Question

. According to Roger Fisher and William Ury, what are the main disadvantages of positional bargaining? Do you agree with their critical remarks? If you agree, can you give an example (either cited by W. Fisher and W. Ury, or your own) when positional bargaining was ineffective? If you don’t agree with the authors, can you cite an example when positional bargaining was effective

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily.

(Answer) The most efficient way to understand positional bargaining is by using the game of ‘chess’ as an allegory. The definition of positional bargaining is, “Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what you want and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any underlying interests.”

Fisher and Ury explain that a good agreement is one which is wise and efficient, and which improves the parties' relationship. Wise agreements satisfy the parties' interests and are fair and lasting. The authors' goal is to develop a method for reaching good agreements. Negotiations often take the form of positional bargaining. In positional bargaining, each part opens with their position on an issue. The parties then bargain from their separate opening positions to agree on one position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of positional bargaining. Fisher and Ury argue that positional bargaining does not tend to produce good agreements. It is an inefficient means of reaching agreements, and the agreements tend to neglect the parties' interests. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the parties' relationship.

(citation - Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, (New York: Penguin Books, 1983).

This definition negates the basic philosophy of chess. In the game, it is important to develop. In other words, it is pivotal to use as many pieces as you can and move them around effectively. Even though both players have a common goal of ‘check-mate’ it is still essential to move around as many pieces as possible. Similarly, when bargaining for a cause, it is important to explore many avenues. Even though the objective remains the same throughout, the arguments should be several and varied.