Getting to Yes

Introduction to Negotiation Tactics

The most common form of negotiation involves successively taking on and giving up positions. Positional bargaining is an inefficient means of reaching an agreement, and the agreements usually neglect the interests of the parties involved. It encourages stubbornness and thus tends to harm the relationship between both parties. A good agreement is one that is efficient, wise, fair, and lasting. Wise agreements improve the relationship by satisfying the interests of both parties. Principled negotiations provide a better way of reaching an efficient and wise agreement.

Overview of 'Getting to Yes'

The process of principled negotiation, as outlined in Fisher, Ury, and Patton's seminal work, Getting to Yes (1981), can be used effectively in almost any type of dispute. The four principles are:

1. Separate the People from the Problem

Differences in perception, emotions, and communication are the major sources of people problems. People often don’t communicate clearly and mix their emotions with the issues and their side’s positions. By separating the people from the problem, parties can address the issues without damaging the relationship. Each party must allow the other side to express their emotions, and each side should try to make proposals appealing to the other side. Employing active listening and avoiding blame or attacks is crucial.

2. Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions

When problems are defined in terms of underlying interests, finding a solution that satisfies both parties is always possible. Identifying the underlying interests that led the parties to adopt their positions is the first step. Once both parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together, paying attention to each other's interests and remaining open to different proposals or positions. This approach fosters a collaborative atmosphere that enhances mutual understanding and respect.

3. Generate a Variety of Options

Making a decision in the presence of your adversary narrows your vision, and deciding on an optimal solution under pressure is relatively harder. To offset these barriers, it is important to separate the invention process from the evaluation stage. Brainstorming for all possible solutions, focusing on shared interests of both parties in an informal atmosphere, will help overcome obstacles to generate options that creatively settle differences. Each side should strive to make proposals that are appealing to the other side. This can lead to innovative solutions that might not have been considered otherwise.

4. Insist That the Agreement Be Based on Objective Criteria

Some negotiators can get what they want simply by being stubborn. Objective criteria can be used to resolve differences when the interests of both parties are directly opposed. Objective criteria should be independent of each side’s mere desires and be both legitimate and practical. Unbiased standards such as market value, expert opinion, scientific findings, professional standards, and legal precedent are sources of objective criteria. Each party must keep an open mind, approaching the issue as a shared search for objective criteria. This ensures fairness and equity in the final agreement (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981).

Addressing Challenges in Negotiation

Negotiators protect themselves from a bad outcome or poor agreement by establishing a worst acceptable outcome, or “bottom line,” to help them resist pressures. However, the bottom line is often arbitrary, unrealistic, and too rigid. It inhibits imagination and undermines the incentive to create or generate options. Instead, the weaker party should concentrate on assessing their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Identifying BATNA is the best alternative to the bottom line. The weaker party can better understand the negotiation context by estimating the other side’s BATNA.

Approaches to Deal with Positional Bargaining

There are three approaches to dealing with opponents stuck in positional bargaining and seeking only to maximize their own gains:

• Simply continue to use the principled approach, as it is often contagious.
• The principled party may use “negotiation jujitsu” to bring the other party in line. Here, the key is to refuse to respond in kind to their positional bargaining. When the other side attacks, the principled party shouldn’t defend but should break the cycle by refusing to react. They should deflect the attack back to the problem by using questions instead of statements and using silence as a weapon to draw the other party out.
• When all else fails and the other party remains stuck in positional bargaining, the one-text approach can be used. A third party or mediator is brought in to separate the people from the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options.

The best way to respond to tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations and engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. Seeking verification of the other side’s claim is the best way to protect against being deceived about the facts or intentions. It is very important not to make any personal attacks and to avoid being perceived as calling the other party a liar.

Conclusion

Principled negotiation, as outlined in Getting to Yes, provides a structured yet flexible approach to reaching mutually beneficial agreements. By focusing on interests, generating options, and insisting on objective criteria, parties can navigate even the most challenging negotiations successfully. These strategies not only lead to better outcomes but also strengthen relationships and foster a more collaborative environment.

References:

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.