Every negotiation has a choice at its centre: defend a position or explore the interests behind it. Positional bargaining (PB) focuses on fixed demands, while interest-based bargaining (IBB) seeks to understand each party’s key interests. That difference can shape not only the quality and durability of the resultant agreement itself, but also the working relationship between the parties – matters of particular importance in the context of the employer/union relationship, where neither party can easily walk away. 

The table below provides a practical side-by-side comparison.

Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) involves parties understanding and addressing the key interests that underlie their positions and concerns, rather than defending fixed positions and demands. The parties work to identify options and craft a settlement that meets those key interests. The goal is to create and distribute value for mutual gain effectively, in a way that maintains, improves or – at the very least – does not damage the relationship between the parties.

The Core Principles of IBB

1. Separate the people from the problem. 

Collective bargaining is often viewed by employers as a battle to be won instead of an opportunity to create lasting value for both them and their employees. Too often there is a focus on immediate costs such as wage and salary increases, improved terms and conditions of employment and settlement implementation. However, the much larger costs that are generated by using an adversarial approach are frequently ignored or overlooked.