Positions are always polarized, as is exhibited in a case study of the current Middle Eastern conflict -- the Palestinians feel they have a right to a homeland, the Israelis believe they have a right to protect their security in a hostile region. However, both sides desire peace. In terms of their tactics both sides must yield something, neither side can have a 'bottom line' or an intractable position if they are to achieve their ultimate aim, their desire to live safety and security.
Thirdly, it is essential to generate options for mutual gains. Develop multiple options. Generating options will create more dialogue but paring two options against the other will merely dig in the positions of the warring parties even further, and no one will benefit. An example of how generating options has resulted in some positive benefits can be seen in the current writer's strike. Although the strike not resolved, by negotiating some leeway for late night talk show host writers, the talk shows have returned to the air, which will prevent...
If the shows decline in popularity, this will only result in the late night writers as well as the hosts being 'out of a job' once the strike concludes, perhaps far in the future.
Finally, a good negotiator always insists on using objective criteria. Reason takes the focus off of personal hatred, and also creates standards independent of the feelings of the individuals in conflict. Taking a reasoned point-of-view can cool inflamed emotions during a messy divorce, as both husband and wife realize that they must create a visiting schedule that allows both of them to see their children, that works with both of their schedules and the children's schedules. Focusing on practical issues rather than who is 'wrong' is the best tactic to come up with a solution to how to 'share' the children's time, rather than generate more problems by arguing about who is the better parent.
Works Cited
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, & Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes. Penguin, 1991.
