|
Module 1: Definitions
People in conflict often make many statements,
arguments, and threats in their efforts to prevail.
Negotiation often entails one side making a proposal
to resolve a dispute and the other side making a counter-proposal.
Embedded within this exchange are positions
disputants take and the interests they seek to satisfy.
|
Distinguishing between Positions and
Interests
|
|
A demand, or
A proposal, or
A preferred course of action
Key features:
- It is specific
- It involves doing, action
A position is the “What to do” |
| |
|
|
|
The reason(s) for a position, or
A goal or objective
Key features:
- An interest is more general than a position,
and open to interpretation
- It is not an action
An interest is the “Why”
behind the “What”
|
Positions and Interests – Similar
to “Means” and “Ends”
Another way of thinking about positions
and interests is to consider the “ends” that
people are after [their goals, what they ultimately want]
and the “means” for pursuing their ends. Means
are closely related to positions. The “what you want
to happen” is similar to “how do you want to
pursue your goals.” Ends usually spring from people’s
underlying interests. There can be different levels of interests.
The idea of layered interests is addressed here [hl].
Why seek interests? Better than bargaining
for a compromise
Seeking people’s underlying interests
is often more effective in reaching a good solution than
simply exchanging proposals and counter-proposals. The “tit
for tat” bargaining of proposals and counter-proposals
often leads to compromises without understanding each side’s
reasons, their interests. When interests are understood,
it often leads to more satisfactory options for a resolution
of the problem.
More formal definitions of positions and interests
are covered in many sources. One of the most noted books
popularizing the idea of interest-based negotiation is Getting
to Yes: [citation: Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce
Patton. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
without Giving In (2nd edition). New York: Penguin
Books.] Another general text is Christopher Moore (1996).
The Mediation Process (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Two passages from Getting to Yes: [Not Yet
Provided]
Another basic textbook is Christopher Moore
– The Mediation Process, 1996 [2nd edition]
Page 70
Positional bargaining derives its name from then practice
of selecting a series of positions – particular
settlement options that meet the proposing party’s
interests—and presenting these to an opponent as
the solution to the issue in question. A party’s
position may or may note be responsive to the needs or
interest of the other negotiators. Positions are generally
ordered sequentially so that the first position is a large
demand and represents a negotiator’s maximum expectation
of gain should his or her opponent acquiesce. Each subsequent
position demands less of an opponent and results in fewer
benefits for the initiating party. Characteristically,
position bargaining commits parties early in the negotiations
to very specific solutions to issues in dispute and often
reduces the flexibility to generate other equally acceptable
options.
Page 71
Interest-based bargainers believe that settlements in
negotiations are reached because a party has succeeded
in having his or her interests satisfied.
“Interests are specific conditions (or gains) that
a party must obtain for an acceptable settlement to occur.
They are of three broad types: substantive, procedural
and psychological.”