Getting to Yes by Ury and Fisher

Getting to Yes

The authors make a difference between three kinds of negotiation: hard negotiation, soft negotiation and the last but, according to them, more efficient: the principled negotiation (also called negotiation on the merits), on the one they make their statements and give the parameters to get into an efficient and amicable agreement.

The four points they present as part of a more efficient negotiation, and here we’ll make a small abstract of the points they make for each:

People: separate people from the problem.

We must understand that those involved in a negotiation are actual persons, and this circumstance implies differences all the time. Everyone is determined by feelings, culture, backgrounds and many other facts that may affect the course of the negotiation. That’s why we must try as much as possible to get involved with the other party, in order to avoid misunderstanding, or damage the relationship. The relationship should not be taken as something related to the person, but to the solve of problems, so we need to understand that the propose is attack the problem, not the person. This also propounds a very important fact: the perception, if we don’t get to understand the other person context and point of view, we won’t be able to agree or disagree objectively with real arguments on the bes solution for a problem.

Interests: focus on interest, not positions.

Every negotiation has two sides, but as much as we understand the real solution we’re trying to achieve, it will be successful or not. The point here is that we must try to be considered with the real interest of the negotiation, and stop being stubborn in the objectives that we want to get at the end, and if that doesn’t happen, we won’t go on with the negotiation. We must understand the basis of what we really want, the final objective, and how we are going to manage it with the less conflict. Something really important in this point, is the idea of finding the common interest, not because the other side’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed. We identify interests by asking these questions:

Why? (put yourself in the other’s shoes).

Why not? (think about their choice, what leaded them to get there).

Options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.

This supposes the intention of being open minded and sure of the things passing on us, for instance if we feel pressure in the course of a negotiation, this may narrow our vision and the creativity for solving a problem or getting a good agreement.

There are 4 obstacles that inhibit the creativity to invent options:

Premature judgement.

Judgements hinders imagination, under the pressure of a forthcoming negotiation, your critical sense is likely to be sharper, staying away from wild ideas.

Searching for the single answer.

By looking from the outset for the single best answer, you are likely to short-circuit a wiser decision-making process in which you select from a large number of possible answers.

The assumption of a fied pie.

The perception of few good options is because each side sees the situation as essentially either/or - either I get what is in dispute.

Thinking that “solving the problems is their problem”.

For a negotiator to reach an agreement that meets his own self-interest he needs to develop a solution, which also appeals to the self-interest of the other. Shortsighted self-concern leads a negotiator to develop only partisan positions, arguments and one-sided solutions.

We must understand the difference between inventing and deciding. Brainstorming is a good mechanism to find a solution, before deciding. Many of the ideas might never have come up except in such a brainstorming session, time spent in brainstorming is surely the best-spent time in negotiation.

To invent options, there are four basic steps called “The circle chart”:

Problem.

Analysis.

Approaches.

Action ideas.

Criteria: insists that the result be based on some objective standard.

People using objective criteria tend to use time more efficiently talking about possible standards and solutions.

We can counter such a negotiator by insisting that his single say-so is not enough and that the agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side. This doesn’t mean insisting that the terms be based on the standard we select, but only that some fair standard such as market value, tradition, precedent, or law determine the outcome.

Fair procedures should also be considered, in order to resolve the conflicting interests.

Once we identify some objective criteria and procedures, there are three basic points to remember:

Frame each issue as a joint for objective criteria.

Reason