Roger Fisher and William Ury, in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, examine the differences between positional bargaining and principled bargaining, favoring the latter over the former in all cases in which the required extra effort is worth it. The authors say that "in virtually every case, the outcome will be better for both sides with principled negotiation" (Fisher and Ury, 1991, 151). If there is something worth bargaining about, say the authors, then it is worth the effort to use the basic approach of principled negotiations. Positional bargaining is essentially based on the "positions" of the two negotiators, so that the result is a confrontational encounter in which negotiations only solidify the opposing positions and leads to tricks, power plays, distrust, etc. There are two types of positional bargaining, soft and hard, and both have serious drawbacks which prevent the best result for both parties. Principled negotiations, on the other hand, give the negotiators the chance to avoid those drawbacks by accomplishing four goals:
Separate the people from the problem. Focus on interests, not positions. Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. Insist that the result be based on some objective standard (Fisher and Ury, 1991, 10-11).
Each of these points makes it more likely that a result will occur which will be the best available one for both parties.
The authors list five basic considerations in deciding the worth of making the effort of principled negotiations. Principled negotiations are desirable if an arbitrary result is dangerous (as in the foundation of a building), if the issues are complicated, if a good post-negotiation relationship between the parties is important, if the parties are locked into their positions (and therefore will benefit most from the changes brought about by principled negotiations), and if principles can be appreciated before inevitable pos...