Negotiation between Fisher and Ury - Essay Example

Fisher and Ury convincingly argue that everyone posses a sense of negotiation (6). Negotiation may be applied to achieve a balance between different interests. Fisher and Ury explain the three types of negotiation applied by individuals. A soft negotiator is willing to compromise his or her interests to avoid conflict. The hard negotiator is ready for a contest of interests whereby he or she takes the extreme position in what can be considered as a battle of supremacy. On the other hand, the method of principled negotiation lies on the borders of hard and soft negotiation (6). To illustrate the method of principled negotiation, the following negotiation was witnessed between two neighbors. BUGSY: Can you turn down the volume on your stereo? RONALD: Why? BUGSY: Am trying to sleep because I have exams tomorrow RONALD: That is none of my business BUGSY: Please can you play it loud another day maybe the weekend? RONALD: The stereo is mine, and it stays as it is... What are you going to do about it? BUGSY: I don’t want any physical altercations with you RONALD: Well go on; enjoy your night. BUGSY: Alright, I will report you to the building manager. The above negotiation utilized the principled model of negotiation. The parties involved are using both the soft and hard approach. Bugsy is applying the soft approach; trying as much as he can to remain civil. In addition, he considers Ronald as a friend; hence, trying to make concessions to retain the civility. However, it fails, as he trusts that Ronald will reciprocate his kindness and come to an amicable agreement. Ronald, on the other hand, appears to be a hard negotiator. They both argue over positions; hence, producing unwise agreements (7). Bugsy, being a soft negotiator, tries to be nice to Ronald. Fisher and Ury explain that being nice is not the solution (9). Some level of positional bargaining is sufficient to express interests. Bugsy is willing to compromise his position, but this makes Ronald tougher as he gets to realize his ‘supremacy’ in the argument. An efficient method of principled negotiation ought to consider the people, interests, options, and criteria to resolve the conflict (11). The conversation indicates that the people were not separate from the problem. In this case, both Ronald and Bugsy approached each other as the problem. Bugsy, despite trying to maintain the neighborly relationship, is frustrated by Ronald's lack of reciprocation. Ronald perceives Bugsy as an adversary; hence, failing to focus on interests rather than positions. By using the principled approach, both Ronald and Bugsy should have taken into consideration the available options to mitigate the conflict and establish relevant criteria to ensure that everyone’s interests are considered. Both Bugsy and Ronald approached the negotiation on established positions (positional bargaining). Ronald is adamant and unwilling to compromise on his position. Bugsy should have sought to understand Ronald’s basic interest or need, like the need to have a sense of control over his stereo. Fisher and Ury explain that principled negotiation lies on understanding the other party (21). As such, Bugsy, being the soft negotiator, thought of Ronald as adamant; hence, compromising on the need to understand his interests. It may be argued that Bugsy was selfish because he thought his request to have Ronald reducing his stereo would be automatic. He failed in analyzing Ronald’s interests. It could have been that Ronald was stressed, and sought music as the best possible therapy at that moment. Bugsy ought to have applied the method of principled negotiation by understanding Ronald to understand why he was playing loud music at night. In this case, the music would have been a means to an end rather than being dependant on Ronald’s interests. The conflict between Bugsy and Ronald would have been resolved if they applied objective criteria to invent options. For this reason, the options may be divided into; the problem and solution (37). Bugsy ought to have incorporated a third party to ensure that the problem is separated from personal differences. The custodian would have been the best third party to ensure that objectivity is upheld; hence, formulating alternatives to achieving a solution. The negotiation model is idealistic for conflict resolution. The principle of separating people from the problem, in most instances, is not practicable. Human beings, by their very nature, are driven by emotions. In addition, everyday communication is guided by emotions. In some instances, reason may prevail. However, when interests collide with the former, emotions prevail. Fisher and Ury convincingly argue that conflicts in situations where the parties agree to disagree can be resolved by dovetailing differing interests (39). In the case of Bugsy and Ronald, they would have opted to dovetail differing options to convince them to allow for some compromise on their interests. As much as it may sound absurd, Fisher and Ury acknowledges this principle as sufficiently productive. The Truth about Negotiations; Leigh Thompson Thompson’s book supplements Fisher and Ury’s model of principled negotiation. She argues that the negotiation process can either go wrong or right despite it being a natural process. In addition, she points out the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) as the best possible method to prepare for a negotiation. Parties in the negotiation process ought to quantify their reservation point to set a target that can be used to establish an interests chart (Thompson, 29). She adds that it is prudent that parties in the negotiation process learn how to make the first offer, provide counter-offers, and means to leverage individual position regardless of whether the other party is a hard negotiator (Thompson, 61). Thompson convincingly argues that parties in the negotiation process ought to create value (137). The negotiation process can grow the ‘pie’ to formulate multiple win-win (collaborating) strategies. Works Cited Fisher, Roger, and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Penguin, 1991. Print. Thompson, Leigh L. The Truth about Negotiations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education/FT, 2013. Print. Read More