With the positional style of negotiation, each party starts with an extreme (usually unjustified) position. 

The basis for this approach stems from the belief that the ultimate solution will be favourable only if the 

initial offer is extreme. 

It is seen as a zero-sum game. One party will win and one will lose.

An extreme position increases the chances of a "win，" but the more extreme the opening positions and 

the smaller the concessions, the more time and effort it will take to come to an agreement.

A typical positional negotiation is likely to conclude after a lengthy exchange of small offers and counteroffers. 

These small concessions are made to avoid a negotiation impasse. 

The process frequently includes theatrics from both parties. Common tactics include foot-dragging, threatening to 

walk out, and stonewalling.

This time consuming process continues until some constraint compels one or both sides to seek resolution. 

The differences that were keeping the two parties apart are usually reconciled with major movements. 

There is then a final series of "split the difference offers with an eventual settlement.

Settlements in positional negotiations come with a steep non- monetary price. 

Trust falls by the wayside. In addition, the process creates (or perpetuates) an adversarial relationship 

between the two parties. This arrangement does not bode well for close buyer-supplier relationships, 

which are crucial for both parties.

Successful companies are placing greater reliance on their suppliers for a technical edge in the market place. 

This close relationship frequently includes joint strategic planning, simultaneous engineering on new products 

and processes, continuous quality improvements and better communication. Positional negotiations threaten 

the success of all these buyer-supplier initiatives. 

The narrow focus on tradeoffs and split-the difference compromises frequently leads to suboptimal "Win-Lose" or even "Lose-lose" solutions. 

Dangers of positional negotiations:

Produces unwise agreements because:

• Positions are tied to egos;
• Negotiators tend to be locked into positions; and
• As more attention is paid to positions, less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties.

Arguing over positions is inefficient because:

• It becomes an incentive to stall settlement; and
• Agreement requires concession.

Endangers ongoing relationships:

• Creating contests of will;and
• Anger/resentment may result from concessions required to reach agreement.

Multiple-party negotiation complicates positional bargaining

• Varying positions make common position difficult;and
• Changing position becomes difficult.

Additional method of negotiations - Principled Negotiations

Four Basic points:

1. Separate people from the problem

2. Focus on interests, not positions

3. Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do

4. Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

Seven Elements:

1. Interests

2. Options

3. Alternatives

4. Legitimacy

5. Communication

6. Relationship

7. Commitment