An example of the follies of positional bargaining would be the breakdown of talks over the comprehensive ban on nuclear testing between the United States and the Soviet Union under the Kennedy Administration. The two sides argued over the number of inspections that each is allowed to make in the other's territory. The United States wanted no less than ten while the Soviet Union would not allow more than three per year. The talk broke down over positions despites the fact that no one defined whether an "inspection- would involve one person looking around for one day or a hundred people prying indiscriminately for a month. As a result, the noble goal of stopping nuclear testing resulted is nothing but bitter feelings between to two countries. (Fisher and Ury 5).
To avoid the drawbacks of positional bargaining, the Harvard Negotiation Project developed a strategy known as principled negotiation. This method encourages parties to negotiate on interests through a system of merits and principles rather than to negotiate on positions through a haggling process. Principled negotiation stresses the need for mutual gains whenever possible and adherence to some fair standards independent of the will of either party. Designed to be hard on merits and soft on people, principled negotiation enables peaceful resolution of conflicts while maintaining amicable long-term relationships with each other.
Principled negotiation can be broken down into five elements: interest, people, option, criteria, and BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement). They are the basis of analysis, planning, and discussion throughout the principle negotiation process. During the analysis stage, one is simply trying to survey the situation by gathering and organizing information. This is the time to scout the people, interest, option, and criteria that may be involved in the negotiation. Next, negotiators determine what is important and what is realistic during the planning stage.
