Is Dispute Resolution Negotiations Tend To Be Position Based? The answer is nuanced. While positional bargaining is a common starting point in many disputes, understanding its limitations and adopting more collaborative approaches is crucial for achieving lasting and mutually beneficial outcomes. This article delves into the dynamics of position-based negotiation in dispute resolution, examining its characteristics, drawbacks, and alternatives.
Understanding Position-Based Negotiation in Dispute Resolution
Position-based negotiation, also known as distributive bargaining, is a negotiation strategy where parties stake out specific positions and argue for them relentlessly. Each party focuses on what they want (their position) rather than why they want it (their underlying interests). This approach often involves making demands, threats, and concessions to reach a compromise that favors one’s own position. The core element of position-based negotiation is attempting to claim as much value as possible in a negotiation, often viewing the process as a zero-sum game. This means that one party’s gain is perceived as the other party’s loss.
A classic example involves two children arguing over an orange. Each child takes the position that they want the entire orange. They might argue about who deserves it more, who asked for it first, or who needs it more. However, without understanding their underlying interests, they may not realize that one child only wants the peel for baking, while the other only wants the juice. In contrast to focusing on the need for the entirety of the orange, exploring the reasons behind the want reveals the potential for a mutually beneficial agreement. This type of negotiation can be characterized by:
- A focus on winning
- Concealing information
- Making threats and demands
- A fixed-pie perception
While seemingly straightforward, position-based negotiation often leads to inefficient and strained relationships. This is because the parties involved become entrenched in their respective viewpoints and are not motivated to explore the other party’s needs or work towards collaborative outcomes. It can escalate tensions, damage trust, and result in impasses, hindering the resolution process. However, in some instances, positional negotiation can be a suitable strategy. The situations can happen when:
- There is a single issue at stake.
- A continued relationship is not essential.
- The alternatives to an agreement are not appealing.
To delve deeper into effective dispute resolution strategies and learn how to move beyond position-based negotiation, refer to reputable resources on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and negotiation techniques. These resources offer invaluable insights into interest-based bargaining and collaborative problem-solving, promoting mutually beneficial outcomes.