Thursday, October 13, 2011
Interest - Rights - Power
The examples we used in class helped me to more easily understand how these three things are the goals of negotiation. After reading "Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes" I came to understand that if two parties are not negotiating based on interests, the outcome will not be as good as it possibly could have been. Negotiating in terms of power leads to messy negotiations, and if one party does indeed win and a negotiation is made, then the other side will never truly accept it and always look to get back at the other party. Agreeing to terms based on rights is usually used well when there is a good government involved, as a government must be able to enforce the rights, or these type of negotiations are pointless. By negotiating on interests, both sides better convey what they ultimately want, and can more easily come to a suitable and successful negotiation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with the point where you say negotiation should be based off of interests. While reading I was thinking a reasonable outcome will be reached if you know what each side of the party wants out in the agreement or transaction. In this approach you can work with each other and come to a reasoning with disagreements.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, but I feel that any negotiation made based on power or rights can not last nearly as long as one based on interests. A negotiation based on interests helps both sides more thoroughly than a negotiation based on power or rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that negotiating over power leads to poor negotiations. I believe a great example of this is Cold War and how it ended between these two super powers was with the collapse of the USSR. Negotiations fail because no one wanted to give up power.
ReplyDelete