Chapter 2: Don’t Bargain Over Positions [ARR]

Annie's Reading Room 

The Problem: Don’t Bargain Over Positions

Imagine a customer and purveyor at a flea market “bargaining” over an antique piece priced at $75. The potential customer offers $15, and the two go back and forth with no agreed upon price reached. This is an example of positional bargaining.

Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         -<!--[endif]-->It should provide a wise agreement if agreement is possible

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         -<!--[endif]-->It should be efficient

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         -<!--[endif]-->It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.

The problem with positional bargaining is that people get locked into their positions. “The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it.”

Don’t Bargain Over Positions

The breakdown of the negotiations between President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union regarding nuclear test site inspections could have potentially been avoided if the two parties discussed the definition of “inspection” versus arguing over the number of inspections. The result of not defining this parameter was a superpower arms race that ensued over the next three decades. A wise agreement? Not at all.

As to efficiency, the more extreme the opening positions and the smaller the concessions, the more time and effort it will take to discover whether or not agreement is possible.

Positional bargaining becomes a test of will. Anger and resentment often result as one side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go unaddressed.

Unfortunately, being nice is not the answer either. In a soft negotiating game, the standard moves are to make offers and concessions, to trust the other side, to be friendly, and to yield as necessary to avoid confrontation. When sitting across the table from another soft negotiator, an agreement becomes likely. However, it may not be the wisest one. If you apply this method with a “hard” negotiator, you become vulnerable.

If neither hard nor soft negotiations are ideal, then what is the alternative? Change the game. This “new game” is called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits. It boils down to these four basic points:

People: Separate the people from the problem

Interests: Focus on interests, not positions

Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do

Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

Each of the next four chapters / posts will go into significant depth about how to leverage each of these 4 principles to “get to yes.”