Interests, Rights & Power: Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes
Author: Linda L. Barkacs & Craig B. Barkacs
You’ve been attempting for hours to solve a conflict through negotiation and can’t seem to reach a resolution. Each side has dug in their heels and the situation feels impossible. Sound familiar?
Most people never formally study dispute resolution and have no idea what their default style is, let alone how to manage it to achieve a better result. We are here to change that.
There are three basic approaches to resolving disputes: interests, rights, and power. While no one approaches disputes the same way 100% of the time, most people have a default style.
Interests-based negotiators tend to lean toward problem-solving. They are usually motivated to achieve a win-win outcome. An interest-based negotiator is likely to share what they need, while simultaneously inquiring as to what the other party needs, to make the deal work for them. The strength of this style is that you can learn what motivates the other party so you both can find common ground. The weakness is that parties may be unwilling to share because there is little trust or emotions are running high.
Rights-based negotiators base their attempts to persuade on rules, legal rights, precedent, and other such norms. Lawyers are quite at home with this approach. When two parties to a contract disagree, how do they resolve the matter? Answer: Look at the language of the contract – or research precedent to see how other courts in this jurisdiction have resolved matters with similar fact patterns. You may hear these types of negotiators use phrases such as “This is not the way we do things” or “We can’t accommodate your request as it violates our rules and regulations.” The strength of rights arguments is that they are often backed up with years of precedent. Moreover, many people respect and follow the rules, so they will quickly back down in the face of such arguments.
There are also weaknesses to rights arguments. Often, the parties cannot agree on either the application or the interpretation of the rules, e.g., which is most important – the “letter of the law” or the “spirit of the law?” A good example is “zero tolerance” rules, often found in workplaces or school systems. Many schools have “zero tolerance” for students who bring weapons to school and doing so results in automatic expulsion of the student who breaks the rule. Suppose little Roshan gets a new Swiss army knife for Christmas and brings it to school to show off the spoon, bottle opener, nail file, and other “cool” features. The teacher sees the knife at recess. Under the “letter of the law” Roshan is expelled. But the “spirit of the law” is to avoid students bringing weapons to harm others. Under this definition, Roshan should not be expelled as there was no intent to harm anyone.
Power-based negotiators do not wish to appear weak, therefore they may attempt to force others to do something they would otherwise not do. Their method often includes insults and other hardball tactics. If you don’t respond in a manner that pleases them, they will threaten to withdraw their business. The strength of this negotiation style is that the negotiator does not appear weak and may remind the other side of the extent of harm that may ensue if they do not comply. Often people faced with power-based negotiators will collapse and capitulate. Power moves can also inspire or “bring back to the table” a focus on interests. Suppose a negotiator is being a bully and you suddenly push back. Often that is all it takes to stop a bully. Conversely, capitulation sends the wrong message — remember, what gets rewarded gets repeated.
The negative side of power moves is that often the parties don’t recognize each other’s view of the power distribution. This may lead to a battle of egos, causing both parties to lose focus. In the worst case, it may even incite the other side to retaliate and escalate.
So, which approach to disputes is best? The reality is that all three types of dispute styles have their place. In fact, all three approaches often appear intermittently in the course of dispute. As negotiation guru Leigh Thompson says, negotiators need to be “trilingual.” That being said, interest-based negotiating is where parties need to end up because it focuses on problem-solving and maybe even achieving a win-win agreement.
Learning to navigate through the various styles at the appropriate times will greatly increase your success in negotiating. So, the next time you are getting pushed around, use a power move and give a little push back. Or, if someone is relying solely on rules and regulations, ask probing questions regarding WHY those rules are in place. Finally, inquire as to what the other party needs to make the deal happen—and by this we mean uncover their underlying interests. Share some of your interests to build trust. Understand your default style but recognize the power of all the dispute styles and use them to your advantage.
Now go out there and close that deal!