Briefly describe the characteristics of the "positional" and "interest-based" approaches to addressing conflict

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Positional: In the positional approach the parties, to varying degrees, treat the conflict as a contest of wills. They enter a conflict discussion with clear ideas of what they want to achieve and hold firm to these positions. The positional approach does not take into consideration the underlying concerns, needs, or wants of the parties, which generally forecloses any examination on how the parties' positions might be reconciled. Rather, the parties lock into their positions. If resolution occurs, it is because the parties have weighed what they have to win against what they have to lose by not resolving the dispute rather than considering how each might achieve more by working together.

Interest-based: The interest-based approach takes into consideration the underlying needs, wants, values, and goals of the parties. In Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton discuss the limits of the positional model and make the case that any meaningful conflict resolution must take into consideration the relationship between the parties with the view of preserving it, and perhaps even improving it. They set forth clear principles on which a negotiation should be judged. In addition to preserving or improving the relationship, any agreement should meet the legitimate interests of the parties, resolve conflicting interests fairly, be durable, and take the interests of others who may be affected by the agreement into account.3 Fisher, Ury, and Patton argue that the interest-based approach is more efficient than the traditional positional model because it eliminates the associated game playing, time, and costs.