Q & A Table of Contents
Critiques of Principled Negotiation Needed
From: Student Queensland, Australia
Question: I'm currently doing a paper for my MBA on principled negotiation. Im finding it hard to find literature that is critical of the principled negotiaion approach. Could you describe for me specific types of conflicts or negotiations where the principled negotiation approach may not be advisable.
Response: Principled negotiation, more properly called 'interest-based negotiation' is by far the best way for parties to resolve virtually all disputes. Even when one finds disputes derived from centuries of rancor, such as in the case of Northern Ireland, it is the use of techniques of interest-based negotiation that brought about the so-called 'Good Friday Agreement' which appears to have achieved what warfare, political wrangling, and uncivility had not accomplished.
While there remain some commercial teachers of negotiation techniques who appear to encourage the use of 'slash & burn' approaches, when one examines the syllabi of their courses, one finds they, too, encourage course members to aim for a win/win resolution.
I am not familiar with a body of literature that takes a negative view of interest-based negotiation. Most assuredly, one can find articles and books that 'tweak' interest- based techniques to make them work better. There are also published books that describe 'dirty' negotiation tactics; the ones that I have examined explain how to counter such tactics, for the most part using interest-based strategies and techniques.
The important thing to understand in viewing interest-based negotiation is that it is not organized like a pre-flight checklist, where one must choose a particular route in every situation. Rather, interest-based techniques offer a variety of choices the negotiator can make based on the understanding that every situation has a degree of fluidity.
Hope this has been some help.
Good luck and good negotiating, Steve.
| 
