key areas such as aviation and security will be ignored and there will be no more discussions on it. The European union tried to be more competitive and create a win-lose situation to get the most out of the deal or to create a no deal outcome.

Michael Barnier, the chief negotiator on behalf of the European union, took an inflexible approach showing that he actually doesn’t want to get an outcome of the deal. As Barnier was only allowed to discuss the matter which he has been authorized for by the European union leaders, his ability to take decisions and compromise is less. There is no proper information exchange, which is the essence of collaborative bargaining and the only approach adopted by EU is to directly reject the offers or proposing ‘take it or leave it offers.’[14] This shows their use of competitive strategy for negotiation.

In Competitive bargaining strategy, Information and communication plays a major role in getting a desired outcome. The motive of both the parties is to extract more and more information from the opposite party and use it for their benefit and disclose as little as they could. In most negotiations, each party has at least some information that the other party doesn’t have which is said to be ‘Information Asymmetry’. The party which is using competitive strategy try to pass through information asymmetries of other party and tries to gather more and more information to exploit the other party and getting a beneficial outcome for him but does not disclose his information.

The competitive negotiator sometimes uses Hard-Bargaining Tactics[15] as an approach to competitive negotiation like “Extreme claims followed by slow concessions, commitment tactics, take it or leave it offers, inviting unreciprocated offers, insults and feather ruffling, bluffing, lying, threats, warnings”. The competitive negotiation shares with the other party misleading information and bluffs so that they draw incorrect conclusions about their reservation value and BATNA which are eventually benefit them.

The competitive negotiator convinces the other party that he could only settle at a point which is not actually his reservation value. He takes a firm position and make slow concessions to make the other party think that he has a little to give. Therefore, competing with each other by making false representations and being rigid and not flexible is the essence of competitive bargaining.

Is Being Competitive Important?

Competition in negotiation plays an important role because it is said to be beneficial for the party using this strategy. The only motive of using the competitive strategy is negotiator’s gain over the gain of whom he is bargaining with. The competitive negotiator sees negotiation as a contest to win. Competitive approach creates an immediate gain for the competitive negotiator, and he is not much concerned with the relationship with the other party.[16]

When one party has more bargaining power and can dominate the other party for getting a bigger slice of pie, have an adversarial relationship and do not even care about their future relationship, they can use competitive negotiation strategy to gain something at the expense of the other party.

Thus, we can say that competitive negotiation is considered beneficial in negotiation of disputes which are only one-time transactions between the parties like claims and settlements and where the parties know that there is no future relationship between them. The parties in these disputes can adopt a competitive approach rather than being collaborative to defeat the other party and can get the best outcome for themselves. For Example., A salesman trying to sell a product to a buyer and the buyer being aware that this is a one-time transaction, he can use hard bargaining tactics to get the most beneficial deal.

BALANCE BETWEEN COLLABORATION AND COMPETITION

Understanding the negotiation theory begins with the realization that all negotiations involves collaboration and competition between the parties. Competition is involved in negotiation on the belief of parties that there are few and limited resources between them (Fixed pie) to satisfy their needs and both sides want the best results for themselves. Collaboration is involved on the belief that negotiation is a consensual process and it involves a measure of consensus to work. “Sharing of information, making concessions and then agreeing with the other side, involves co-operation.”[17]

To be effective in negotiation, a negotiator needs to learn ‘how the balance is to be drawn between collaboration and competition for getting a desired outcome.’ Inserting enough competition is necessary to get a good outcome for yourself and to prevent others from taking an advantage of you, however, being cooperative is necessary so that information is exchanged between the parties, outcomes for mutual gains is created, the relationships is not destroyed, and both the parties come to a solution as quickly as possible.

Information is the main factor for driving this tension between desire for distributive gain (Value claiming) and the opportunity for joint gains (Value creating). If a party doesn’t share information, it will be difficult for both the parties to find trades that might create value and make both the parties better off. However, sharing of too much information, will give the other party a chance to exploit the party sharing the information.

Disclosing one’s preferences, resources, interests and alternatives helps to create value while negotiating a deal, but it also poses a risk of misusing the information by the other party and risk with respect to distributive issues.[18]

The negotiators should very skillfully maintain a balance between collaboration and competition strategies by first using the competitive strategy to get the required information from the opposite party. When they receive the required information, they should be collaborative and find a mutual solution for the dispute. The competitive strategy should only be used to the extent that it does not affect the relationship between the parties and necessary information is derived from the opposite party.

The problem while drawing a balance between both the strategies is “How to create value while minimizing the risks of exploitation in the distributive aspects of a negotiation”.[19]

This tension between creating value by being collaborative and claiming value by being competitive is the biggest challenge to problem-solving negotiation. It is asserted that, “this tension can only be managed by the negotiators while negotiating a deal and cannot be resolved. while they are negotiating the deal”. The goal of the negotiators should be to allow value creation at all possible times and minimizing the risk of exploitation by the other party.

Robert H. Mnookin in “Beyond Winning” mentioned some general guidelines for an approach that facilitates problem-solving and against the risks of exploitation. He mentioned preparation as an important cornerstone for a successful negotiation. He mentioned following steps for good preparation:[20]

  1. thinking about the interest of both the parties,
  2. look at value-creating opportunities,
  3. Knowing and improving your BATNA if possible,
  4. Establish a realistic aspiration level.

Smart negotiators always try to create a balance and manage this tension between creating value and claiming value. Such balanced strategy can be termed as ‘I win/lose some, you win/lose some’. While creating a balance, the negotiator while reaching the terms of the agreement relinquish some terms in favor of the other party and gain some terms and also expect the same from the other party.

There may be times, where the negotiator who has a competitive behavior use a collaborative approach when he gets aware of the fact that it will be in his best interests to be cooperative in that particular situation. There can also be situations where people who view themselves as compromisers or collaborative use hard-bargaining tactics and be competitive in negotiation. Therefore, the negotiators should know what strategy they naturally tend to use while negotiating and when there is a need to step out of their nature and use the other strategy to make a balance between the strategies to get the desired outcome.

The Prisoner’s dilemma game[21] is the perfect example of how the value is created by being more collaborative in negotiation rather than being competitive. It this game, 2 suspects are interviewed for a crime in separate cells. The outcome of the game is that if neither of the two prisoners confess, no one can be convicted of the crime, however, if one of them confess to the crime, they both can be convicted.

The dominant strategy of the game is for both the prisoners to confess. Dominant strategy is the best response to all possible strategies of the other players. The dilemma for the players is, when they both denied, they could have higher payoffs but if the other confess, the person who denied will get a long-term sentence. Therefore, both the players know that (confess, confess) outcome is pareto-dominated and safer even when they will not get the best outcome. But to be on a safer side, even when they know that (deny, deny) is a better outcome, the self-interest dominant strategy will make them confess.

The logic of the above theory clearly assumes that each prisoner because of their rational behavior, will choose their strategies to maximize their self-interest not their joint payoffs. This behavior is being competitive and not collective. The relationship and trust play a major role in the dilemma of prisoners. When there is a lack of trust, the parties try to be competitive and get the best outcome for themselves ignoring the interests of the other party.

Therefore, after discussing both the strategies in detail we can say that the negotiator should choose his strategy after assessing that which strategy is better for him in the particular situation while negotiating.

CONCLUSION

The paper has sought to conclude in favor of the quote. It is concluded that for a negotiator, using a collaborative approach leads to creation of value while doing negotiations, create a win-win outcome for both the parties and at last leads to collective outcomes. Both the parties achieve something of value while leaving the table and have satisfaction regarding the outcome. However, using competitive approach leads to value claiming between the parties which eventually lead to distributive outcomes.

The tension between creating value and claiming value exists in every negotiation. It is purely on the will of the negotiator to bargain either collaboratively or competitively while negotiating. He can be collaborative on some issues and competitive on other issues. A negotiator when choosing a strategy should calculate the result and the benefits of the strategy he is using in the negotiation.

According to my opinion, while starting the negotiation, a negotiator should first use the collaborative strategy to increase the gains for themselves (enlarging the pie) and then use competitive strategy to distribute the gains (getting a bigger slice of the pie). Therefore, both the strategies are considered as an important aspect of negotiation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

  1. Fisher rw ury, Getting To Yes (3rd edn, Random House Business Books 2012).
  2. Lewicki R J, Hiam A, Olander K W, Think before you speak (John Wiley & sons Inc 1996).
  3. Lax D  and Sebenius J, 3-D negotiation (Harvard Business School Press 2006).
  4. Mnookin R, Peppet S R, and Tulumello A S, Beyond winning (2nd edn, Belknap 2004).
  5. Thompson L, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (5th edn, Pearson education Inc 2012).

Websites:

  • Beaudry R, ‘Introduction to Negotiation Theory – Part I: The Role of Competition and Cooperation in Negotiation’ (Aptusrx, 2009) < http://www.aptusrx.com/introduction-to-negotiation-theory-part-i-the-role-of-competition-and-cooperation-in-negotiation/> accessed 12 March 2019.
  • Carmichael F, ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma, A guide to game theory’ (Sematic Scholar, 2019) <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1ab/f53a32501df68b6aaef1306b150e5d6c73ba.pdf>  accessed 14 March 2019
  • Garcia L, ‘Understanding the EU’s negotiating position on trade in the Brexit negotiations’ (UCL Brexit Blog, 2018) <https://ucl-brexit.blog/2018/10/08/understanding-the-eus-negotiating-position-on-trade-in-the-brexit-negotiations/> accessed 10 March 2019.
  • Goodpaster G, ‘Primer on Competitive Bargaining’, (1996) 2, Journal of Dispute Resolution<https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=jdr>  accessed on 12 March 2019.
  • McLachlan S, ‘Collaborative Negotiation – 6 Important Reminders About This Win-Win Approach’ (Thoughexchange, 10 October 2014) <https://www.thoughtexchange.com/collaborative-negotiation-6-important-reminders-about-this-win-win-approach/> accessed 7 March 2019.
  • Patel O, ‘The EU’s negotiating strategy has worked so far, but it’s playing a risky game’ (Brexit Blog, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2018) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/11/08/the-eus-negotiating-strategy-has-worked-so-far-but-its-playing-a-risky-game/> accessed 10 March 2019
References:

[1] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes (3rd edn, Random house business books 2012).

[2] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes (3rd edn, Random house business books 2012).

[3] Selena McLachlan, ‘Collaborative Negotiation – 6 Important Reminders About This Win-Win Approach’ (Thoughexchange, 10 October 2014) < https://www.thoughtexchange.com/collaborative-negotiation-6-important-reminders-about-this-win-win-approach/> accessed 6 March 2019.

[4] Robert H Mnookin, Scott R Peppet and Andrew S Tulumello, Beyond winning (2nd edn, Belknap 2004) 12.

[5] Roy J Lewicki, Alexander Hiam and Karen Wise Olander, Think before you speak (John Wiley & sons, Inc 1996).

[6] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to yes (3rd edn, Random house business books 2012).

[7] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to yes (3rd edn, Random house business books 2012).

   [8] Selena McLachlan, ‘Collaborative Negotiation – 6 Important Reminders About This Win-Win Approach’ (Thoughexchange, 10 October 2014) <https://www.thoughtexchange.com/collaborative-negotiation-6-important-reminders-about-this-win-win-approach/> accessed 7 March 2019.

[9] Gary Goodpaster, ‘Primer on Competitive Bargaining’, (1996) 2, Journal of Dispute Resolution <https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=jdr>  accessed on 8 March 2019.

[10]  David A Lax and James K Sebenius, 3-D negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals (Harvard Business School Press 2006) 32.

[11] Leigh L Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (5th edn, Pearson education Inc 2012).

[12] David A Lax and James K Sebenius, 3-D negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals (Harvard Business School Press 2006) 33.

[13] Oliver Patel, ‘The EU’s negotiating strategy has worked so far, but it’s playing a risky game’ (Brexit Blog, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2018) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/11/08/the-eus-negotiating-strategy-has-worked-so-far-but-its-playing-a-risky-game/> accessed 10 March 2019.

[14] Luis Gonzalez Garcia, ‘Understanding the EU’s negotiating position on trade in the Brexit negotiations’ (UCL Brexit Blog, 2018) <https://ucl-brexit.blog/2018/10/08/understanding-the-eus-negotiating-position-on-trade-in-the-brexit-negotiations/> accessed 10 March 2019.

[15] Robert H Mnookin, Scott R Peppet and Andrew S TulumelloBeyond winning (2nd edn, Belknap 2004) 24.

[16] Gary Goodpaster, ‘Primer on Competitive Bargaining’, (1996) 2, Journal of Dispute Resolution <https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=jdr>  accessed on 12 March 2019.

[17] Roger Beaudry, ‘Introduction to Negotiation Theory – Part I: The Role of Competition and Cooperation in Negotiation’ (Aptusrx, 2009) < http://www.aptusrx.com/introduction-to-negotiation-theory-part-i-the-role-of-competition-and-cooperation-in-negotiation/> accessed 12 March 2019.

[18] Robert H Mnookin, Scott R Peppet and Andrew S TulumelloBeyond winning (2nd edn, Belknap 2004) 9.

[19] Robert H Mnookin, Scott R Peppet and Andrew S TulumelloBeyond winning (2nd edn, Belknap 2004) 27.

[20]    Robert H Mnookin, Scott R Peppet and Andrew S TulumelloBeyond winning (2nd edn, Belknap 2004) 28.

[21] Fiona Carmichael, ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma, A guide to game theory’ (Sematic Scholar, 2019) <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1ab/f53a32501df68b6aaef1306b150e5d6c73ba.pdf>  accessed 14 March 2019.

Picture Source :

 
Shivam Jasra