The adversarial approach to negotiation is the predominant style adopted in the western world.

The approach is termed 'positional bargaining' because each side takes a position, which they then become locked into. The more they defend their position, the more entrenched they become in it. This is a Win Lose game. Often each point is seen as a separate battle to fight that limits the ability for either party to come to a solution looking at the whole issue.

The problem of ego with positional bargaining

As we defend a position we personally become entrenched in it. To give up the position we lose face and because giving up our position means losing, our ego won't let us do this.

If we lose on one point of the negotiation we aim to win on another point, even if this is not so important or valuable to us. If we go away as the loser, our aim is to win next time and the relationship becomes more adversarial.

This type of bargaining does not build good long-term relationships, but creates distrust and animosity.

If positional bargaining has its problems, is there an alternative? How can you play for Win Win successfully? Roger Fisher and William Ury, in their book Getting to Yes, describe an alternative which they call 'principled negotiation'.

Principled negotiation

Principled negotiation is not based on positions, but on interests and on what each side wants to achieve rather than their stated positions. It focuses on the issue and away from the people. This method can be distilled into four basic principles:

• Separate people from the problem
• Focus on interests not positions
• Generate a variety of options before deciding what to do
• Insist that the result is based on objective criteria.