Getting To Yes

11 Pages 2654 Words

re and more attention is paid to each negotiators positions instead of the argument at hand. Through this process, so much is lost on all sides. By stonewalling one’s opponents, it makes it very difficult to be able to decipher if an agreement is possible; the other side’s desires, their possibility for concession, and their ability to be reasoned with is lost. Valuable time and money are spent arguing each other’s respective positions instead of finding out if an agreement can be reached amicably (or even if such an agreement is even possible). After each side’s time and money are wasted, future negotiations are severely compromised. After arguing back and forth, admittedly with no real focus, and receiving no concessions or signs of common ground, or the desire to seek such a position, that relationship is forever tainted (as each side sees the other as uncompromising). The other problem that firms run into is that this problem is self-perpetuating. If one party is stuck on a point and refuses to budge due to their position (conveying to the others involved that their position is therefore better or more important) then the other parties in the process will move to the defensive and refuse to give concessions based on their position as well. In addition, the more parties involved, the larger the problem will become, as many times, when dealing with a large group, a single nay-sayer can upset the whole process. Plus, in dealing with a large number of parties, the negative effects of ill will are multiplied, thereby making it impossible to conduct business in the future. Whether a party is playing it “soft” or playing it “hard”, positional bargaining reduces the negotiation process to stubborn game of power-struck fools.

Often times, as seen in the previously discussed positional bargaining, a major problem arises when one focuses too much on their position or their opponents, instead of the problem they ar...