As an interest based approach, principled negotiation focuses on integrative approaches to finding mutually shared outcomes. A professional approach to negotiation is to bring about an agreement for the parties involved. The strengths of principled negotiation are it is hard on problems but soft on people. All negotiations are conducted according to rules. Principled negotiation changes the rules from competitive (hard bargaining) to cooperative. The four basic elements to this approach with corresponding principles for each element are:
People: Separate the people from the problem.
Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.
Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standards.
Separating the people from the problem reaffirms the importance of supportive climates (e.g., description, problem orientation, equality, or provisionalism) and the inappropriateness of defensive communication patterns (e.g., evaluation, control, superiority, or certainty) during negotiations. Principled negotiation also focuses on task conflict and strives to diminish relationship conflicts during negotiations.
Negotiating interests first, not arguing positions is critical. Positions (what do you want) differ from interests (why do you want it). For instance, a group in my class working on a symposium presentation got into a dispute over topic choice. Two members wanted the group to choose "Global Warming". Two other members pushed for "Capital Punishment." The three remaining group members advocated "Animal Rights." Bickering broke out as each faction chose a hard bargaining approach.
When instructed to explore their interests, not the positions of each faction, the group found a mutually satisfactory solution. The capital punishment faction had already done a great deal of research on the topic for other classes. Their primary interest was time management since they had families who wanted them home. They wanted to "double dip" by using research for two classes instead of just one. The global warming faction turned out to have a similar interest. They had done some research on environmental issues. The animal rights faction simply wanted to do a presentation that dealt with an issue of values, not some "dry, scientific report of facts and figures on the environment."
Once the interests of each faction were identified and discussed, the global warming faction realized that the capital punishment faction had already done most of the necessary research for the entire group presentation. This was far more extensive than the research already completed by those urging the environmental topic. The animal rights group agreed that capital punishment was an issue of values as well as "facts and figures,' so they settled on capital punishment as the group topic.
Positions are the concrete things one party wants. Interests are the intangible motivations—needs desires, concerns fears, aspirations—that lead a party in the conflict to take a position. The struggle over which topic best fulfills the assignment is a position, but time management is the interest behind the position in the example above. Interest answers the question of why a party takes a position. Focusing on interest's in-stead of positions underlines the importance of structuring cooperation into the deliberations. Positional bargaining structures negotiations as a win-lose game. Negotiating interests structures cooperation into the deliberations because the focus is on the problem and a mutually satisfactory solution, not on the position or the people advocating the position. Focusing on interests, not on positions, is the basis of integrative conflict management.
Generating a variety of options is another aspect of principled negotiation. This involves brainstorming, as already explained in my discussion of problem solving. Integration by expanding the pie or bridging may be discovered in a brainstorming session. The nominal group technique may also prove to be useful here. Finally, principled negotiation rests on establishing objective standards (criteria) for weighing the merits and demerits of any proposal. In the conflict over topic choice just discussed, one primary objective standard that was agreed to be "the least number of hours doing research." An objective standard for "fairness" might be that both parties share equally all risks and financial costs.
People: Separate the people from the problem.
Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.
Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standards.
Separating the people from the problem reaffirms the importance of supportive climates (e.g., description, problem orientation, equality, or provisionalism) and the inappropriateness of defensive communication patterns (e.g., evaluation, control, superiority, or certainty) during negotiations. Principled negotiation also focuses on task conflict and strives to diminish relationship conflicts during negotiations.
Negotiating interests first, not arguing positions is critical. Positions (what do you want) differ from interests (why do you want it). For instance, a group in my class working on a symposium presentation got into a dispute over topic choice. Two members wanted the group to choose "Global Warming". Two other members pushed for "Capital Punishment." The three remaining group members advocated "Animal Rights." Bickering broke out as each faction chose a hard bargaining approach.
When instructed to explore their interests, not the positions of each faction, the group found a mutually satisfactory solution. The capital punishment faction had already done a great deal of research on the topic for other classes. Their primary interest was time management since they had families who wanted them home. They wanted to "double dip" by using research for two classes instead of just one. The global warming faction turned out to have a similar interest. They had done some research on environmental issues. The animal rights faction simply wanted to do a presentation that dealt with an issue of values, not some "dry, scientific report of facts and figures on the environment."
Once the interests of each faction were identified and discussed, the global warming faction realized that the capital punishment faction had already done most of the necessary research for the entire group presentation. This was far more extensive than the research already completed by those urging the environmental topic. The animal rights group agreed that capital punishment was an issue of values as well as "facts and figures,' so they settled on capital punishment as the group topic.
Positions are the concrete things one party wants. Interests are the intangible motivations—needs desires, concerns fears, aspirations—that lead a party in the conflict to take a position. The struggle over which topic best fulfills the assignment is a position, but time management is the interest behind the position in the example above. Interest answers the question of why a party takes a position. Focusing on interest's in-stead of positions underlines the importance of structuring cooperation into the deliberations. Positional bargaining structures negotiations as a win-lose game. Negotiating interests structures cooperation into the deliberations because the focus is on the problem and a mutually satisfactory solution, not on the position or the people advocating the position. Focusing on interests, not on positions, is the basis of integrative conflict management.
Generating a variety of options is another aspect of principled negotiation. This involves brainstorming, as already explained in my discussion of problem solving. Integration by expanding the pie or bridging may be discovered in a brainstorming session. The nominal group technique may also prove to be useful here. Finally, principled negotiation rests on establishing objective standards (criteria) for weighing the merits and demerits of any proposal. In the conflict over topic choice just discussed, one primary objective standard that was agreed to be "the least number of hours doing research." An objective standard for "fairness" might be that both parties share equally all risks and financial costs.
SHARE
