eling exploited and bitter. The hard negotiator, on the other hand, sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the stronger side, the side that takes the most extreme positions and holds out longer, fares best. The hard negotiator wants to win but usually ends up producing an equally hard response, exhausting himself and his resources and harming his relationship with the other side (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991, xviii). The UPS strike seems to be an example of hard negotiation.
However, Fisher, Ury, and Patton also write about an alternative to soft or hard bargaining, and they call it principled negotiation as developed at Harvard, another version of the win-win approach:
The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It allows you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991, xviii) .
Fisher, Ury, and Patton provide a number of ideas and suggestions as to how to negotiate in a way that would be most beneficial to solving problems and achieving principled negotiation. The approach to negotiation involving problem-solving has also been labeled win-win, though this type of bargaining is often also a variation on hard bargaining as one side or the other takes control and forces an issue their way while still satisfying the needs of the opposite side. This approach to negotiation has been much examined in recent years, with classes in negotiation at schools like Harvard and with theoretical models indicating to those who might need to negotiate some of the things they should keep in mind, including understanding the needs and background of the opposing side (Willens, 1987, 199-201).
An analysis of the UPS strike shows that it is a case of hard bargaining in which the Teamste...