Description
Introduction
Getting to Yes, authored by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, serves as a comprehensive guide to adopting principled negotiation strategies instead of relying on positional bargaining, which often leads to unproductive outcomes. Positional negotiation occurs when parties fixate on specific concessions and reach arbitrary compromises, often neglecting the underlying interests of both sides. In contrast, principled negotiation approaches conflict resolution with greater creativity and intelligence.
The book outlines four key principles of principled negotiation: separating people from the issue at hand, focusing on the underlying interests rather than rigid positions, generating innovative solutions that benefit all parties involved, and basing arguments on objective standards.
These four principles remain applicable even in scenarios where there is an imbalance of bargaining power or when one party attempts to exploit the other unfairly. In such cases, determining the best alternative to a negotiated agreement becomes crucial, as it helps identify the point at which a negotiated agreement is no longer desirable. Instead of relying on two opposing documents, one can explore the option of engaging a third party and negotiating with a single document. The negotiation parameters and participants can also be subject to negotiation using these guiding principles.
Main Points
- When individuals engage in arguments based on their own viewpoints rather than negotiating from a principled standpoint, the outcomes often fail to serve the interests of either party, strain their relationship, and hinder the generation of innovative ideas.
- Principled negotiators prioritize understanding over assigning blame, effectively separating individuals from the specific issue at hand. Recognizing the impact of emotions and symbolic gestures on communication is crucial in establishing a productive working relationship between parties.
- By emphasizing relevant and tangible interests rather than rigid positions, negotiators increase the likelihood of mutual acceptance and recognition of each other’s legitimate and significant interests.
- Negotiators should steer clear of isolationism and zero-sum thinking, actively engage in brainstorming sessions, and strive to reconcile divergent and conflicting interests. This approach enables the exploration of solutions that benefit both parties involved.
- Objective standards, utilized as external justifications for positions, facilitate the discovery of fair agreements and foster a collaborative and rational atmosphere during negotiations.
Chapter One
In typical negotiations, two parties engage in a back-and-forth exchange of proposals focused on a specific point of contention, such as a monetary value or territorial boundaries. Their goal is to persuade the other party to accept their offer, often resulting in a compromise that only partially serves the objectives of each side. This approach, known as positional bargaining, is avoided in principled negotiations, which instead prioritize the parties’ respective interests. This shift in perspective can lead to more intelligent and innovative solutions.
Positional bargaining may be preferred in financial transactions between strangers, as it allows them to gradually lower their demands after making initial offers. This approach avoids the potentially time-consuming process of building rapport and establishing trust. However, it can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as buyers paying more than desired and developing resentment towards sellers who negotiate better, or sellers feeling resentful if buyers are more persuasive. This lack of trust can significantly impact future negotiations.
On the other hand, choosing a principled negotiating approach can lead to alternative solutions, such as bartering, where the parties recognize that one has something of value to the other but little value to themselves. However, in most sales transactions between strangers, parties do not voluntarily share the information necessary for such agreements, instead opting to rely on established and reliable currencies without investing in building rapport.
When Greece renegotiates the terms of its financial assistance to remain in the Eurozone, it is common for animosity and mistrust to exist between the parties involved. Following what the public perceived as a detrimental deal resulting in austerity measures, Greece’s current majority party campaigned on a platform of reduced compromise with the European Union. However, the lack of innovative problem-solving has compelled the Greek government to continue negotiating under the terms set by other EU countries.
Chapter Two
In principled negotiations, the relationship between the negotiators should not hinder the attainment of an agreement. To cultivate confidence and cooperation, negotiators establish a separate working relationship independent of the negotiation itself. They may grant each other symbolic victories and provide opportunities to express frustrations, aiming to simplify the defense of the agreement to others or superiors. All parties involved are included in the agreements, and efforts are made to understand the perspectives of each side, without assigning blame for their differences.
When two interdependent businesses, such as a producer and its supplier, find themselves embroiled in a dispute, their relationship can be jeopardized. A notable example is the conflict between Samsung Electronics and technology giant Apple. Samsung, in addition to being a major supplier to Apple, also produces its own technology products. Apple accused Samsung of copying features from its phones and incorporating them into their own products, thereby gaining a competitive edge in the smartphone market.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging copyright infringement. Samsung, however, argued that the success of its phones stemmed from unique attributes that differentiated them from Apple’s products. Although the two companies continued to dispute the precise amount of damages, the court ultimately ruled in Apple’s favor, requiring Samsung to pay damages. Despite their mutual dependence for the success of their respective brands, the fallout from the conflict strained their relationship and incurred significant costs for Samsung.
An alternative approach, one that could have kept the business relationship separate from the dispute, may have involved negotiating a resolution that strengthened the partnership while providing additional benefits to Apple. Such an approach could have potentially avoided the courtroom and mitigated the negative impact on the close bond between the two businesses, while still compensating Apple for the perceived advantages that Samsung gained unfairly from Apple’s innovations.
Chapter Three
In ethical negotiations, negotiators should prioritize understanding the underlying interests and consider positions thereafter. In a dispute, opposing sides may have conflicting interests, but they may also share common ground and complementary interests. To ensure a workable agreement that satisfies the interests of all parties involved, negotiators should strive to gather comprehensive knowledge about the interests of the other parties. Effective communication of these interests with enthusiasm, coupled with active listening, fosters a sense of mutual understanding among all participants. The focus should be on the future prospects of both parties rather than the nature of their differences.
When two negotiators represent distinct groups of constituents, navigating the interests becomes more complex. This was evident in the 2012 negotiations between the New York United Federation of Teachers and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg regarding a new teacher evaluation system. While both the government and teachers’ unions had overlapping constituencies, their interests diverged significantly. The new evaluation system held great importance for the city’s population of school parents, who were constituents of Mayor Bloomberg. On the other hand, the teachers, who also voted for the mayor, strongly opposed the system.
The individual teachers, as members of the United Federation of Teachers, were directly accountable to the union. However, they were also held responsible by the parents and students in their respective districts. Ultimately, the negotiations failed, and the parties resorted to their non-negotiable alternatives, disregarding other interests. If the city had reached an agreement with the union on the design of the new teacher evaluation system, Mayor Bloomberg could have potentially enhanced state subsidies and grants for the city. However, the state governor imposed an evaluation system on the teachers, leaving them with no control over the outcome.
Chapter Four
While parties in a negotiation may initially hold preconceived notions about what they want the other side to concede, it is advantageous to postpone finalizing the details of an agreement until all parties have explored their respective objectives. Through this process, they may discover alternative compromises that satisfy the interests of both sides or identify less burdensome ways to address those interests. To uncover such solutions, it is essential to investigate multiple possibilities and employ creative thinking. Inclusion of a neutral third party or negotiators from the opposing side in brainstorming sessions can generate additional ideas that benefit all parties involved.
A notable example of creative solutions emerging in negotiations occurred during the broadcast of the Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao boxing match in 2015, which was simultaneously aired on both the HBO and Showtime networks. The agreement reached to address challenges arose when one promoter made impractical commitments to both networks for exclusive broadcasting rights.
Despite the complexity caused by the double promise, Mayweather and Pacquiao were motivated to proceed with the fight, recognizing the significant revenue potential for all involved. Consequently, the networks devised an unprecedented solution by splitting the profits, marking the first time two networks broadcast the same boxing match. In hindsight, this solution may seem straightforward, but it required network executives to consider options beyond the binary choices made by boxing promoters in the past.
Chapter Five
Positional negotiation often leads to arbitrary agreements lacking objective justification, as parties begin with opposing extremes and compromise towards a middle ground. In contrast, principled negotiation aims to achieve a fair agreement, rather than coercing unjust concessions from the other party. Fairness is determined by mutually agreed-upon standards, established by specialists who are not directly involved in the negotiation process. These standards may include various indicators that contribute to a just agreement.
Objective standards exist in numerous fields, providing benchmarks that experts can uphold, even if they may not always be evident in a given situation. Professional organizations, such as state and federal bar associations, regulate the hours and activities for which lawyers can bill their clients. Similarly, state administrative authorities define the standards of care for handling clients’ funds within the realm of accounting. These organizations often emphasize the concept of “fiduciary duty,” whereby accountants must prioritize their clients’ financial interests over their own personal gain.
The fiduciary duty norm also applies to investors and pension fund managers, prohibiting them from accepting payments from third parties in exchange for utilizing clients’ funds for risky investments. Private equity firms, for instance, may entice pension fund managers with incentives to invest client funds with them. However, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren raised concerns in a report, suggesting that such arrangements might contradict the investors’ fiduciary duties.
In a different scenario, a car buyer approaches a car dealer with objective criteria in mind. The buyer might reference the widely respected Kelley Blue Book to argue that a car should have a higher value or highlight independent safety ratings to justify a lower value based on safety concerns.
Objective standards play a crucial role in various domains, enabling negotiators to reference external criteria to ensure fairness and justice in negotiations.
Chapter Six
The course of action a negotiating party takes when a mutually agreeable settlement cannot be reached is commonly referred to as the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). BATNA serves as a contingency strategy, prepared in case it becomes challenging to meet the demands or concessions proposed by the other party. Additionally, BATNA can be employed as a negotiation tool, as the party with a stronger BATNA is in a position to demand greater concessions. When an agreement cannot be maintained or when the resolution must be determined by a third party, having a well-defined BATNA is also beneficial.
In certain situations, one party’s BATNA can significantly impact the other party’s BATNA by limiting costly or detrimental options for one side while leaving them available to the other. For example, when a composer asserts a claim for alleged trademark infringement against another songwriter, the targeted songwriter may consider ignoring the claim as the best course of action. They may believe that if the claim is ignored and they have a strong reputation, the case might be dropped.
However, for the accusing songwriter, the most favorable option might be to file a lawsuit, particularly if they have a strong chance of winning and the accused songwriter has generated substantial profits from the song. This would potentially require the accused songwriter to pay a significant sum in damages. In reality, the accused songwriter’s BATNA is to either win the eventual litigation or reach a settlement, which could be more costly and damaging to their reputation if the accuser’s claims are as strong as they assert. Choosing to disregard the claim presents its own challenges.
Consequently, settlement discussions outside of court become more appealing to the accused party. Conversely, the accuser may not consider a negotiated settlement more desirable based on the amount of money they would have to receive. However, in a negotiation, the accuser may be able to secure a larger portion of the money, avoid legal representation costs, or request payment in the form of connections to businesspeople who could assist in advancing their career.
Chapter Seven
To avoid the pitfalls of positional bargaining, where both parties present ideal versions of a proposed document, the one-text approach requires negotiators to work with a single document. This collaborative method fosters a constructive environment, as it is easier to critique a draft document than to agree on portions of each other’s separate drafts. With the assistance of a third-party collaborator, the process of revising and determining when the document is ready for final agreement becomes more streamlined.
The challenges of working with two separate drafts of proposed legislation become evident when lawmakers introduce bills in legislative houses. These drafts often originate from industry lobbyists who have already presented similar legislation that has been successful in other legislative bodies. As a result, these drafts align with the preferences of specific politicians and are likely to receive favorable votes. This pattern can be observed, for example, in pro-business measures like making traditional workers’ compensation optional, as seen in places like Oklahoma, where the bill’s substance was written by PartnerSource, a consultant on workers’ compensation alternative plans. Naturally, alternative versions of such bills exist, reflecting the concerns of citizens and civic organizations that prioritize community interests over corporate objectives.
In the United States Congress, when a lawmaker introduces one of these measures, other lawmakers within the same house may propose modifications before the bill is put to a vote. These changes may sometimes have no direct relation to the original content of the bill or may alter its interpretation. Once the chamber has the opportunity to vote, the bill may be approved or rejected. If approved by the House of Representatives, the measure proceeds to the Senate, where the legislative process starts anew without the involvement of the bill’s original sponsor.
Legislators may continue to introduce modifications suggested by business associations and community organizations. If the bill passes the Senate, it may be sent back to the House for another vote. Finally, after receiving final legislative approval, the bill is presented to the president, who has the authority to sign or reject it. However, due to the diverse interests of various groups contributing to different versions of the bill without consulting one another, the enacted law may end up being ineffective, counterproductive, or lacking the original intent it had when initially proposed.
Chapter Eight
The four principles of principled negotiation provide a framework to address detrimental aspects of the negotiation process that hinder its success. If certain individuals are obstructing a conclusion, the opposing party can negotiate to have them removed from the negotiation or agree on a changed role. In cases where there is an imbalance in power, a well-considered BATNA can help correct this disparity, leveling the playing field. Even when one party is employing unfair strategies or refusing to negotiate based on the principles, the opposing party can still utilize these principles to reach a sensible and just agreement.
While it may seem presumptuous to initiate a negotiation by discussing ground rules, it is a crucial first step for individuals who are uncertain about obtaining a fair outcome and lack the resources or astuteness of the opposing party. For instance, if one party has more personnel available and can expedite the review process significantly, agreeing upon a negotiation timeframe allows both sides ample time to conduct thorough due diligence at every stage of the negotiation.
Negotiators representing vulnerable clients, such as traumatized victims, ill or injured individuals, or children, may negotiate the circumstances under which the client must participate in court appearances or conferences to prevent undue stress that could hinder their ability to engage in a fair negotiation. Additionally, the parties can agree on the specific composition of the negotiating team, potentially excluding a particular dishonest negotiator in exchange for a more expedited deadline.
By establishing ground rules and addressing potential challenges, negotiators can create a conducive environment that promotes fairness and enhances the effectiveness of the negotiation process.
Author’s style
The lessons found in Getting to Yes draw heavily from the authors’ personal experiences, which are presented in an authoritative manner. The authors offer guidance to negotiators in a friendly yet direct tone, using “you” to address the reader and “I” to refer to themselves. However, the specific speaker at any given time is not explicitly clarified. While the entire book appears to be written in the first person, references to specific authors’ personal experiences are attributed to “one of the authors.”
The text is enriched with examples that support the authors’ arguments, including instances from their own involvement in State Department negotiation teams and their consulting work with business negotiators. These examples often involve well-known government negotiations from international politics, sometimes without disclosing the identities of the parties involved. In other cases, characters in the examples are discussed without revealing their real names and occasionally use pseudonyms.
Furthermore, the authors present hypothetical scenarios to illustrate their points. These examples are occasionally introduced with excerpts from hypothetical dialogues that could take place in such negotiations. The quotes themselves may lack additional background context, although a chapter may feature multiple quotes from the same scenario.
Examples provided in the text to illustrate key ideas may involve technical jargon, particularly when referring to specific commercial transactions and offers that negotiators might encounter, such as the right of first refusal in real estate sales. Moreover, descriptions of historical examples are often presented with limited details and little explanation of their outcomes.
About the author
Roger Fisher, renowned as a professor of law at Harvard Law School and the mastermind behind the Harvard Negotiation Project, played a pivotal role in co-authoring the book. His vast expertise extended beyond academia as he served as a legal advisor to the Department of Defense, applying his knowledge to real-world negotiation scenarios.
William Ury, another co-author, stands as an esteemed fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project and a co-founder of the Harvard Program on Negotiation. His contributions to the book draw upon his extensive experience and profound understanding of the negotiation field.
Bruce Patton, serving as the book’s editor, holds the distinction of being a distinguished fellow and co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project. His involvement in international politics through his consultancy company showcases his expertise surpassing the realms of academia. Furthermore, his dedication to the study and application of negotiation is exemplified by his contributions to the Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation.
Buy Book on Amazon
Discover more from Witty Briefs
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.