Skip to main content
Log in

The Strategic Use of Interests, Rights, and Power to Resolve Disputes

  • Published:
Negotiation Journal

Abstract

To ensure success in resolving difficult disputes, negotiators mustmake strategic decisions about their negotiation approach. In this essay,we make practical recommendations for negotiation strategy based on Ury,Brett, and Goldberg's (1993) interests, rights, and power framework fordispute resolution and subsequent empirical research by Brett, Shapiro, andLytle (1998). We discuss how negotiations cycle through interests, rights,and power foci; the prevalence of reciprocity; and the one-sided,distributive outcomes that result from reciprocity of rights and powercommunications. We then turn to using interests, rights and powerstrategically in negotiations. We discuss choosing an opening stragegy,breaking conflict spirals of reciprocated rights and power communications,and when and how to use rights and power communications effectively innegotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bazerman, M.H. and M.A. Neale. 1992. Negotiating rationally. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J.M., D.L. Shapiro, and A.L. Lytle. 1998. Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal 41(4): 410-426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, W.A. 1981. Analyzing negotiation tactics: Development of a negotiation interact system. Human Communication Research 7: 273-287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., W.L. Ury, and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S.B. and J.M. Brett. 1995. Rapid Printing vs. Scott Computers. In Dispute Resolution Research Center teaching manual. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J.M. 1979. Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, H.G. 1985. The dance of anger. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., J.A. Litterer, J.W. Minton, and D.M. Saunders. 1994. Negotiation. Burr Ridge, Ill.: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindskold, S. and R. Bennett. 1973. Attributing trust and conciliatory intent from coercive power capability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28: 180-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns, M., P.L Smith, and T. Walsh. 1996. The process of negotiating: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68: 68-77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. 1962. An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G. 1981. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G. and P. Carnevale. 1993. Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks-Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L.L. 1990. Reframing integrative and distributive bargaining: A process perspective. In Research on negotiation in organizations, vol. 2, edited by B.H. Sheppard, M.H. Bazerman, and R. J. Lewicki. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L.L. 1983. Small group work climates: A lag sequential analysis of group interaction. Small Group Behavior 14: 465-494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L.L. and M. Holmer. 1992. Framing, reframing, and issue development. In Communication and negotiation, edited by L. L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L.L. and T.S. Jones. 1982. Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of bargaining interaction. Communication Monographs 49: 171-191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J.Z. and B.R. Brown. 1975. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J.Z., D.G. Pruitt, and S.H. Kim. 1994. Social conflict. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T.C. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. 1998. The mind and heart of the negotiator. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, C.H. 1998. Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German, and American cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 316-323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, C.H. 1997. Understanding conflict in a Chinese cultural context. In Research on negotiation in Organizations, vol. 9, edited by R. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, and B. Sheppard. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrrell, P. 1993. Cathay ready to reinstate cabin crew. South China Morning Post, 20 January 1993.

  • Ury, W.L. 1991. Getting past no: Negotiating with difficult people. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ury, W.L., J.M. Brett, and S.B. Goldberg. 1993. Getting disputes resolved. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R.E. and R. B. McKersie 1991. A behavioral theory of labor negotiation: An analysis of a social interaction system, 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L.R. 1997. How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group processes. In Research in organizational behavior, vol. 19, edited by L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L.R., L.L. Thompson, M.H. Bazerman, and J.S. Carroll, 1990. Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management 1: 7-31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Lytle, A.L., Brett, J.M. & Shapiro, D.L. The Strategic Use of Interests, Rights, and Power to Resolve Disputes. Negotiation Journal 15, 31–52 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007562118762

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007562118762

Keywords

Navigation