UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

School of Law and Governance

College of Law

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Midterm Requirement:

Summary on
“GETTING TO YES:
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITHOUT GIVING IN”

Submitted to:
DEAN JOAN S. LARGO

Submitted by:
ABELLA, BEA VANESSA S.
EH 306

March 2020
 INTRODUCTION

Authors Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton of this book
first asked the question “What is the best way for people to deal with their
differences?” in the Acknowledgment part of the book. Then they
answered and elaborated further in the Introduction part of the book.
Such question served as a guide question for these authors to come up
with the whole idea of this book.

Fisher, Ury and Patton said that: [n]egotiation is a fact of life.

Every aspect in our lives involves negotiation. Whether we go to the
market, we negotiate. Whether we go to a company to bargain some
stipulations in a contract, we negotiate. Negotiation co-exists with the
concept of “conflict”. Although, the word “conflict” does not
necessarily entails a bad idea but such two words intertwines with
another. If there is conflict, we try to negotiate to solve it. As what the
authors said:
[n]egotiation is a basic means of getting what you want
from others. It is back-and-forth communication designed
to reach an agreement when you and the other side have
some interests that are shared and others that are opposed.

Furthermore, the authors added that:

[m]ore and more occasions require negotiation; conflict is
a growth industry.

But the question that follows is “How do we negotiate?”. Here

comes the concept of “dilemma”. True enough that while negotiation
takes place everyday, it is still not easy to do well with it. People see
two ways to negotiate: soft or hard.

According to Fisher, Ury and Patton:

“The soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and so

makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement. He wants an
amicable resolution; yet he often ends up exploited and feeling bitter.
The hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which
the side that takes the more extreme positions and holds out longer fares
better. He wants to win; yet he often ends up producing an equally hard
response which exhausts him and his resources and harms his
relationship with the other side.”

But there is a third way to negotiate, a way which is neither hard nor
soft, but rather both hard and soft – which is the method of principled
negotiation.

The method of principled negotiation is to decide issues on their

merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each
side says it will and won't do. It suggests that you look for mutual
gains wherever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you
1
should insist that the result be based on some fair standards
independent of the will of either side. It is hard on the merits, soft on
the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. Principled
negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still
be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those
who would take advantage of your fairness.

Principled negotiation provides a better way of reaching good

agreements. Fisher and Ury developed four principles of negotiation.
Their process of principled negotiation can be used effectively on any
type of dispute. Their four principles are 1) separate the people from
the problem; 2) focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a
variety of options before settling on an agreement; and 4) insist that
the agreement be based on objective criteria.

These principles should be observed at each stage of the

negotiation process. The process begins with the analysis of the
situation or problem, which includes the analyzation of the interests
and perceptions of the other parties, and of the existing options. The
next stage is to plan ways of responding to the situation and the other
parties. Finally, the parties should discuss the problem by trying to
find a solution on which they can agree.

So basically, this book talks about the “Method of Principled

Negotiation”. This summary shall have four (4) parts or chapters
which shall be:

I. The Problem
II. The Method
III. Yes, But…
IV. In Conclusion

I. THE PROBLEM

It is very clear that the authors' goal is to develop a method in

order to reach good agreements. Negotiations often take the form of
positional bargaining. In positional bargaining, each party opens with
their position on an issue. However, Fisher and Ury argued that
positional bargaining does not tend to produce good agreements. It is
an inefficient means of reaching agreements, and the agreements tend
to neglect the parties' interests. It encourages stubbornness and tends
to harm the parties' relationship.

In fact, the authors explicitly expressed such idea or view by

saying the following:
1) Arguing over positions produce unwise agreements;
2) Arguing positions is inefficient;
3) Arguing positions endangers an ongoing relationship;
2
 4) Where there are many parties, positional bargaining is even
worse; and
5) Being nice is no answer.

II. THE METHOD

As aforementioned, the authors suggested that the method of

principles negotiation is divided into four principles:
a) separate the people from the problem;
b) focus on interests rather than positions;
c) generate a variety of options before settling on an
agreement; and
d) insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria.

A. Separate the People from the Problem

The purpose of this step is to recognize that emotions and egos

can become entangled with the problem in negotiations, and that this
will adversely affect your ability to see the other party's position
clearly.

In the first part of this chapter, the authors emphasized the idea
that “Negotiators are people first”. A basic fact about negotiation, which
is easy to forget in corporate and international transactions, is that you
are dealing not with abstract representatives of the "other side," but
with human beings. It is important to note as well that these human
beings who we are dealing with have emotions, deeply held values,
and different backgrounds and viewpoints; and that they are also
unpredictable. Therefore, in order to compromise the differences, it is
important that both sides, as well as the negotiator, must work
together in order to obtain an agreeable end. A working relationship
where trust, understanding, respect, and friendship are built up over
time, can eventually make each new negotiation smoother and more
efficient.

Every negotiator wants to reach an agreement that satisfies his

substantive interests. That is why one negotiates. Aside from that, a
negotiator also has an interest in his relationship with the other side.
Negotiation is like a coin. It has two sides. One side is about
negotiation that risks the end-goal that he or she wants to achieve. On
the other side, in the process of negotiation, one is also risking the
relationship that he or she has with the other party. Most negotiations
take place in the context of an ongoing relationship where it is
important to carry on each negotiation in a way that will help rather
than hinder future relations and future negotiations. A major
consequence of the "people problem" in negotiation is that the parties'
relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of

3
substance. On both the giving and receiving end, we are likely to treat
people and problem as one. The authors are saying that, ideally, we
must separate the person from the problem and treat them differently.
But due to the conflict that we may have with the other party, there is
a great tendency that we treat the problem and the person as one- and
such is a very toxic and an unhelpful view in negotiation.

To somehow resolve the conflict aforementioned, the authors are

suggesting that one should understand the other party.
Understanding the other side's thinking is not simply a useful activity
that will help you solve your problem. You must put yourself in their
shoes. Each side in a negotiation may see only the merits of its case that
is favorable to them, and only the faults of the other side's. The ability
to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is
one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. The authors
are suggesting that we must look at the portrait in a bigger canvass. In
negotiation, the authors said that:

[i]f you want to influence them, you also need to

understand empathetically the power of their point of
view and to feel the emotional force with which they
believe in it.

After understanding the other party’s view point, it is important

as well to discuss each other's perceptions. One way to deal with
differing perceptions is to make them explicit and discuss them with
the other side. It is common in a negotiation to treat as "unimportant"
those concerns of the other side perceived as not standing in the way
of an agreement. However, during the process of negotiation, it is
inevitable that emotions tend to go high. In a negotiation process,
particularly in a bitter dispute, feelings may be more important than
talk. The parties may be more ready to make a dispute and battle it out
than cooperatively working out a solution to a common problem. Talk
with the people on the other side about their emotions. Talk about your
own as well so that the other side could also understand you. As what
the authors said that often, one effective way to deal with people's
anger, frustration, and other negative emotions is to help them release
those feelings.

They say that “Communication is the Key”. In fact, negotiation

is a process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of
reaching a joint decision. Communication is never an easy thing.
Although there may be times that communication will lead to
misunderstanding. In order to prevent such undesirable situations, the
authors laid down some tips: 1) Listen actively and acknowledge what
is being said; 2) Speak to be understood; 3) Speak about yourself, not
about them; and 4) Speak for a purpose.

4
 Face the problem, not the people. If negotiators view themselves
as adversaries in a personal face-to-face confrontation, it is difficult to
separate their relationship from the substantive problem. The authors
suggested that a more effective way for the parties to think of
themselves is as partners in a hardheaded, side-by-side search for a fair
agreement advantageous to each side.

B. Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions

In any case of negotiation, the parties' problem appears to be a

conflict of positions and their goal is to agree on a position. They
naturally tend to think and talk about positions and in the process of
reaching an agreement, they often reach a deadlock. Such deadlock is
caused by different interests and positions from each side. At this
point, it is important to note that there is a great difference between an
“interest” and a “position”.

Indeed, the basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting

positions but in the conflict between each side's needs, desires,
concerns, and fears. As the authors discussed:

[s]uch desires and concerns are interests. Interests

motivate people…. [y]our position is something you have
decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so
decide.

How do we identify interests? - asked by the authors. A position is

likely to be concrete and explicit; the interests underlying it may well
be un- expressed, intangible, and perhaps inconsistent. In searching
for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particularly for
those bedrock concerns which motivate all people. Look for a common
ground that you think that might benefit both parties. Look for a line
that will connect the two opposing sides.

The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. The chance

of that happening increases when you communicate them. The other
side may not know what your interests are, and you may not know
theirs. If you want the other side to take your interests into account,
explain to them what those interests are.

“Be hard on the problem, soft on the people.” It is usually advisable

to be hard. However, it may not be wise to commit yourself to your
position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests.
Negotiating hard for your interests does not mean being close-minded
to the other side's point of view. You can hardly expect the other side
to listen to your interests and discuss the options you suggest if you
don't take their interests into account. Therefore, you must show that

5
you are open to their suggestions. Successful negotiation requires
being both firm and open.

C. Invent Options for Mutual Gains

Fisher and Ury identified four (4) obstacles to generating creative

options for solving a problem:

1. Parties may decide prematurely on an option and so fail to

consider alternatives;
2. The parties may be intent on narrowing their options to find
the single answer;
3. The parties may define the problem in win-lose terms,
assuming that the only options are for one side to win and
the other to lose; Or
4. A party may decide that it is up to the other side to come up
with a solution to the problem.

The authors also suggest four (4) techniques for overcoming

these obstacles and generating creative options. This involves:
1. Brainstorming
2. Broadening Options
3. Looking for Mutual Gain
4. Making their Decision Easy

A brainstorming session is designed to produce as many ideas

as possible to solve the problem at hand. The key ground rule is to stall
all criticism and evaluation of ideas. The group simply invents ideas.
In the process of brainstorming, it is important that one must use his
or her creativity to think out of the box. It is said that in brainstorming,
people do not need to be afraid to look foolish with their ideas since
wild ideas are explicitly encouraged. One must transcend in order to
think of as many options as there can be.

The task of inventing options involves four (4) types of thinking.

One is thinking about a particular problem. The second type of
thinking is descriptive analysis. You sort problems into categories and
tentatively suggest causes. The third type of thinking, again in general
terms, is to consider what ought, perhaps, to be done. The fourth and
final type of thinking is to come up with some specific and feasible
suggestions for action.

Identify shared interests. In theory, it is obvious that shared

interests help produce agreement and reduce misunderstandings. By
definition, inventing an idea which meets shared interests is good for
everybody. Three (3) points about shared interests are worth
remembering. First, shared interests lie dormant in every negotiation.
They may not be immediately obvious. Second, shared interests are
6
opportunities, not godsends. It helps to make a shared interest explicit
and to formulate it as a shared goal. Third, stressing your shared
interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable.

Since success for you in a negotiation depends upon the other

side's making a decision which you want, you should do what you can
to make that decision an easy one. Impressed with the merits of their
own case, people usually pay too little attention or at times, even no
attention at all, to ways of advancing their case by taking care of
interests on the other side.

In a complex situation, creative inventing of solutions is an

absolute necessity. In any negotiation, it may open doors and produce
a range of potential agreements satisfactory to each side. Therefore,
you must generate many options before selecting among them.

D. Insist on Using an Objective Criteria

When interests are directly opposed, the parties should use

objective criteria to resolve their differences. Allowing such differences
to spark a battle of wills will destroy relationships. It is inefficient and
obviously, it does not produce wise agreements. Decisions based on
reasonable standards makes it easier for the parties to agree and
preserve their good relationship.

There are three (3) points to keep in mind when using objective
criteria. First, each issue should be approached as a shared search for
objective criteria. Ask for the reasoning behind the other party's
suggestions. Using the other parties' reasoning to support your own
position can be a powerful way to negotiate. Second, each party must
keep an open mind. They must be reasonable, and be willing to
reconsider their positions when there is reason to. Third, while they
should be reasonable, negotiators must never give in to pressure,
threats, or bribes. When the other party stubbornly refuses to be
reasonable, the first party may shift the discussion from a search for
substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria.

III. YES, BUT…

A. What if they are more powerful?

In this circumstance, the authors suggested that any negotiation

should aim to:

1. Protect you against an agreement you should reject: they

recommend that you should prepare a BATNA (Best Alternative
to a Negotiated Agreement) prior to the negotiation

7
 2. Make the most of your assets: they recommend that the better
your BATNA the greater your power

The authors emphasized that "the reason you negotiate is to

produce something better than the results that you can obtain without
even negotiating”. Negotiators commonly try to protect themselves
against such an outcome by establishing in advance the worst
acceptable outcome — which is their "bottom line”. While it may be true
that adopting a bottom line may protect you from attaining a very bad
agreement, it may also keep you both from inventing and from
agreeing to a solution. It is said that adopting a “bottom line” will
inhibit one’s imagination. It reduces the incentive to invent a tailor-
made solution which would reconcile different interests in a way that
is more advantageous for both parties.

Two (2) things must be kept in mind. One, protecting yourself

against bad agreement. Second, making the most of the assets you
have in order to produce a good agreement. People think of
‘negotiating power’ as being determined by resources like wealth,
political connections, physical strength, friends, and military might. In
fact, the negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon
how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement. The
better your BATNA, the greater your power.

B. What if they won’t play?

While you try to find a resolution of the problem, the other party
may refuse to move from their positions and even make a personal
attack against you and maximize their own personal gains. In this case,
such act of the other party becomes prejudicial to you. However, Fisher
and Ury provided three (3) approaches for dealing with opponents
who are stuck in positional bargaining.

First, one side may simply continue to use the principled

approach. The authors pointed out that this approach is often
contagious.

Second, the principled party may use "negotiation jujitsu" in

order to bring the other party in line. If the other side announces a firm
position, you may be tempted to criticize and reject it. If they push you
hard, you will tend to push back. However, such is not ideal. The
authors suggest that when the other side attacks, the principal party
should not counter attack, but instead should deflect the attack back
onto the problem. Personal attacks should be changed as attacks on the
problem. Again, be hard on the problem and soft on the person.

When the other party remains stuck in positional bargaining, the

one-text approach may be used. In this approach, a third party is brought
8
in. The third party should interview each side separately to determine
what their underlying interests are. This process can be likened to the
process of “Mediation”. Parties may invite a third party who could
stand as the mediator. This approach is useful in circumstances where
there are two (2) or more parties involved. They need some other way
to simplify the process of decision-making. The one-text procedure
serves that purpose.

C. When the other party uses dirty tricks

The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise

the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to
establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. Moreover, the
authors indicated two (2) common ways on how to deal with the dirty
tricks. The first standard response is to put up with it. The second
common response is to respond in kind.

Tricky tactics can be divided into three categories: deliberate

deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure tactics. The
authors elaborately discussed in the book the ways on how to counter
these tricky tactics.

IV. IN CONLUSION

A. You Knew it All the Time

The authors laid down concepts in this book that we somewhat

and somehow knew already through our experiences. What the
authors tried to do in this book is to organize common sense and
common experience in a way that provides a usable framework for
thinking and acting.

B. Learn from Doing

“No one, however, can make you skillful but yourself.”

In order for us to learn, we must try to do it by ourselves. They

say that “experience is the best teacher”. We can become skilled
negotiators if we apply the principles of this book. We can enhance our
skills as well if we practice them constantly and such becomes part of
our daily routine.

C. “Winning”

This book clearly tells us how to "win" an important game —

9
which is to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences.
To be better, the process must produce good substantive results. In the
negotiation process, winning on the merits may not be the only goal,
but certainly losing is not also the answer. Both theory and experience
suggest that the method of principled negotiation will produce over
the long run substantive outcomes as good as or better than you are
likely to obtain using any other negotiation strategy.

10
Filename: ABELLA-YES-EH306.docx
Folder:
/Users/beavanessaabella/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Word/Data/Documen
ts
Template: /Users/beavanessaabella/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/User
Content.localized/Templates.localized/Normal.dotm
Title:
Subject:
Author: Microsoft Office User
Keywords:
Comments:
Creation Date: 19/03/2020 6:02 PM
Change Number: 2
Last Saved On: 19/03/2020 6:02 PM
Last Saved By: Microsoft Office User
Total Editing Time: 0 Minutes
Last Printed On: 19/03/2020 6:02 PM
As of Last Complete Printing
Number of Pages: 11
Number of Words: 3,279 (approx.)
Number of Characters: 18,692 (approx.)