logrolling-negotiation

Logrolling Negotiation In A Nutshell

In a logrolling negotiation, one party offers a concession on one issue to gain ground on another issue. In logrolling, there is no desire by either party to advertise the extent of their power, rights, or entitlements. This makes it a particularly effective strategy in complex negotiations where partial or complete impasses exist.

AspectExplanation
DefinitionLogrolling negotiation, also known as vote trading or quid pro quo, is a process in which individuals or groups exchange support, votes, or concessions on multiple issues to gain an advantage or reach a consensus. It involves reciprocity, where one party agrees to support another’s position in exchange for support on their own position.
Multiple IssuesLogrolling typically occurs in situations with multiple issues or decisions to be made. Parties involved can agree to support each other on different issues, even if their interests differ on those issues. This allows each party to achieve its most critical objectives.
Political ContextLogrolling is commonly associated with politics, where legislators or politicians may trade votes or support on various bills or policies. In legislative bodies, lawmakers often need the support of their colleagues to pass bills, and logrolling can be an effective strategy to secure enough votes.
Mutual BenefitThe key principle of logrolling is that it should be mutually beneficial. Parties involved recognize that by supporting each other’s interests, they can collectively achieve outcomes that are more favorable than if they acted independently.
ExamplesExamples of logrolling can be found in various contexts: – In politics, legislators may vote in favor of each other’s bills in exchange for support on their own legislative initiatives. – In business negotiations, companies may make trade-offs or concessions in different areas to strike a comprehensive deal. – In international diplomacy, countries may agree to cooperate on multiple issues, such as trade and security, to build stronger alliances.
CritiquesLogrolling is not without its critics. Some argue that it can lead to the passage of suboptimal policies or agreements, as it may prioritize political or personal interests over the public good. Additionally, it can foster a culture of backroom deals and patronage.
CoalitionsLogrolling often results in the formation of coalitions or alliances among parties with shared interests. These coalitions can be temporary and issue-specific, with members cooperating on one issue while opposing each other on others.
ComplexityLogrolling negotiations can be complex, especially when there are many parties and issues involved. Parties need to carefully assess their priorities, the interests of others, and the potential trade-offs to achieve their goals effectively.
OutcomesSuccessful logrolling negotiations can lead to compromises and agreements that might not have been achievable through single-issue bargaining. However, it requires careful strategy and negotiation skills to ensure that the exchanged support is consistent with each party’s broader objectives.
AdaptationsLogrolling principles have been adapted in various fields, such as business negotiations, diplomacy, and community decision-making processes. Adaptations may involve more formalized procedures and rules to ensure fairness and accountability.

Understanding a logrolling negotiation

Many tend to assume that negotiations are a strictly distributive affair, where two parties come together to fight over a fixed outcome.

However, the vast majority of negotiations are integrative. This means that each party is provided multiple opportunities to further their interests cooperatively. In other words, each has a focus on appealing to the interests of the other. 

In logrolling, there is no desire by either party to advertise the extent of their power, rights, or entitlements. This makes it a particularly effective strategy in complex negotiations where partial or complete impasses exist.

Preparing for a logrolling negotiation

Before a business enters into a negotiation, it can prepare itself by addressing these steps:

  • Define your elegant negotiables – or concessions a business can make to the other party. Importantly, the party receiving the negotiable must value it more highly than the party who is sending it. This helps each business determine which negotiables they care about most and which can be given away, so to speak.
  • Define a BATNA, or the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. A business should never enter a logrolling negotiation without a Plan B. In logrolling, the business also needs to consider the BATNA of the other party. What might they be willing to settle for? Out of the two BATNAs, whose is better? This gives insight into which business has the stronger bargaining position.
batna
In negotiation theory, BATNA stands for “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement,” and it’s one of the key tenets of negotiation theory. Indeed, it describes the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement. This simple strategy can help improve the negotiation as each party is (in theory) willing to take the best course of action, as otherwise, an agreement won’t be reached.
  • Define negotiable variables. Money is the most obvious example of a variable that can be negotiated. However, contract length, time frame, exclusivity, added features, and implementation personnel can also be used.
  • Prioritize parameters. This will depend on the maturity of the business. Younger companies will prioritize payment terms that deliver fast cash. Larger companies with more cash flow might agree to delayed payment terms in exchange for promotional or marketing campaigns.

Logrolling in practice

In theory, each business should enter the negotiation with a core strategy underpinned by the steps outlined in the previous section.

In a logrolling negotiation, each should then seek to find common ground in the zone of potential agreement (ZOPA). Both parties can move toward this zone by making beneficial trades on issues based on a deep understanding of each other’s needs or wants.

Note that the ZOPA lies outside the range of the BATNA of each party. While creating a BATNA is important for negotiations that reach a hard impasse, the ultimate goal of logrolling is to reach an agreement based on common ground. This can only occur when each business understands the unique perspectives and priorities of the other party.

Case Studies

  • Mergers & Acquisitions: Company A wants to merge with Company B. Company A is willing to offer a higher price for the shares of Company B, but in return, they want the current management of Company B to step down. Company B agrees to this condition as the higher price per share benefits their shareholders significantly.
  • Vendor Negotiations: A retailer and a supplier are negotiating the price and delivery terms of a product. The supplier is willing to offer a discount, but in return, they want longer payment terms. The retailer agrees because the upfront cost savings are more valuable than the delay in payment.
  • Real Estate Transactions: A buyer is interested in purchasing a property but wants a reduction in price. The seller is willing to reduce the price if the buyer agrees to a faster closing date. The buyer agrees because they value the price reduction more than the speed of the transaction.
  • Employee Negotiations: An employee is negotiating a job offer with a potential employer. The employee is willing to accept a lower base salary if the employer offers more stock options or a sign-on bonus. The employer agrees as they value the immediate cash flow more than the future potential cost of the stock options.
  • Joint Ventures: Two companies want to enter into a joint venture. One company offers its cutting-edge technology, while the other offers its extensive distribution network. Both companies value what the other brings to the table more than what they are giving up, leading to a successful partnership.
  • Software Licensing: A software company is negotiating a licensing deal with a corporation. The corporation is willing to pay a higher licensing fee if the software company provides additional customization and training. The software company agrees because they value the higher upfront revenue over the additional service hours.
  • Media Rights: A sports league is negotiating broadcasting rights with a TV network. The league is willing to offer exclusive rights to the network if they commit to promoting the league heavily during prime time. The network agrees as the exclusivity and potential viewership gains are worth more than the promotional costs.
  • Franchise Agreements: A franchisor and a potential franchisee are negotiating the terms of a new franchise. The franchisor is willing to reduce the upfront franchise fee if the franchisee commits to opening three locations instead of one. The franchisee agrees because the potential revenue from three locations outweighs the reduced initial cost.
  • Partnership Agreements: Two firms are forming a partnership to offer a combined service to clients. One firm offers its high-end client list, while the other firm provides its specialized expertise. Both firms value what the other is offering more than what they are conceding.
  • Distribution Agreements: A manufacturer and a distributor are in talks. The manufacturer offers exclusive distribution rights in a particular region if the distributor commits to a minimum purchase order. The distributor agrees because the exclusivity in the region is more valuable than the upfront cost of the larger order.

Key takeaways:

  • A logrolling negotiation involves a party conceding one issue to gain ground on another.
  • Preparing for a logrolling negotiation means defining elegant negotiables, or factors a business is willing to concede that the other party values more highly. Defining and then comparing BATNAs can give important clues on which business has the upper hand.
  • In a logrolling negotiation, each business should exchange trade-offs until both arrive in the zone of potential agreement (ZOPA). It should be noted that reaching the ZOPA does not necessitate one party having to use its BATNA.

Key Highlights

  • Understanding Logrolling Negotiation: Logrolling is a negotiation strategy where one party offers concessions on certain issues to gain advantages on other issues. It is effective in complex negotiations with partial or complete impasses, as both parties focus on appealing to each other’s interests cooperatively without revealing their full power, rights, or entitlements.
  • Preparing for Logrolling Negotiation:
    1. Define Elegant Negotiables: Identify concessions that can be made to the other party, which the receiving party values more than the offering party. This helps prioritize important negotiables and potential trade-offs.
    2. BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement): Determine the best alternative option if the negotiation fails. Both parties should consider each other’s BATNA to understand the relative bargaining power.
    3. Negotiable Variables: Apart from money, consider other variables that can be negotiated, such as contract length, time frames, exclusivity, added features, or personnel involvement.
    4. Prioritize Parameters: Depending on the business’s maturity, prioritize payment terms that suit their cash flow and strategic needs.
  • Logrolling in Practice: Each party enters the negotiation with a core strategy based on the preparation steps. The goal is to find common ground within the Zone of Potential Agreement (ZOPA), an area where both parties can make beneficial trades on issues that align with their respective interests and priorities. Reaching the ZOPA does not necessarily require resorting to the BATNA; it signifies a mutual understanding and successful negotiation based on trade-offs and concessions.

Connected Business Concepts

Fishbone Diagram

fishbone-diagram
The Fishbone Diagram is a diagram-based technique used in brainstorming to identify potential causes for a problem, thus it is a visual representation of cause and effect. The problem or effect serves as the head of the fish. Possible causes of the problem are listed on the individual “bones” of the fish. This encourages problem-solving teams to consider a wide range of alternatives.

BATNA

batna
In negotiation theory, BATNA stands for “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement,” and it’s one of the key tenets of negotiation theory. Indeed, it describes the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement. This simple strategy can help improve the negotiation as each party is (in theory) willing to take the best course of action, as otherwise, an agreement won’t be reached.

WATNA

watna
In negotiation, WATNA stands for “worst alternative to a negotiated agreement,” representing one of several alternative options if a resolution cannot be reached. This is a useful technique to help understand what might be a negotiation outcome, that even if negative is still better than a WATNA, making the deal still feasible.

ZOPA

zopa
The ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) describes an area in which two negotiation parties may find common ground. Indeed, ZOPA is critical to exploring the deals where the parties get a mutually beneficial outcome to prevent the risk of a win-lose, or lose-win scenario. And therefore get to the point of a win-win negotiation outcome.

Logrolling Negotiation

logrolling-negotiation
In a logrolling negotiation, one party offers a concession on one issue to gain ground on another issue. In logrolling, there is no desire by either party to advertise the extent of their power, rights, or entitlements. This makes it a particularly effective strategy in complex negotiations where partial or complete impasses exist.

Theory of Constraints

theory-of-constraints
The Theory of Constraints was developed in 1984 by business management guru Eliyahu Goldratt in his book The Goal. The Theory of Constraints argues that every system has at least one constraint that hinders high-level performance or profit generation. Fundamentally, the theory advocates identifying constraints and then eliminating them or at the very least, reducing their impact.

Win-Win Negotiation

win-win-negotiation
Win-win negotiations first rose to prominence during the 1980s, thanks in part to books like Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton’s bestseller Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Having said that, there was also a shifting mindset at the time as negotiators saw win-win negotiations as preferable to the then-dominant win-lose approach. A win-win negotiation is a negotiation outcome resulting in a mutually acceptable and beneficial deal for all involved parties.

RADPAC Model

radpac-model
A negotiation where one or both parties are unprepared can be disastrous. At best, the negotiation devolves into a loose and unfocused conversation. In the worst-case scenario, however, a negotiation can turn into an adversarial confrontation. The RADPAC model is a basic negotiation framework used in business to reach a favorable outcome for two or more parties.

Read Next: Negotiation, BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA.

Read Next: SWOT AnalysisPersonal SWOT AnalysisTOWS MatrixPESTEL AnalysisPorter’s Five ForcesTOWS MatrixSOAR Analysis.

Main Free Guides:

About The Author

Scroll to Top
FourWeekMBA