Critically explain the different characteristics of the principled type of negotiation.
I NTRODUCTION
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two person/ parties involved in negotiation process.
Principled negotiation is a problem solving, win/win approach to negotiation primarily developed by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton as a part of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard University . Principled negotiation attempts to advantage all parties by providing a method of negotiation that involves thinking creatively to generate as many options as possible that will satisfy both parties. This is different to a win/lose (or zero sum) approach in which one party's gains are the other's losses. For many situations it is the creative application of the elements of principled negotiation that are critical if a potential agreement satisfactory to each side is to be achieved.
Principled negotiation is hence the name given to the interest-based approach to negotiation. There are four fundamental principles of negotiation in principled negotiation as below;
Principle number one being separation of the people from the problem
Secondly it concerns focusing on interests, not positions
Thirdly is the issue of inventing options for mutual gain
And finally is the principle of insisting on objective criteria.
Separating the people from the problem means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, and dealing with them independently. People problems, as Fisher, Ury and Patton observe, tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. (1991, p. 22) Perceptions are important because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality," that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficult to achieve. This is what the proponents of this negotiation call framing problems.
People problems also often involve difficult emotions that is to say fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with.
Fisher, Ury and Patton consider communication problems to be "people problems" as well. They list three types of communication problems;
First, disputants may not be talking to each other. While their comments are formally addressed to the opponent, they are actually addressing some outside audience. They are grandstanding, or playing to the crowd.
A second communication problem arises when parties are not listening to each other. Rather than listening attentively to the opponent, parties may instead be planning their own response, or listening to their own constituency.
Finally, even when parties are listening and talking to each other, misunderstandings and misinterpretations may occur.
Negotiating about interests means negotiating about things that people really want and need, not what they say that want or need. Often, these are not the same. People tend to take extreme positions that are designed to counter their opponents’ positions. If asked why they are taking that position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons are their true interests and needs or are actually compatible, not mutually exclusive.
By focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle of inventing options for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over the original positions which assume that for one side to win, the other side must lose.
The fourth rule is to insist on objective criteria for decisions. While not always available, if some outside, objective criteria for fairness can be found, this can greatly simplify the negotiation process. If union and management are struggling over a contract, they can look to see what other similar companies have agreed to use as an outside objective criteria. If people are negotiating over the price of a car or a house, they can look at what similar houses or cars have sold for. This gives both sides more guidance as to what is "fair," and makes it hard to oppose offers in this range.
Lastly, Fisher, Ury, and Patton counsel negotiators to know what their alternatives are. If you don’t know what your alternatives to a negotiated agreement are, you might accept an agreement that is far worse than the one you might have gotten, or reject one that is far better than you might otherwise achieve. For this reason, Fisher, Ury, and Patton stress the importance of knowing and improving your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) before you conclude negotiations.
In Getting to Yes, these proponents argue that almost all disputes can be resolved with principled negotiation. They reject the notion that some conflicts are inherently win-lose or that positional bargaining is ever a superior approach.
Other theorists, however, disagree that principled negotiation is an excellent tool to use in many disputes, but have out found that it needs to be supplemented with other approaches in the case of intractable conflicts. It also is more attuned to U.S. and Western European cultures which emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful.
In negotiation, there are multiple, shared, compatible, and conflicting interests. Identifying shared and compatible interests as "common ground" or "points of agreement" is helpful in establishing a foundation for additional negotiation discussions. Principles can often be extrapolated from "points of agreement" to resolve other issues. Also note that focusing on interests tends to direct the discussion to the present and future, and away from the difficulties of the past. If we have learned anything about the past, it is that "we can not change it." The past may help us to identify problems needing solution, but, other than that, it does not tend to yield the best solutions for the future.
Before seeking to reach agreement on solutions for the future, Fisher and Ury suggest that multiple solution options be developed prior to evaluation of those options. The typical way of doing this is called brainstorming.
In brainstorming, the parties, with or without the mediator's participation, generate many possible solution before deciding which of those best fulfill the parties' joint interests. In developing options, parties look for mutual gains. Select from Among Options by Using Objective Criteria
Using objective criteria (standards independent of the will of any party) is where the label "principled negotiation" comes from. Fisher and Ury suggest that solution selection be done according to concepts, standards or principles that the parties believe in and are not under the control of any single party. Fisher and Ury recommend that selections be based upon such objective criteria as precedent, tradition, a course of dealing, outside recommendations, or the flip of a coin.
In the event that the other party has some negotiating advantage, Fisher and Ury suggest that the answer is to improve the quality of your "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" (BATNA). For example, if you are negotiating for a job and want to make a case for a higher wage, you improve your negotiating power by having another job offer available, or at least as a possibility.
Fisher and Ury's maintain that the resistant competitive negotiator should insist on principled negotiation as a way that is most acceptable to the competitor. The principled negotiator might ask about the competitor's concerns. Here show that he or she understands these concerns and in return, ask the competitor to recognize all concerns.
Following the exploration of all interests, Fisher and Ury suggest seeking to induce the competitive negotiator to brainstorm options and to think in terms of objective criteria for decision making.
Another way of thinking about encouraging principled or integrative bargaining is to think in terms of matching, pacing, leading and modeling. To get a negotiator to shift orientations, it is critical that they first experience themselves as fully heard in terms of content, intensity and emotion. By so matching and pacing with a negotiator (asking a few clarifying questions), the negotiator will become more open to your lead and modeling of productive means of negotiating.
Conclusion
Given the above presentation, principled negotiation is especially crucial when an imbalance of power exists between the parties. It aims to establish common bonds and a shared effort to find solutions. It is more successful in societies whose cultures emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful.
REFERENCES
Catherine Morris, ed. Negotiation in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography. Victoria, Canada: Peacemakers
David Lax and James Sebenius, 3D Negotiation, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin, 1999, ISBN 0-14-028852-X
Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. 1992, Getting to Yes, 2 nd edn, Business Books Limited, London.
Johnson, R. 1993, Negotiation Basics: Concepts, Skills and Exercises, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Roger Dawson, "Secrets Elder, B. 1994, Communication Skills, MacMillan, South Melbourne
Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Viking/Penguin, 2005.
Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski, The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998, ISBN 0-471-08072-1
.
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two person/ parties involved in negotiation process.
Principled negotiation is a problem solving, win/win approach to negotiation primarily developed by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton as a part of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard University . Principled negotiation attempts to advantage all parties by providing a method of negotiation that involves thinking creatively to generate as many options as possible that will satisfy both parties. This is different to a win/lose (or zero sum) approach in which one party's gains are the other's losses. For many situations it is the creative application of the elements of principled negotiation that are critical if a potential agreement satisfactory to each side is to be achieved.
Principled negotiation is hence the name given to the interest-based approach to negotiation. There are four fundamental principles of negotiation in principled negotiation as below;
Principle number one being separation of the people from the problem
Secondly it concerns focusing on interests, not positions
Thirdly is the issue of inventing options for mutual gain
And finally is the principle of insisting on objective criteria.
Separating the people from the problem means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, and dealing with them independently. People problems, as Fisher, Ury and Patton observe, tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. (1991, p. 22) Perceptions are important because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality," that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficult to achieve. This is what the proponents of this negotiation call framing problems.
People problems also often involve difficult emotions that is to say fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with.
Fisher, Ury and Patton consider communication problems to be "people problems" as well. They list three types of communication problems;
First, disputants may not be talking to each other. While their comments are formally addressed to the opponent, they are actually addressing some outside audience. They are grandstanding, or playing to the crowd.
A second communication problem arises when parties are not listening to each other. Rather than listening attentively to the opponent, parties may instead be planning their own response, or listening to their own constituency.
Finally, even when parties are listening and talking to each other, misunderstandings and misinterpretations may occur.
Negotiating about interests means negotiating about things that people really want and need, not what they say that want or need. Often, these are not the same. People tend to take extreme positions that are designed to counter their opponents’ positions. If asked why they are taking that position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons are their true interests and needs or are actually compatible, not mutually exclusive.
By focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle of inventing options for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over the original positions which assume that for one side to win, the other side must lose.
The fourth rule is to insist on objective criteria for decisions. While not always available, if some outside, objective criteria for fairness can be found, this can greatly simplify the negotiation process. If union and management are struggling over a contract, they can look to see what other similar companies have agreed to use as an outside objective criteria. If people are negotiating over the price of a car or a house, they can look at what similar houses or cars have sold for. This gives both sides more guidance as to what is "fair," and makes it hard to oppose offers in this range.
Lastly, Fisher, Ury, and Patton counsel negotiators to know what their alternatives are. If you don’t know what your alternatives to a negotiated agreement are, you might accept an agreement that is far worse than the one you might have gotten, or reject one that is far better than you might otherwise achieve. For this reason, Fisher, Ury, and Patton stress the importance of knowing and improving your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) before you conclude negotiations.
In Getting to Yes, these proponents argue that almost all disputes can be resolved with principled negotiation. They reject the notion that some conflicts are inherently win-lose or that positional bargaining is ever a superior approach.
Other theorists, however, disagree that principled negotiation is an excellent tool to use in many disputes, but have out found that it needs to be supplemented with other approaches in the case of intractable conflicts. It also is more attuned to U.S. and Western European cultures which emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful.
In negotiation, there are multiple, shared, compatible, and conflicting interests. Identifying shared and compatible interests as "common ground" or "points of agreement" is helpful in establishing a foundation for additional negotiation discussions. Principles can often be extrapolated from "points of agreement" to resolve other issues. Also note that focusing on interests tends to direct the discussion to the present and future, and away from the difficulties of the past. If we have learned anything about the past, it is that "we can not change it." The past may help us to identify problems needing solution, but, other than that, it does not tend to yield the best solutions for the future.
Before seeking to reach agreement on solutions for the future, Fisher and Ury suggest that multiple solution options be developed prior to evaluation of those options. The typical way of doing this is called brainstorming.
In brainstorming, the parties, with or without the mediator's participation, generate many possible solution before deciding which of those best fulfill the parties' joint interests. In developing options, parties look for mutual gains. Select from Among Options by Using Objective Criteria
Using objective criteria (standards independent of the will of any party) is where the label "principled negotiation" comes from. Fisher and Ury suggest that solution selection be done according to concepts, standards or principles that the parties believe in and are not under the control of any single party. Fisher and Ury recommend that selections be based upon such objective criteria as precedent, tradition, a course of dealing, outside recommendations, or the flip of a coin.
In the event that the other party has some negotiating advantage, Fisher and Ury suggest that the answer is to improve the quality of your "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" (BATNA). For example, if you are negotiating for a job and want to make a case for a higher wage, you improve your negotiating power by having another job offer available, or at least as a possibility.
Fisher and Ury's maintain that the resistant competitive negotiator should insist on principled negotiation as a way that is most acceptable to the competitor. The principled negotiator might ask about the competitor's concerns. Here show that he or she understands these concerns and in return, ask the competitor to recognize all concerns.
Following the exploration of all interests, Fisher and Ury suggest seeking to induce the competitive negotiator to brainstorm options and to think in terms of objective criteria for decision making.
Another way of thinking about encouraging principled or integrative bargaining is to think in terms of matching, pacing, leading and modeling. To get a negotiator to shift orientations, it is critical that they first experience themselves as fully heard in terms of content, intensity and emotion. By so matching and pacing with a negotiator (asking a few clarifying questions), the negotiator will become more open to your lead and modeling of productive means of negotiating.
Conclusion
Given the above presentation, principled negotiation is especially crucial when an imbalance of power exists between the parties. It aims to establish common bonds and a shared effort to find solutions. It is more successful in societies whose cultures emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful.
REFERENCES
Catherine Morris, ed. Negotiation in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography. Victoria, Canada: Peacemakers
David Lax and James Sebenius, 3D Negotiation, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin, 1999, ISBN 0-14-028852-X
Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. 1992, Getting to Yes, 2 nd edn, Business Books Limited, London.
Johnson, R. 1993, Negotiation Basics: Concepts, Skills and Exercises, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Roger Dawson, "Secrets Elder, B. 1994, Communication Skills, MacMillan, South Melbourne
Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Viking/Penguin, 2005.
Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski, The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998, ISBN 0-471-08072-1
.
posted by mwesigye herbert at 2:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home