In labor relations, or any other negotiations for that matter, there has ubeen much said and written in recent years about bargaining styles. If one looks at the literature and the descriptions of the two processes, one could easily be convinced that the adversarial bargainer is out only for himself and will use whatever tactics are necessary to get the best possible deal for his side, regardless of the consequences. The interestbased bargainer, on the other hand, has been shown to focus on good communications and to be understanding and sympathetic to the concerns and needs of the other side. He is illustrated as using a more intellectual, professional, and sophisticated approach that explores all options and makes decisions based on objective standards acceptable to all involved. The implication is that the interest-based bargainer uses a better approach, leading to a fairer, more creative, and more harmonious result. There is also the implication that adversarial negotiations are marked by conflict and discord with far less satisfactory results. Despite all the attempts to portray interest-based bargaining as a superior type of negotiations, it may be inappropriate to attempt to use a specific style of bargaining in all situations. Bargaining by its nature is a process that reacts to a given situation. Parties may use different approaches depending on the situation and issues involved. Trying to characterize any approach could encourage negotiators to worry more about the style of bargaining rather than the results accomplished. The reality is that, even if the two systems of bargaining can be differentiated, there is a great deal of overlap between them.