This post was edited using Grammarly , an AI system that combines machine learning with a variety of natural language processing approaches. It scores your writing style, helps improve the way you write, and even checks online for plagiarism.
Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what you want, and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any underlying interests. The classic example of positional bargaining is the haggling that takes place between proprietors and customers over the price of an item.
The customer has a maximum amount she will pay, and the proprietor will only sell something over a certain minimum amount. Each side starts with an extreme position, which in this case is a monetary value, and proceed from there to negotiate and make concessions. Eventually, a compromise may be reached.
Positional bargaining tends to be the first strategy people adopt when entering a negotiation. This is often problematic, because as the negotiation advances, the negotiators become more and more committed to their positions, continually restating and defending them.
Therefore, any agreement that is reached will probably reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties.
Therefore, positional bargaining is often considered a less constructive and less efficient strategy for negotiation than integrative negotiation. Positional bargaining is inefficient in terms of the number of decisions that must be made. The example above demonstrates the back-and-forth nature of positional bargaining. The more extreme the opening positions are, the longer it will take to reach a compromise.
It has been argued that consideration of all underlying interests in a negotiation process is unnecessary. In fact, it may sometimes be counterproductive. This is because of the distinction and relationship between issues and interests.
Issues are universal; they are shared between each party in a conflict. Interests, on the other hand, are specific to each party: what the buyer of the rug in the market wants is a bargain, what the seller wants is profit. This relationship is quite simple. The problem arises when the issue at hand stirs up dramatically opposing interests between the parties, a situation in which it would be very difficult to bring them into the agreement.
If this is the case, it may sometimes be better to negotiate in terms of positions and go for a compromise. For example, two nations are in dispute over water rights. However, they also differ on many other issues, including trade, immigration, religion, and politics. Broadening the debate to include these underlying interests will only polarize the sides further. In this case, it may be much easier to reach an agreement if the two sides focus on the smaller issue of water, and set aside their other concerns.
This involves negotiating in terms of position and may help the sides reach a compromise without creating any larger, interest-based conflicts. So, for issues that involve extremely conflicting underlying interests, it may be best to just focus on positions and aim for a compromise.
This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. A standoff between Democrat President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans in focused attention on the negotiation styles employed by the two parties as they sought to secure their interests while also working toward the resolution of a budgetary battle.
Does anyone down there know how to cut a deal? How can we avert a full-throttle drive over the fiscal cliff? Despite some promising signs of movement on both sides of the aisle, the current negotiation approach — positional bargaining — is bound to bring us dangerously close to the edge.
Federal mediators intervene when collective bargaining bogs down. So-called multidoor courthouses encourage litigants to mediate before incurring the costs—and risks—of going to trial. Scott … Read More. Why are some negotiation exercises still used in a great many university classes even twenty years after they were written?
In an effort to understand more about the enduring quality of some classic teaching materials, we asked faculty affiliated with PON to explain why they think some role play simulations remain bestsellers in the Clearinghouse … Read More. Working It Out is a page handbook designed to introduce high school students to problem-solving, interest-based negotiation.
Written by Getting to YES co-author Roger Fisher and Difficult Conversations co-author Douglas Stone, Working It Out presents core concepts from both books in a clear, simple format with plenty of age-appropriate examples from family, school, workplace and … Read More.
The Clearinghouse at PON offers hundreds of role simulations, from two-party, single-issue negotiations to complex multi-party exercises. Tendley Contract is a two-party integrative contract negotiation between a computer consultant and a school district representative at an apparent impasse over different expectations over cost of services. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer. Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice. All rights reserved. Talks were bogged down over how many on-site inspections would be done annually — the Soviets wanted three and the U.
The greater the emphasis on positions, the less attention is paid to what each side really wants the interests underlying their positions and the less likely they are to reach a good agreement. Instead, the agreement will reflect a splitting of differences rather than addressing the valid interests of the parties.
Both sides may end up dissatisfied and will have missed the opportunity for a good agreement. The process has built-in features that slow things down, such as starting with an unreasonable position and making incremental concessions.
These common tactics work against a prompt settlement. Negotiation requires multiple individual decisions on offers, rejections, and concessions, each of which is an opportunity to stall. On top of that, negotiators can use deliberate delaying tactics and tricks such as threatening to walk out.
The bad feelings can linger, hindering implementation and the ability of the two sides to work together in the future.
0コメント