Return to Negotiation resources



Christopher W. Moore, Ph.D.





Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures.


Negotiation occurs between spouses, parents and children, managers and staff, employers and employees, professionals and clients, within and between organizations and between agencies and the public. Negotiation is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns. Negotiation requires participants to identify issues about which they differ, educate each other about their needs and interests, generate possible settlement options and bargain over the terms of the final agreement. Successful negotiations generally result in some kind of exchange or promise being made by the negotiators to each other. The exchange may be tangible (such as money, a commitment of time or a particular behavior) or intangible (such as an agreement to change an attitude or expectation, or make an apology).


Negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone's interest to become familiar with negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to introduce basic concepts of negotiation and to present procedures and strategies that generally produce more efficient and productive problem solving.




A variety of conditions can affect the success or failure of negotiations. The following conditions make success in negotiations more likely.


    Identifiable parties who are willing to participate. The people or groups who have a stake in the outcome must be identifiable and willing to sit down at the bargaining table if productive negotiations are to occur. If a critical party is either absent or is not willing to commit to good faith bargaining, the potential for agreement will decline.


    Interdependence. For productive negotiations to occur, the participants must be dependent upon each other to have their needs met or interests satisfied. The participants need either each other's assistance or restraint from negative action for their interests to be satisfied. If one party can get his/her needs met without the cooperation of the other, there will be little impetus to negotiate.


    Readiness to negotiate. People must be ready to negotiate for dialogue to begin. When participants are not psychologically prepared to talk with the other parties, when adequate information is not available, or when a negotiation strategy has not been prepared, people may be reluctant to begin the process.


    Means of influence or leverage. For people to reach an agreement over issues about which they disagree, they must have some means to influence the attitudes and/or behavior of other negotiators. Often influence is seen as the power to threaten or inflict pain or undesirable costs, but this is only one way to encourage another to change. Asking thought-provoking questions, providing needed information, seeking the advice of experts, appealing to influential associates of a party, exercising legitimate authority or providing rewards are all means of exerting influence in negotiations.


    Agreement on some issues and interests. People must be able to agree upon some common issues and interests for progress to be made in negotiations. Generally, participants will have some issues and interests in common and others that are of concern to only one party. The number and importance of the common issues and interests influence whether negotiations occur and whether they terminate in agreement. Parties must have enough issues and interests in common to commit themselves to a joint decision-making process.


    Will to settle. For negotiations to succeed, participants have to want to settle. If continuing a conflict is more important than settlement, then negotiations are doomed to failure. Often parties want to keep conflicts going to preserve a relationship (a negative one may be better than no relationship at all), to mobilize public opinion or support in their favor, or because the conflict relationship gives meaning to their life. These factors promote continued division and work against settlement. The negative consequences of not settling must be more significant and greater than those of settling for an agreement to be reached.


    Unpredictability of outcome. People negotiate because they need something from another person. They also negotiate because the outcome of not negotiating is unpredictable. For example: If, by going to court, a person has a 50/50 chance of winning, s/he may decide to negotiate rather than take the risk of losing as a result of a judicial decision. Negotiation is more predictable than court because if negotiation is successful, the party will at least win something. Chances for a decisive and one-sided victory need to be unpredictable for parties to enter into negotiations.


    A sense of urgency and deadline. Negotiations generally occur when there is pressure or it is urgent to reach a decision. Urgency may be imposed by either external or internal time constraints or by potential negative or positive consequences to a negotiation outcome. External constraints include: court dates, imminent executive or administrative decisions, or predictable changes in the environment. Internal constraints may be artificial deadlines selected by a negotiator to enhance the motivation of another to settle. For negotiations to be successful, the participants must jointly feel a sense of urgency and be aware that they are vulnerable to adverse action or loss of benefits if a timely decision is not reached. If procras- tination is advantageous to one side, negotiations are less likely to occur, and, if they do, there is less impetus to settle.


    No major psychological barriers to settlement. Strong expressed or unexpressed feelings about another party can sharply affect a person's psychological readiness to bargain. Psychological barriers to settlement must be lowered if successful negotiations are to occur.


    Issues must be negotiable. For successful negotiation to occur, negotiators must believe that there are acceptable settlement options that are possible as a result of participation in the process. If it appears that negotiations will have only win/lose settlement possibilities and that a party's needs will not be met as a result of participation, parties will be reluctant to enter into dialogue.


    The people must have the authority to decide. For a successful outcome, participants must have the authority to make a decision. If they do not have a legitimate and recognized right to decide, or if a clear ratification process has not been established, negotiations will be limited to an information exchange between the parties. A willingness to compromise. Not all negotiations require compromise. On occasion, an agreement can be reached which meets all the participants' needs and does not require a sacrifice on any party's part. However, in other disputes, compromise--willingness to have less than 100 percent of needs or interests satisfied--may be necessary for the parties to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Where the physical division of assets, strong values or principles preclude compromise, negotiations are not possible.


    The agreement must be reasonable and implementable. Some settlements may be substantively acceptable but may be impossible to implement. Participants in negotiations must be able to establish a realistic and workable plan to carry out their agreement if the final settlement is to be acceptable and hold over time.


    External factors favorable to settlement. Often factors external to negotiations inhibit or encourage settlement. Views of associates or friends, the political climate of public opinion or economic conditions may foster agreement or continued turmoil. Some external conditions can be managed by negotiators while others cannot. Favorable external conditions for settlement should be developed whenever possible.


    Resources to negotiate. Participants in negotiations must have the interpersonal skills necessary for bargaining and, where appropriate, the money and time to engage fully in dialogue procedures. Inadequate or unequal resources may block the initiation of negotiations or hinder settlement.





The list of reasons for choosing to negotiate is long. Some of the most common reasons are to:


•     Gain recognition of either issues or parties;


•     Test the strength of other parties;


•     Obtain information about issues, interests and positions of other parties;


•     Educate all sides about a particular view of an issue or concern;


•     Ventilate emotions about issues or people;


•     Change perceptions;


•     Mobilize public support;


•     Buy time;


•     Bring about a desired change in a relationship;


•     Develop new procedures for handling problems;


•     Make substantive gains;


•     Solve a problem.




Even when many of the preconditions for negotiation are present, parties often choose not to negotiate. Their reasons may include:


•          Negotiating confers sense and legitimacy to an adversary, their goals and needs;


•          Parties are fearful of being perceived as weak by a constituency, by their adversary or by the public;


•          Discussions are premature. There may be other alternatives available--informal communications, small private meetings, policy revision, decree, elections;


•          Meeting could provide false hope to an adversary or to one's own constituency;


•          Meeting could increase the visibility of the dispute;


•          Negotiating could intensify the dispute;


•          Parties lack confidence in the process;


•          There is a lack of jurisdictional authority;


•          Authoritative powers are unavailable or reluctant to meet;


•          Meeting is too time-consuming;


•          Parties need additional time to prepare;


•          Parties want to avoid locking themselves into a position; there is still time to escalate demands and to intensify conflict to their advantage.





For negotiations to result in positive benefits for all sides, the negotiator must define what the problem is and what each party wants. In defining the goals of negotiation, it is important to distinguish between issues, positions, interests and settlement options.


•        An issue is a matter or question parties disagree about. Issues can usually be stated as problems. For example, "How can wetlands be preserved while allowing some industrial or residential development near a stream or marsh?" Issues may be substantive (related to money, time or compensation), procedural (concerning the way a dispute is handled), or psychological (related to the effect of a proposed action).


•        Positions are statements by a party about how an issue can or should be handled or resolved; or a proposal for a particular solution. A disputant selects a position because it satisfies a particular interest or meets a set of needs.


•        Interests are specific needs, conditions or gains that a party must have met in an agreement for it to be considered satisfactory. Interests may refer to content, to specific procedural considerations or to psychological needs.


•        Settlement Options--possible solutions which address one or more party's interests. The presence of options implies that there is more than one way to satisfy interests.




The negotiator will need to select a general negotiation approach. There are many techniques, but the two most common approaches to negotiation are positional bargaining and interest-based bargaining.


Positional Bargaining


Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy in which a series of positions, alternative solutions that meet particular interests or needs, are selected by a negotiator, ordered sequentially according to preferred outcomes and presented to another party in an effort to reach agreement. The first or opening position represents that maximum gain hoped for or expected in the negotiations. Each subsequent position demands less of an opponent and results in fewer benefits for the person advocating it. Agreement is reached when the negotiators' positions converge and they reach an acceptable settlement range.




•       When the resource being negotiated is limited (time, money, psychological benefits, etc.).


•       When a party wants to maximize his/her share in a fixed sum pay off.


•       When the interests of the parties are not interdependent, are contradictory or are mutually exclusive.


•       When current or future relationships have a lower priority than immediate substantive gains.




•       Resource is limited.


•      Other negotiator is an opponent; be hard on him/her.  


•      Win for one means a loss for the other.


•      Goal is to win as much as possible.


•      Concessions are a sign of weakness.


•      There is a right solution--mine.


•      Be on the offensive at all times.




1.  Set your target point--solution that would meet all your interests and result in complete success for you. To set the target point, consider:


•      Your highest estimate of what is needed. (What are your interests?)


 •     Your most optimistic assumption of what is possible.


•      Your most favorable assessment of your bargaining skill.


 2.  Make target point into opening position.


 3.  Set your bottom line or resistance point--the solution that is the least you are willing to accept and still reach agreement. To identify your bottom line, consider:


•        Your lowest estimate of what is needed and would still be acceptable to you.


•        Your least optimistic assumption of what is possible.


•        Your least favorable assessment of your bargaining skill relative to other negotiators.


•        Your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).


4.  Consider possible targets and bottom lines of other negotiators.


•       Why do they set their targets and bottom lines at these points? What interests or needs do these positions satisfy?


 •      Are your needs or interests and those of the other party mutually exclusive?


•       Will gains and losses have to be shared to reach agreement or can you settle with both receiving significant gains?


5. Consider a range of positions between your target point and bottom line.


•       Each subsequent position after the target point offers more concessions to the other negotiator(s), but is still satisfactory to you.


•       Consider having the following positions for each issue in dispute:


Opening position.

Secondary position.

Subsequent position.

Fallback position--(yellow light that indicates you are close to bottom line; parties who want to mediate should stop here so that the intermediary has something to work with).

Bottom line.


6.    Decide if any of your positions meets the interests or needs of the other negotiators.


            How should your position be modified to do so?


 7.  Decide when you will move from one position to another. 


8.  Order the issues to be negotiated into a logical (and beneficial) sequence.


9.  Open with an easy issue.


10. Open with a position close to your target point.


•     Educate the other negotiator(s) why you need your solution and why your expectations are high.


 •    Educate them as to why they must raise or lower their expectations.


11.    Allow other side to explain their opening position.


12.    If appropriate, move to other positions that offer other negotiator(s) more benefits.


13.    Look for a settlement or bargaining range -- spectrum of possible settlement alternatives any one of which is preferable to impasse or no settlement.


14.    Compromise on benefits and losses where appropriate.





a = Party A's resistance point

b = Party A's target

c = Acceptable options for Party A

x = Party B's target

y = Party B's resistance point

z = Acceptable options for Party B


15.  Look for how positions can be modified to meet all negotiators' interests.


16.  Formalize agreements in writing.




•      Initial large demand--high or large opening position used to educate other parties about what is desired or to identify how far they will have to move to reach an acceptable settlement range.


•      Low level of disclosure--secretive and non-trusting behavior to hide what the settlement range and bottom line are. Goal is to increase benefits at expense of other.


•      Bluffing--strategy used to make negotiator grant concessions based on misinformation about the desires, strengths or costs of another.


•      Threats--strategy used to increase costs to another if agreement is not reached.


•      Incremental concessions--small benefits awarded so as to gradually cause convergence between negotiators' positions.


 •     Hard on people and problem--often other negotiator is degraded in the process of hard bargaining over substance. This is a common behavior that is not necessarily a quality of or desirable behavior in positional bargaining.






•       Often damages relationships; inherently polarizing (my way, your way)

•       Cuts off option exploration. Often prevents tailor-made solutions

•       Promotes rigid adherence to positions

•       Obscures a focus on interests by premature commitment to specific solutions

•       Produces compromise when better solutions may be available





•       May prevent premature concessions

•       Is useful in dividing or compromising on the distribution of fixed-sum resources

•       Does not require trust to work

•       Does not require full disclosure of privileged information



Interest-Based Bargaining


Interest-based bargaining involves parties in a collaborative effort to jointly meet each other's needs and satisfy mutual interests. Rather than moving from positions to counter positions to a compromise settlement, negotiators pursuing an interest-based bargaining approach attempt to identify their interests or needs and those of other parties prior to developing specific solutions. After the interests are identified, the negotiators jointly search for a variety of settlement options that might satisfy all interests, rather than argue for any single position. The parties select a solution from these jointly generated options. This approach to negotiation is frequently called integrated bargaining because of its emphasis on cooperation, meeting mutual needs, and the efforts by the parties to expand the bargaining options so that a wiser decision, with more benefits to all, can be achieved.




•       When the interests of the negotiators are interdependent.

•       When it is not clear whether the issue being negotiated is fixed-sum (even if the outcome is fixed-sum, the process can be used).

•       When future relationships are a high priority.

•       When negotiators want to establish cooperative problem-solving rather than competitive procedures to resolve their differences.

•       When negotiators want to tailor a solution to specific needs or interests.

•       When a compromise of principles is unacceptable.




•       Resource is seen as not limited.

•       All negotiators' interests must be addressed for an agreement to be reached.

•       Focus on interests not positions.

•       Parties look for objective or fair standards that all can agree to.

•       Belief that there are probably multiple satisfactory solutions.

•       Negotiators are cooperative problem-solvers rather than opponents.

•       People and issues are separate. Respect people, bargain hard on interests.

•       Search for win/win solutions.




Interests are needs that a negotiator wants satisfied or met. There are three types of interests:


•       Substantive interests--content needs (money, time, goods or resources, etc.)


•       Procedural interests--needs for specific types of behavior or the "way that something is done."


•       Relationship or psychological interests--needs that refer to how one feels, how one is treated or conditions for ongoing relationship.


1.      Identify the substantive, procedural and relationship interest/needs that you expect to be satisfied as a result of negotiations. Be clear on:


•       Why the needs are important to you.

•       How important the needs are to you.


 2.     Speculate on the substantive, procedural and relationship interests that might be important to the other negotiators.


•        Assess why the needs are important to them.

•        Assess how important the needs are to them.


3.  Begin negotiations by educating each other about your respective interests.


•       Be specific as to why interests are important.

•       If other negotiators present positions, translate them into terms of interest. Do not allow other negotiators to commit to a particular solution or position.

•       Make sure all interests are understood.


4.  Frame the problem in a way that it is solvable by a win/win solution.


•       Remove egocentricity by framing problem in a manner that all can accept.

•       Include basic interests of all parties.

•       Make the framing congruent with the size of the problem to be addressed.


 5.   Identify general criteria that must be present in an acceptable settlement.


 •     Look for general agreements in principle.

 •     Identify acceptable objective criteria that will be used to reach more specific agreements.





 6.   Generate multiple options for settlement.


•     Present multiple proposals.

•     Make frequent proposals.

•     Vary the content.

•     Make package proposals that link solutions to satisfy interests.

•     Make sure that more than two options are on the table at any given time.


7.   Utilize integrative option generating techniques:


•     Expand-the-pie--ways that more resources or options can be brought to bear on the problem.

•     Alternating satisfaction--each negotiator gets 100 percent of what s/he wants, but at different times.

•     Trade-offs--exchanges of concessions on issues of differing importance to the negotiators.

•     Consider two or more agenda items simultaneously.

•     Negotiators trade concessions on issues of higher or lower importance to each. Each negotiator gets his/her way on one issue.

•     Integrative solutions--look for solutions that involve maximum gains and few or no losses for both parties.

•     Set your sights high on finding a win/win solution.


8. Separate the option generation process from the evaluation process.


9. Work toward agreement.


•     Use the Agreement-in-Principle Process (general level of agreements moving toward more specific agreements).

•     Fractionate (break into small pieces) the problem and use a Building-Block Process (agreements on smaller issues that. when combined, form a general agreement). Reduce the threat level.

•     Educate and be educated about interests of all parties.

•     Assure that all interests will be respected and viewed as legitimate.

•     Show an interest in their needs.

•     Do not exploit another negotiator's weakness. Demonstrate trust

•     Put yourself in a "one down position" to other on issues where you risk a small, but symbolic loss.

•     Start with a problem solving rather than competitive approach.

•     Provide benefits above and beyond the call of duty.

•     Listen and convey to other negotiators that they have been heard and understood.

•     Listen and restate content to demonstrate understanding.

•     Listen and restate feelings to demonstrate acceptance (not necessarily agreement) and understanding of intensity.


10.  Identify areas of agreement, restate them, and write them down.






•      Requires some trust

•      Requires negotiators to disclose information and interests

•      May uncover extremely divergent values or interests




•      Produces solutions that meet specific interests

•      Builds relationships

•      Promotes trust

•      Models cooperative behavior that may be valuable in future.




Naturally, all negotiations involve some positional bargaining and some interest-based bargaining, but each session may be characterized by a predominance of one approach or the other. Negotiators who take a positional bargaining approach will generally use interest-based bargaining only during the final stages of negotiations. When interest-based bargaining is used throughout negotiations it often produces wiser decisions in a shorter amount of time with less incidence of adversarial behavior.




Examining the approaches to negotiation only gives us a static view of what is normally a dynamic process of change. Let us now look at the stages of negotiation most bargaining sessions follow.


Negotiators have developed many schemes to describe the sequential development of negotiations. Some of them are descriptive--detailing the progress made in each stage--while others are prescriptive--suggesting what a negotiator should do. We prefer a twelve-stage process that combines the two approaches.




Stage 1:   Evaluate and Select a Strategy to Guide Problem Solving


•      Assess various approaches or procedures--negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration, court, etc.--available for problem solving.

•      Select an approach.


Stage 2: Make Contact with Other Party or Parties


•      Make initial contact(s) in person, by telephone, or by mail.

•      Explain your desire to negotiate and coordinate approaches.

•      Build rapport and expand relationship

•      Build personal or organization's credibility.

•      Promote commitment to the procedure.

•      Educate and obtain input from the parties about the process that is to be used.


Stage 3: Collect and Analyze Background Information


•      Collect and analyze relevant data about the people, dynamics and substance involved in the problem.

•      Verify accuracy of data.

•      Minimize the impact of inaccurate or unavailable data.

•      Identify all parties' substantive, procedural and psychological interests.


Stage 4: Design a Detailed Plan for Negotiation


•      Identify strategies and tactics that will enable the parties to move toward agreement.

•      Identify tactics to respond to situations peculiar to the specific issues to be negotiated.


Stage 5: Build Trust and Cooperation


•       Prepare psychologically to participate in negotiations on substantive issues. Develop a strategy to handle strong emotions.

•       Check perceptions and minimize effects of stereotypes.

•       Build recognition of the legitimacy of the parties and issues.

•       Build trust.

•       Clarify communications.


 Stage 6: Beginning the Negotiation Session


•       Introduce all parties.

•       Exchange statements which demonstrate willingness to listen, share ideas, show openness to reason and demonstrate desire to bargain in good faith.

•       Establish guidelines for behavior.

•       State mutual expectations for the negotiations.

•       Describe history of problem and explain why there is a need for change or agreement.

•       Identify interests and/or positions.


Stage 7: Define Issues and Set an Agenda


•       Together identify broad topic areas of concern to people.

•       Identify specific issues to be discussed.

•       Frame issues in a non-judgmental neutral manner.

•       Obtain an agreement on issues to be discussed.

•       Determine the sequence to discuss issues.

•       Start with an issue in which there is high investment on the part of all participants, where there is not serious disagreement and where there is a strong likelihood of agreement.

•       Take turns describing how you see the situation. Participants should be encouraged to tell their story in enough detail that all people understand the viewpoint presented.

•       Use active listening, open-ended questions and focusing questions to gain additional information.


Stage 8: Uncover Hidden Interests


•      Probe each issue either one at a time or together to identify interests, needs and concerns of the principal participants in the dispute.

•      Define and elaborate interests so that all participants understand the needs of others as well as their own.


Stage 9: Generate Options for Settlement


•     Develop an awareness about the need for options from which to select or create the final settlement.

•     Review needs of parties which relate to the issue.

•     Generate criteria or objective standards that can guide settlement discussions.

•     Look for agreements in principle.

•     Consider breaking issue into smaller, more manageable issues and generating solutions for sub-issues.

•     Generate options either individually or through joint discussions.

•     Use one or more of the following procedures:

•     Expand the pie so that benefits are increased for all parties.

•     Alternate satisfaction so that each party has his/her interests satisfied but at different times.

•     Trade items that are valued differently by parties.

•     Look for integrative or win/win options.

•     Brainstorm.

•     Use trial and error generation of multiple solutions.

•     Try silent generation in which each individual develops privately a list of options and then presents his/her ideas to other negotiators.

•     Use a caucus to develop options.

•     Conduct position/counter position option generation.

 •    Separate generation of possible solutions from evaluation.


Stage 10: Assess Options for Settlement


•      Review the interests of the parties.

•      Assess how interests can be met by available options.

•      Assess the costs and benefits of selecting options.


Stage 11: Final Bargaining


•     Final problem solving occurs when:

•     One of the alternatives is selected.

•     Incremental concessions are made and parties move closer together.

•     Alternatives are combined or tailored into a superior solution.

•     Package settlements are developed.

•     Parties establish a procedural means to reach a substantive agreement.


Stage 12: Achieving Formal Settlement


•      Agreement may be a written memorandum of understanding or a legal contract. Detail how settlement is to be implemented--who, what, where, when, how--and write it into the agreement.

•      Identify "what ifs" and conduct problem solving to overcome blocks.

•      Establish an evaluation and monitoring procedure.

•      Formalize the settlement and create enforcement and commitment mechanisms: Legal contract

•      Performance bond

•      Judicial review

•      Administrative/executive approval



IWR Alternative Dispute Resolution Series


Creighton, James L., Jerome Delli Priscoli and C. Mark Dunning, Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution – Volume 1: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Research Report 82-R-1, original edition 1982, reprinted 1998.


Edelman, Lester, Frank Carr, and James L. Creighton), The Mini-Trial, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, Pamphlet #1, 1989.


Lancaster, Charles L., ADR Roundtable, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Working Paper 90-ADR-WP-1, 1990.


Potapchuk, William R., James H. Laue, and John S. Murray, Getting to the Table: A Guide for Senior Managers, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Pamphlet 90-ADR-WP-3, 1990.


Carr, Frank; James L. Creighton, and Charles Lancaster, Non-Binding Arbitration, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, Pamphlet #2, 1990.


Edelman, Lester, Frank Carr, and James L. Creighton), Partnering, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, IWR Pamphlet 91-ADR-P-4, 1991.


Podziba, Susan L., Deciding Whether or Not to Partner Small Projects, U.S. Army Engineers Institute For Water Resources, IWR Pamphlet 95-ADR-P-6, 1995.


Creighton, James L. and Jerome Delli Priscoli, Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Handbook for Corps Managers, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Pamphlet 96-ADR-P-5, 1996.


Langton, Stuart, An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Working Paper 96-ADR-WP-9, 1996.


Creighton, James L., Jerome Delli Priscoli, C. Mark Dunning, and Donna B. Ayres, Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution – Volume 2: A Reader on the Second Decade of Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Report 98-R-5, 1998.


Creighton, James L., Partnering Guide for Civil Missions, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Pamphlet 98-ADR-P-7, 1998.


Other Related IWR Documents


Yoe, Charles E. and Kenneth D. Orth, Planning Manual, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Report 96-R-21, 1996.


Orth, Kenneth D. and Charles E. Yoe, Planning Primer, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Report 97-R-15, 1997.


IWR Case Study Series:


Susskind, Lawrence, Susan L. Podziba, and Eileen Babbitt, Tenn Tom Constructors, Inc. USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-1, 1989.


Susskind, Lawrence, Susan L. Podziba, and Eileen Babbitt, Granite Construction Company, USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-2, 1989.


Susskind, Lawrence, Susan L. Podziba, and Eileen Babbitt, Olsen Mechanical and Heavy Rigging, Inc., USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-3, 1989.


Susskind, Lawrence, Susan L. Podziba, and Eileen Babbitt, Bechtel National, Inc., USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-4, 1989.


Susskind, Lawrence, Susan L. Podziba, and Eileen Babbitt, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-5, 1989.


Moore, Christopher W., Corps of Engineers Uses Mediation to Settle Hydropower Disputes, USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-6, 1991.


Susskind, Lawrence, Eileen Babbitt, and David Hoffer, Brutoco Engineering and Construction, Inc., USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-7, 1989.


Susskind, Lawrence, Eileen Babbitt, and David Hoffer, Bassett Creek Water Management Commission, USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-8, 1989.


Susskind, Lawrence, Eileen Babbitt, and David Hoffer, General Roofing Company, USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-9, 1992.


Podziba, Susan L., Small Projects Partnering: The Drayton Hall Streambank Protection Project, , USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-10, 1994.


Lancaster, Charles L., The J6 Partnering Case Study: J6 Large Rocket Test Facility, USACE IWR, IWR Case Study 89-ADR-CS-11, 1994.


Other Useful Materials


Administrative Conference of the United States, Negotiated Rulemaking Sourcebook, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1990.


Creighton, James L., SYNERGY Citizen Participation/Public Involvement Skills Course, SYNERGY Consultation Services, Palo Alto, CA, first edition 1972. [This course served as the Corps “basic” public participation course for a number of years.]


Creighton, James L., Public Participation in the Planning Process: Executive Seminar Workbook, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, 1976. 


Creighton, James L., Advanced Course: Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 1977.  Revised 1982. 


Creighton, James L., Public Involvement in Corps Regulatory Programs: Participant’s Workbook, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 1980. 


Creighton, James L., Public Involvement Manual, U.S. Department of the Interior, (U.S. Government Printing Office:  024-003-00139-2), 1980.


Creighton, James L., The Public Involvement Manual, Abt Books/University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981. 


Creighton, James L., Social Impact Assessment: Participant's Workbook, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 1982.


Creighton, James L., ICUZ Community Involvement Manual, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia, 1984. 


Creighton, James L., Public Involvement Guide, Bonneville Power Administration, U.S.  Department of Energy, Portland, Oregon, 1985. 


Creighton, James L., Managing Conflict in Public Involvement Settings: Participant’s Workbook, Creighton & Creighton, Los Gatos, CA, 1985. Training course prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration.


Creighton, James L., John A. S. McGlennon, and Peter Schneider, Building Consensus through Participation and Negotiation, Edison Electric Institute, Washington D.C., 1986.


Creighton, James L., Involving Citizens in Community Decision Making, National Civic League: Program for Community Problem Solving, 1st Edition 1992, 2nd edition 2001.


Creighton, James L. and Lorenz Aggens), Environmental Managers' Handbook on Public Involvement, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, unpublished, 1994.


Creighton, James L., Building a Public Involvement Strategy for the North Pacific Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers, a report to the North Pacific Division, US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR, 106 pgs. 1994.


Creighton, James L. (written with an EPA stakeholder advisory group) Project XL Stakeholder Involvement: A Guide for Project Sponsors and Stakeholders, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, EPA 100-F-99-001, March 1999 [].


Creighton, James L., How to Design a Public Participation Program, Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability, U.S. Department of Energy (EM-22), June 1999 [].


Creighton, James L., Managing Public Participation, U.S. Department of Energy, 1999. Training course conducted throughout the DOE complex nationally.


Creighton, James L., Communicating With the Public, U.S. Department of Energy, 1999. Training course conducted throughout the DOE complex nationally.


Grey, Barbara, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1991.


Herrman, Margaret S., Resolving Conflict: Strategies for Local Government, International City/County Management Association, 1994.


Moore, Christopher W., Natural Resource Conflict Management, ROMCOE, Center for Moore, Christopher W., and Jerome Delli Priscoli, The Executive Seminar on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedures, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, 1989.


Moore, Christopher W., The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1986.


Sanoff, Henry, Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.


Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Sage Publications, 1999.


Susskind, Lawrence and Ole Amundsen. Mashiro Matsuura, Marshall Kaplan, and David Lampe, Using Assisted Negotiation to Settle Land Use Disputes: A Guidebook for Public Officials, Island Press, 2000.


Thomas, John Clayton, Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995.