Negotiation involves preparing a strategic plan before meeting the other party and making good tactical decisions during the negotiation sessions. A negotiation strategy is a commitment to an overall approach that has a good chance of achieving the negotiator’s objectives.
Some negotiators pursue a “hard” strategy with opponents, whereas, others maintain that a “soft” strategy yields more favorable results. Fisher and Ury propose another strategy that of “principled negotiation” described below:
The Principled-Negotiation Approach to Bargaining
In a research program known as the Harvard Negotiation Project, Roger Fisher and William Ury arrived at four points for conducting principled negotiations:
- Separate the people from the problem – Each party must understand the other side’s viewpoint and the level of emotion with which they hold it, but the focus should be on the parties’ interests rather than their differences. Active listening to opposing arguments and addressing the problem in response improve the chance of reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
- Focus on interests, not positions – The distinction between positions and interests is similar to that between solutions and desired outcome or means and end. By focusing on interests rather than positions, the negotiators are more likely to find a mutually agreeable means of achieving common interests.
- Invent options for mutual gain – Search for a larger pie rather than arguing over the size of each side’s slice. Looking for options that offer mutual gain helps identify shared interests.
- Insist on objective criteria – Insist that the agreement reflect fair objective criteria independent of either side’s position. This approach avoids a situation in which one side must yield to the position of the other. Instead, both sides are yielding to a fair solution based on criteria they both accept.
Negotiators use a variety of tactics when bargaining. Bargaining tactics are maneuver made at specific points in the bargaining process. Fisher and Ury have offered tactical advice that is consistent with their strategy of principled negotiation. If the other party is more powerful, the best tactic is to know one’s BATNA – Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. By identifying the alternatives if a settlement is not reached, the organization sets a standard against which any offer can be measured. Knowing its BATNA protects the organization from being pressured into accepting unfavorable terms from a more powerful opponent.
Another set of bargaining tactics are responses intended to deceive, distort, or otherwise influence the bargaining. What tactic should be used when the other side uses a take-it-or-leave-it tactic or seats the other party on the side of the table with the sun in his eyes? A negotiator should recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability – in other words, negotiate over it. If negotiating fails, the organization resorts to its BATNA and terminate the negotiation until the other side ceases to employ these tactics. Meeting such tactics with defending principles is more productive than counterattacking with tricky tactics.
