In this blog post, Tanvi Amlani, a student of GGSIP University, who is currently pursuing a Diploma in Entrepreneurship Administration and Business Laws from NUJS, Kolkata, discusses the basics of principled negotiation. 

The concept of principled negotiation is based on the book Getting to Yes by Roger Fish and Bill Ury. The approach as laid down by the authors believes in achieving a mutually shared outcome by emphasizing on conflict management and conflict resolution. The parties to a dispute are left with a win-win situation where there is no more room for discussion as all the creative options have already been exploited.

There are four central guidelines to the approach. These are:

• Separate People from the problem being negotiated
• Focus on the negotiating parties interests, not their positions
• Generate different options for mutual gain
• Base the outcome from the principled negotiation session on objective criteria

A principled negotiation is an interest-based approach

Separating people from the problem simply means to disintegrate people problems from substantive issues. When both are dealt independently, it is believed that this would result in a better outcome. According to the author, people’s problems are influenced by their perceptions and emotions. It is also believed that when emotions are intermingled with the real issue, the negotiation process becomes hard to deal with. If different parties have different understandings of their dispute, then effective negotiation is very difficult to achieve.

Focusing on interests means throwing light on the real interests and desires of the disputing parties. By focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle of inventing options for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over the original positions which assume that for one side to win, the other side must lose.

Objective criteria for decisions is not always available but if found one can bring fairness into the decisions.

Guidelines Under the Approach

A Line of Separation to be formed between the persons involved in the dispute and their dispute

This implies that all problems and conflicts are subjective in nature, different people may have different viewpoints regarding the same issue and dispute. Thus, to reach the crux and the core of the problem, which resulted in a conflict, there is an immediate need to separate personal viewpoints and feelings attached therein plus other influencing factors from the problem, to reach a neutral state.

This may further help in achieving justified results while resolving the disputes. One must understand that there is always a difference between relationship issues and substantive issues, the latter must be given relevance over the first one to attain optimum results.

Interpretation of reality is different from different people, but there always exists an objective reality.

Understanding the perceptions of opposite parties is though an integral part of understanding the problem, which should not be ignored. But one should be careful that emotions do not get intermixed with the substantive issues.

In the year 1991, seven ways were added to follow this approach. This included seeing the problem differently, and overlooking the conflict keeping in mind a person’s situation, and also the opponents perspective. There is always a difference between agreeing with the perspective and understanding the perspective. Efforts should, therefore, be made to understand the problem with the opponent’s perspective but agreeing with the same is not compulsory.

The next task involves, perceiving the real intentions but not deducing them. It should be kept in mind that the opponent should not be blamed even if according to you he deserves it, because blaming only makes a person defensive, the target of bringing them(the parties to dispute) mutually together for an effective decision which further strengthens their faith and make them feel winners should be kept in mind.

The fifth advice laid down was to make sure that one should not miss acting inconsistently with the opponent’s perspective. A person should try to change the opposition’s inaccurate belief and negative perceptions.

Both the parties should feel participation in the negotiation process. This increases satisfaction with the ultimate results. Thus acceptance of the end results becomes much easier.

To reconcile with the opponent, the proposals made should be such that they are consistent with the principles and self-image of the participant. Fisher, Ury, and Cry have equated people’s problems to communication problems and listed three types of such communication problems.

• Firstly, they feel that there is a problem is when the parties do not talk to each other and even when they do, they communicate with the third party or an audience.
• Secondly, according to the learned authors, the problem can also be called as communication problem when the parties do not listen to each other, and on the other hand when the opponent is trying to explain his point they are busy preparing answers to them.
• Finally, the problem arises because the parties create misunderstandings and misinterpretations about each other.

There are also techniques suggested by the authors to minimize such communication problems.

Focusing on Interest   

As discussed above in the earlier part of this article the true meaning of focusing on interests is that we need to find out what people want or need and not what they express.

We must understand that generally in the conflicts people take in extreme positions merely to satisfy their anger and discontent.

By targeting actual problems and trying to recognize real and substantive issues, it is easier to follow the third principle laid down by the authors.

Creating Options and Inventing Methods to Satisfy Both the Parties to bring further in the Desired Results for Mutual Gain

The above two methods if implied in the true sense along with the correct approach, would help to create such options that will result in a mutual gain for the parties.

Such solutions will boost relations between the opponents and the outcome will be fruitful.

By suggesting answers that are acceptable to both the parties, we mean that coming out with such unbiased decisions that the parties to a conflict feel satisfied. They should feel that their perspectives and perceptions are respected before coming out with the final decision. Their real and factual interests should be given due consideration before declaring the results.

Rather than having one winner in the stated disputes, the opponents will both be placed in a winning situation.

Looking out for an Objective Criteria for Decisions

The fourth directive lays down a simple rule which believes in taking the help of precedents. This approach has a logical take on the present scenario. One can always take the support of already decided similar disputes to come out with a solution.

This technique gives the opponents an idea as to what would be fair in the prevalent circumstances and situations.

Overseeing the Other Alternatives

The authors have laid down a very important point. They stress upon the factor that the opponents must be aware of all the alternatives that are available to him before entering into any agreement.

This will help him in choosing amongst them all what suits him the best. Unless one has an idea of all the benefits that can be accrued, he may select something less appropriate according to the circumstances.

Conclusion

In the book, Getting to yes by Fisher, Ury, and Patton, the authors, have strictly argued that all disputes can be resolved with principled negotiation. They believe that there exists no conflict, which cannot result in a mutual gain for both the parties. However, there is contentions and criticism that there are cases where there is a superior party, and the derived results would always lead to a win-lose situation.

Though this approach has also gained criticism, it is still appreciated by many for its benefits and the outcome, which provided mutual gain to both the parties in the dispute.