Principle Based Negotiation - Too Soft Too Succed

585 Words3 Pages
The traditional negotiation theory distinguishes between two negotiation styles. Positional bargaining which can be pursued in a hard or a soft manner has been complemented by the approach of principle based negotiation. In their publication "Getting to yes" Roger Fisher and William Ury proclaim being hard on the problem but soft on people to be "a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably" The journal at hand deals with the question if principle based negotiation is an appropriate strategy to reach an agreement that yields promising returns for the single negotiator. My assumption is, that the approach may be too soft to maximize the negotiators outcome. Fisher and Ury recognize that "behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones". Therefore many negotiations include integrative as well as distributive components. The authors' principle based approach perfectly works out for integrative negotiations which have the aim to create value for both parties according to their individual interest. Nevertheless their approach does not provide satisfying results for the second, the distributive part, of the negotiation. The recommendation to develop objective criteria in order to fairly distribute the value is not appropriate in reality. The fact that the existence of objective criteria can be questioned, provides the negotiator with an incentive to misuse the Harvard method in order to enhance his or her outcomes for the disadvantages of the other party. In the "Mustbach" exercise I took the role of the seller whereas my partner Sandra was obliged to buy a configured car. I actively took the initiative and asked Sandra a lot of questions about her interests and her willingness to obtain and sacrifice certain features. In comparison with my preference structure I found out

More about Principle Based Negotiation - Too Soft Too Succed

Open Document