NEG 7310 Module 3 Integrative Negotiation Example

Course	NEG-7310 Negotiations
Module	Module 3
Paper type	Discussion forum: initial response and two comments
Length	About 410 words
Format	Discussion post with APA 7 citations
School	Thomas Edison State University
Program	Master of Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NEG 7310 Module 3

Module 3 Discussion: Five Issues, Two Sets of Interests

Five Issues, Two Sets of Interests: Logrolling in a School Maintenance Contract

A school district with nine buildings invited us to negotiate a five-year heating and cooling maintenance contract. Its business administrator opened with positions: a 10 percent price cut from the old contract, four-hour emergency response and payment in 60 days. Our positions were the opposite. Splitting each difference would have left both sides mildly unhappy.

Lewicki et al. (2011) describe integrative negotiation as a process of identifying the parties' interests, generating options and selecting those that meet both sides' needs, which requires open sharing of information. Fisher et al. (2011) argue that positions often hide compatible interests. So I asked why each position mattered. The administrator explained that the board approves budgets a year ahead and that surprise repair bills had embarrassed her twice. The price cut was really about predictability. Our interest, I explained, was steady work in summer, when our technicians are underused.

Thompson and Hastie (1990) found that negotiators often take for granted that the other party wants the opposite of what they want, the fixed-pie perception, and so overlook deals that would help both. We had both made that assumption before the conversation about interests.

We then traded across issues, a tactic the textbook calls logrolling.

We added a new issue: all major preventive work would be scheduled in July and August, when schools are empty and our crews are free. The district gets work done without disrupting classes; we get summer volume. The fixed price covering most parts gave the district the predictability it needed, and we priced the risk into the 3 percent figure. Both sides finished with more than an even split of each issue would have given, which is the test of an integrative outcome.

Issue	District's priority	Our priority	Agreement
Price	Medium	High	3 percent cut, not 10
Response time	High	Low	Four hours for no-heat calls
Payment terms	Low	High	30 days
Contract length	Medium	High	Five years with a sixth-year option
Budget certainty	High	Low	Fixed annual price covering all parts under $1,500

What this page is doingRecording the fixed-pie assumption on both sides explains why the first round of positions had looked like a pure tug of war.

Comment on Hannah's Post

Hannah, your vendor contract seemed stuck on price alone. Could you add an issue, such as delivery timing or volume commitment, that the vendor values more than you do?

Comment on Marcus's Post

Marcus, the union agreement you described traded overtime rules for scheduling flexibility, a strong logroll. Did both sides share their priorities openly, or did you infer them?

References

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 98-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-E

Reading the NEG 7310 Module 3 assignment instructions

The Module 3 forum covers integrative negotiation. Expect to analyze a negotiation with several issues, identify the interests behind each side's positions, show how issues were traded or added and evaluate whether the outcome created value for both sides. Use the textbook and research on interests, information sharing and the fixed-pie perception. A table of issues and priorities often makes the analysis clear. Then respond to two classmates, suggesting integrative tactics that fit their cases. Describe how you learned the other side's priorities, whether by asking, by inference or by trial offers, since integrative negotiation depends on information. If the negotiation ended in compromise rather than joint gain, explain what kept the parties from finding trades.

Inside the NEG 7310 Module 3 example

The post opens with both sides' positions and why splitting differences would have disappointed both. It explains the integrative process, then how questions about interests revealed budget certainty and summer work as the real concerns. A paragraph applies research on the fixed-pie perception. A table shows each issue's priority for each side and the agreement, and a paragraph describes the new issue that was added. The replies suggest adding an issue and ask about information sharing. A closing sentence applies the test of an integrative outcome: both sides finished better than an even split of each issue would have left them. The table makes each trade visible at a glance. Both replies stay brief.

Where the marks sit in the NEG 7310 Module 3 rubric

Mentors grade this forum on accurate application of integrative concepts, analysis grounded in the readings and replies that add value. Posts that uncover interests behind positions, and show trades across issues with different priorities, demonstrate command of integrative negotiation. Adding a new issue to create value shows advanced understanding. A clear table of priorities makes the logic visible, and replies that suggest concrete integrative moves help classmates most. Applying a clear test of joint gain, whether both sides did better than splitting the difference, shows that the post understands what integrative negotiation is meant to achieve. Naming the fixed-pie perception in one's own behavior demonstrates honest reflection. Clear tables help mentors see each trade.

Common NEG 7310 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Students lose points by describing compromise as integrative negotiation, by listing issues without priorities or by claiming joint gains without showing what each side gained. Others ignore how information was shared. Identify interests behind positions. Show which issues mattered more to whom. Explain trades and any added issues. Say what each side gained compared with splitting the difference. Explain how priorities were discovered, and test the outcome against an even split of each issue. If you only compromised, say what kept you from trading and which trade you might try in a future round. A free first sample on your own NEG-7310 integrative negotiation post is available on request.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

More NEG 7310 and Master of Business Administration sample papers

NEG 7310 Module 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NEG 7310 Module 3 sample paper?

A school district maintenance contract negotiated with logrolling, with two replies, is the discussion above.

What is integrative negotiation?

A process of identifying interests, generating options and selecting those that meet both sides' needs, creating value rather than only dividing it.

What is logrolling?

Trading across issues, each side conceding on what matters less to it in return for gains on what matters more.

What is the fixed-pie perception?

Assuming that whatever one side gains the other must lose, a belief that hides chances for joint gain.

How do positions differ from interests?

Positions are what a party says it wants; interests are the reasons it wants them.

NEG 7310 Module 3 Discussion: Finding Joint Gains in a School District Maintenance Contract Example