Positional vs Interest-based communications
Often, positional versus interest-based communications results in conflict. A personal stance
on a particular issue often conflicts with common or underlying interests,
while interest-based communications focuses on the utilization of common
interests in effort to benefit the resolution process. These differences in communication patterns typically
hinder effective conflict resolution due to the fact that they do not
compliment one another. However, in
order to achieve a favorable resolve, the utilization of dialogue would benefit
the conflict of communication.
First, “positional
bargaining is a negotiation that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or
position, of what you want and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any
underlying interests” (Spangler, 2003).
Often times this is the initial strategy sought within a negotiation or
bartering scenario. Unfortunately, “as
the negotiation advances, the negotiators become more and more committed to
their positions, continually restating and defending them. A strong commitment
to defending a position usually leads to a lack of attention to both parties'
underlying interests” (Spangler, 2003).
Commonly this approach is considered a less constructive and less
efficient strategy for negotiation, due to the fact that it is less likely to
result in a win-win outcome and may also tarnish the relationship between
parties.
On the other hand,
interest-based communications encourages opposing parties to collaborate to see
if they can resolve their issues by addressing their mutual concerns and common
interests. This approach increases the
likelihood that:
1. The parties
will feel that the decision-making process has been a fair one.
2. The parties
will be more committed to carrying out the agreements made.
3. They are more
likely to have a greater understanding of, and respect for, each other.
4. If future
conflicts arise, they will have an example to follow, making it easier for the
parties to address the conflict and deal with it constructively.
5. It is more cost
and time efficient than positional communication, and it may improve the
relationship (Office of the Dispute Resolution Specialist, 2004).
Interest-based communications tend
to yield a win-win outcome, due to the fact that both parties are collectively
working together by negotiating, joint problem-solving, mutual gains
bargaining, and brainstorming (Furlong, 2005).
When experiencing
communication conflicts, dialogue is an effective approach to resolution. “Participants in conversations and similar
highly interactive communicative forms behave less like autonomous information
processors and more like participants in an intrinsically cooperative activity”
(Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus, 2006, p. 152).
The utilization of dialogue allows the parties to collaborate and actively
communicate. “In dialogic perspective,
communication is regarded as a joint accomplishment of the participants, who
have collaborated to achieve some set of communicative goals” (Deutsch, Coleman,
Marcus, 2006, p. 153). Therapists,
religious leaders, and mediators encourage the usage of these processes to
break down stereotypes, and to build up mutual understanding and trust between
members of opposing parties. They are commonly used to resolve domestic
disputes, in peer mediation, in public policy conflicts in the U.S., as well
as in international conflicts and communal or ethnic conflicts around the world
(Conflict Research Consortium, 1998).
References:
Conflict Research Consortium: University of Colorado (1998). Dialogue Projects.
Retrieved
July 31, 2010, from
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus,
E.C., (Eds.). (2006). The Handbook of Conflict
Resolution: Theory
& Practice. (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Furlong, G.T. (2005). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox. Ontario, Canada:
John Wiley &
Sons
Canada, Ltd.
Office of the Dispute Resolution
Specialist (2004). A Four-Step Way
of Dealing
With Conflict. Retrieved
July 31, 2010 from
Spangler, B., (2003). Positional
Bargaining. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from
