In this edition of the Mediation Network of North America blog, learn Why Positional Bargaining Fails and how you can improve your mediation skills with Dr. Ben Earwicker, M.Int.St., J.D., Ph.D.
Negotiation is an integral part of lifeāwhether we are closing a business deal, resolving a family dispute, or advocating for a cause. Yet, as Fisher, Ury, and Patton explain in Getting to Yes, most people instinctively approach negotiation with positional bargaining: staking out a fixed position and making concessions until a compromise is reached. In Chapters 1 and 2 of their seminal work, the authors break down the inefficiencies and pitfalls of this common approach, advocating instead for a method based on interests rather than positions.
Fisher and Ury outline two predominant styles of positional bargaining, each with its own drawbacks:
A āsoftā negotiator prioritizes maintaining relationships over securing the best possible outcome. This approach is characterized by:
A tendency to avoid conflict at all costs.
Willingness to make concessions easily.
An emphasis on being fair and cooperative, often to the negotiatorās own detriment.
While this style fosters goodwill, it frequently leads to unbalanced agreements where one party gains disproportionately at the expense of the other. Moreover, it sets a precedent that can encourage exploitationāwhen one side is perceived as too willing to concede, the other may continue pushing for more.
At the other extreme, āhardā negotiators focus on winning at all costs. Their approach typically involves:
Setting high, rigid demands.
Using aggressive tactics to pressure the other party.
Making minimal or no concessions.
This method often results in deadlock or strained relationships. When both sides adopt a hard stance, the negotiation becomes a test of wills rather than a problem-solving exercise. Even if an agreement is reached, it may come at the cost of long-term collaboration and trust. The damage to relationships can be especially harmful in contexts where ongoing cooperation is necessary, such as workplace or diplomatic negotiations.
The authors argue that positional bargainingāwhether soft or hardātends to be inefficient, produces unwise outcomes, and jeopardizes relationships. Hereās why:
It Encourages Stubbornness Over Flexibility
When negotiators anchor themselves to fixed positions, they become less willing to consider alternative solutions. This rigidity stifles creativity and prevents both sides from exploring mutually beneficial options.
It Focuses on Positions Rather Than Interests
The essence of effective negotiation is understanding why each party wants what they want. Positions are often surface-level statements (e.g., āI need a 10% raiseā), whereas interests reveal underlying motivations (e.g., āI need higher pay to afford childcareā). When parties focus solely on their stated positions, they miss opportunities to satisfy their true needs through alternative solutions.
It Wastes Time and Energy
When both sides dig in, negotiations can become protracted battles of attrition. Instead of working toward a resolution, the focus shifts to defending oneās stance and undermining the opponentās. The longer a negotiation drags on, the more costly it becomes in terms of time, resources, and emotional strain.
It Harms Relationships
Hard bargaining creates adversarial dynamics, while soft bargaining fosters resentment from unfair compromises. Neither method builds the foundation for healthy, long-term partnerships. When negotiations end with one party feeling exploited or unsatisfied, future interactions are likely to be strained.
Rather than fixating on rigid positions, Fisher and Ury propose principled negotiation, which focuses on identifying and addressing underlying interests. The key principles include:
Separating the people from the problem ā Avoid personal attacks and keep discussions focused on issues rather than personalities.
Focusing on interests, not positions ā Dig deeper to understand why a party holds a certain stance and look for ways to meet those underlying needs.
Generating options for mutual gain ā Brainstorm multiple possibilities before deciding on a final agreement.
Using objective criteria ā Base decisions on fair standards (such as market value, legal precedent, or expert opinions) rather than power plays or subjective opinions.
By shifting from positional bargaining to an interest-based approach, negotiators can craft solutions that satisfy all parties, preserve relationships, and yield more durable agreements.
Fisher and Uryās critique of positional bargaining serves as a compelling argument for a more thoughtful, interest-based approach to negotiation. Whether dealing with workplace conflicts, business deals, or personal disputes, moving beyond fixed positions and focusing on underlying interests allows for more effective, collaborative, and sustainable agreements. By applying these principles, negotiators can avoid unnecessary conflict, foster trust, and ultimately achieve better outcomes for all involved.
Are you ready to take your conflict resolution skills to the next level? Dr. Earwickerās Professional Development Mediation Training offers a comprehensive, ADR Training Course designed to prepare you for the demands of contemporary mediation, in-person or online. Building on the expertise of Dr. Ben Earwicker, M.Int.St., Ph.D., J.D., this Online Mediation Course equips you with the practical tools you need to resolve disputes effectively and ethicallyāwhether in business, family, or community settings.
Dr. Earwickerās curriculum is designed to build a strong foundation in Mediation Skills Training. By integrating theory with hands-on practice, youāll develop critical competencies essential to a successful career in dispute resolution:
