Collaborative and Principled Negotiation

Introduction 

Conflicts are bound to arise in almost all human interactions and relationships. These conflicts either revolve around issues or personalities (Shachar, 2011). The former type of conflicts is easier to resolve since the parties can work on developing a common position that delivers mutual benefits. On the other hand, conflicts that are based on personalities are more difficult to address since they involve emotions (Shachar, 2011). The key to resolving both types of conflicts lies in principled negotiation. Essentially, principled negotiation combines soft and hard approaches to negotiations to create outcomes that deliver gains for both parties. This paper sheds light on the effectiveness of principled negotiation. It focuses on a case study that David Bustard presents in an article that he authored. The paper also makes the argument that the application of principled negotiation in the case study can be extended to other situations. 

Effectiveness of principled negotiation 

In his article, Bustard discusses how an engineering team used principled negotiation to resolve conflicts and achieved goals. The principled negotiation proved to be an effective tool for balancing the competing interests of parties and achieving set objectives (Bustard, 2002). The case that Bustard details in the article involves Irish departments of health that approached him with a request to create a system ledger that would allow them to create a centralized system. Bustard embraced principled negotiation to solve the problem that the departments were grappling with (Bustard, 2002). In the discussion that follows, light is shed on the benefits and the effectiveness of the principled negotiation as applied by Bustard. 

One of the issues that Bustard wished to address through principled negotiation is to delink the problem from the people involved (Bustard, 2002). This is the key to effective conflict resolution and problem solving. When people become too involved emotionally in an issue, it is rather difficult to develop solutions. It is important for parties involved in a situation to remain objective and to focus all their efforts on the issues at hand (Shachar, 2011). As mentioned above, Bustard needed to develop a solution for various departments of health. This means that there were multiple parties with competing interests. Each party had its own way of doing things. Bustard reports that there was some tension among the parties and some parties had suspicions about the contractor. Through principled negotiation, Bustard was able to convince the different departments to pursue a common agenda (Bustard, 2002). While these departments retained their independence, they were able to abandon their differences and focus their energies on developing the centralized system. Principled negotiation also enabled Bustard to inspire confidence and ensure that all the parties participated fully in the process (Bustard, 2002). The benefits that Bustard enumerates are clear indication that principled negotiation is effective in building bridges and enhancing collaboration among parties that originally have different desires and cultures. This is what makes it different and more effective compared to other approaches. 

Apart from getting the different parties to rally behind a common goal, Bustard also used principled negotiation to convince the parties to make compromises (Bustard, 2002). One of the purposes that principled negotiation serves is that it enables parties to abandon hardline positions and make compromises. Through principled negotiation, Bustard managed to shift the attention of the parties from their individual positions to the common objectives that they all wished to achieve. For example, he managed to convince the departments to rally behind the creation of a new computer system (Bustard, 2002). Additionally, thanks to principled negotiation, Bustard was able to exploit the talents and resources of the different parties to obtain an understanding of the requirements for the new computer system. Overall, principled negotiation facilitated cooperation and allowed the parties to see the need to abandon their positions and work towards a compromise. Principled negotiation was clearly effective in establishing common objectives and offering the parties the drive to pursue a common agenda. There are other approaches that could have been used in this case. For example, the hard approach where parties push for their agenda and have no regard for the interests of others could have been used. Bustard must have selected principled negotiation because it encourages parties to commit all their efforts to the pursuit of some common goal. 

The third benefit that Bustard obtained through principled negotiation concerns the creation of solutions. Among other things, principled negotiation seeks to create options that deliver gains for all concerned stakeholders. The parties begin from their initial positions and work towards a common goal (Bustard, 2002). In the process, they are able to develop a range of solutions that present benefits for all. As a result of the use of principled negotiation, Bustard was able to identify the criteria to be used in the creation of the computer system. He also reports that principled negotiation allowed for flexibility to be achieved. Furthermore, thanks to principled negotiation, Bustard was able to improve on equipment and systems that already existed (Bustard, 2002). The benefits Bustard delivered for the health departments underscore the effectiveness of principled negotiation. This form of negotiation allows parties to combine their original ideas to create unique and mutually-beneficial solutions. Principled negotiation stands apart from such other methods as the hard approach. In this approach, both parties maintain their position and refuse to compromise. The fact that principled negotiation encourages compromising is one of the reasons why it was opted for over other approaches. 

Application to other situations 

The benefits discussed above are not limited to Bustard and the departments of health. Basically, these benefits can be enjoyed by all those who are willing to abandon their positions and make compromises. To make this point clearer, an example is necessary. The United States and other Western powers were involved in negotiations to secure a commitment from the Iranian government that it would abandon its nuclear ambitions (“Timeline of Nuclear”, 2016). After years of painstaking effort and negotiation, an agreement was reached. In exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions that had been imposed on it for years, the Iranian government agreed to end the nuclear program. This example serves as clear evidence that principled negotiation can be applied in other environments. 

Initially, the US and its allies insisted that Iran must cease all operations in its nuclear facilities (Lyons, 2015). These nations were not willing to make any concessions. On its part, the Iranian government wished to see the sanctions lifted but it was not willing to abandon the nuclear program. It is clear that the hard approach would not deliver any progress in this case. The two parties engaged in negotiations in good faith. They used principled negotiation to secure an agreement that presented all parties with gains. While Iran enjoyed a lifting of sanctions, the United States could finally rest assured that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons (The White House, 2016). Several principles of principled negotiation were at play in the Iran-US negotiations. The pursuit of a common position that is mutually beneficial and the focus on issues are among the principles that define principled negotiation. The US and Iran managed to create a solution that presented benefits for everyone. Additionally, they were able to abandon their ideological and political differences and remained focused on the issues. The agreement between Iran and the US is a textbook example of the application and benefits of principled negotiation. 

In conclusion, it is impossible to create an environment where conflicts do not arise. It appears that humans are simply selfish beings that push for their interests and positions. It is encouraging that there are tools available for promoting collaboration and resolving conflicts. Principled negotiation is one of these tools. Principled negotiation bridges the gap between soft and hard approaches to conflict resolution. When it is used, the parties commit to developing a solution that calls for compromises to be made. The agreement that the US and its allies entered into with Iran is an example of the gains that can result from the use of principled negotiation. This agreement serves as a lesson about the need for individuals who are in disagreement to employ principled negotiation. 

References 

Bustard, D. W. (2002). An Experience of Principled Negotiation in Requirements Engineering. 

Lyons, K. (2015). Iran Nuclear Talks: Timeline. Retrieved 30 th November 2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-talks-timeline 

Shachar, M. (2011). Conflict Resolution Management. 

The White House. (2016). The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon. Retrieved 30 th November 2016 from 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal 

Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran. (2016). Retrieved 30 th November 2016 from https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran