Collaboration in Negotiation: Beyond The “Win-Win”
When people talk about “collaborative negotiation,” they often imagine it as the opposite of competition; a calm, harmonious discussion in which everyone gets along and ends with a handshake over an equal split. The truth is more nuanced. Collaboration is not compromise, and it is not the absence of competition. It is a deliberate, structured process of uncovering and maximising value for all parties, often in ways that go far beyond the obvious.
To understand this, it helps to look at where the concept first entered negotiation thinking.
From the 1960s to Today: The Roots of Collaboration
In the 1960s, Robert Walton and Robert McKersie introduced one of the earliest frameworks distinguishing between collaboration and competition as two of four fundamental negotiation strategies (Walton & McKersie, 1965). In their work A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, they described collaboration (integrative bargaining) as the process of working together to expand the available value before determining how to share it, while competition (distributive bargaining) was about dividing fixed value; often at the other party’s expense.
This thinking evolved into models such as the Dual Concerns Model (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986) and the Thomas–Kilmann Instrument (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974), which refined the strategies into five core approaches: avoidance, accommodation, compromise, collaboration, and competition. In these models, collaboration means working to maximise outcomes for both parties, while competition is about maximising your own outcomes, often with little regard for the other party’s.
However, the common shorthand of “win-win” can be misleading.
Collaboration vs. Compromise: The Subtle but Crucial Difference
Compromise, or meeting in the middle, can feel fair. Both parties get something, both give something up, and the deal closes. But compromise often leaves value on the table. As Lax and Sebenius (1986) point out in The Manager as Negotiator, when negotiators settle too quickly for a midpoint, they may forgo creative trades that could make both parties better off.
Collaboration is different. It seeks to increase the size of the value pie before dividing it (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011). In a true collaboration, the outcome may not be equal in a purely numerical sense, but it is maximised for both parties based on their underlying interests.
For example, two parties might agree on a price that is lower than the seller’s opening position but paired with a long-term commitment, branding opportunities, or operational efficiencies that more than make up the difference. The deal might not look “fair” in the sense of being equal, but it delivers maximum value to both sides.
Where Competition Fits into Collaboration
Collaboration does not eliminate competition. In fact, competitive elements often appear once the value pie has been expanded. The key difference is the sequence. In plain competition, the process usually starts with positions and goals. The aim is to use persuasion and strategy to push the other party toward their walkaway point; extracting as much value as they are willing to give before ending the negotiation.
In collaboration, the process begins with interests. The goal is to first understand what is truly driving both parties, then redefine the negotiation issue as a shared problem: how to meet the interests of both sides. This approach is supported by decades of research showing that interest-based negotiation produces more durable and higher-quality agreements (Brett, 2014).
A Practical Example
Imagine we are negotiating over price. I want to sell at a high price to demonstrate business success to my shareholders. You need a low price to stay within budget. A purely competitive approach would focus on moving the other party as close as possible to my preferred number, or me to theirs.
In a collaborative process, we would start with interests. We might discover that your budget constraint is non-negotiable, but that a longer-term contract would give me stability and a demonstrable achievement to present to my stakeholders. We could agree on a lower price that meets your needs, paired with a 15-year commitment that meets mine.
The Three Phases of Collaborative Negotiation
From both the literature and my own work with clients, I see the collaborative process as having three clear phases:
Define the Real Negotiation Issue
Move beyond stated positions to identify the underlying interests for both parties (Bazerman & Neale, 1992). Frame the negotiation as a joint problem to solve, rather than a contest to win.Add New Items to the Table
Look for variables beyond the obvious. This could include timelines, services, intellectual property, exclusivity, reputation, or even future opportunities. These elements can be traded to create more value overall (Pinkley, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1995).Present Solutions with Scope and Choice
Share proposals in a way that gives the other party room to engage with and improve them. This invites them to join you in the effort to maximise value rather than resist you as an opponent.
The Sheer Negotiations Model: Collaboration in Practice
The Sheer Negotiations model embodies this collaborative approach. When clients plan using the model, they are guided to explore interests, not just goals, for both sides. They are encouraged to brainstorm creative and non-obvious solutions before the discussion begins. Finally, the model supports them in presenting their thinking in a way that draws the other party to their side of the table, metaphorically speaking.
This is not “being nice” for the sake of harmony. It is strategic, interest-based negotiation. And it consistently delivers stronger outcomes than either competition or compromise alone.
Closing Thought
Collaboration in negotiation is not about giving up power or agreeing to split the difference. It is about engaging with the other party to create more value than either of you could have imagined at the outset; then deciding how to share it.
The challenge for negotiators is to resist the temptation to jump straight to competition, and instead begin with curiosity. By defining interests, adding new variables, and inviting the other party into a joint problem-solving process, you expand the value pie before you slice it.
That is where collaboration lives. And that is where the best deals are made.
References
Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. Free Press.
Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator. Free Press.
Pinkley, R. L., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1995). “Fixed pie” a la mode: Information availability, information processing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 101–112.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Random House.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Xicom.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. McGraw-Hill.