LGST 221 Conflict Resolution (G3)

Academic Year 08/09 Term 1

A Critical Review of

Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

By Roger Fisher & William Ury

Prepared for:
Professor Ian MacDuff

Submitted by:
Chan Chiu Yu Anthony
S8671003Z

In “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In”, Roger Fisher and
William Ury discuss four principles for effective negotiation. They also highlight
three common obstacles to effective negotiation, and suggest ways to overcome
them. This text provides great insights into negotiation using a principled
approach.

Fisher and Ury explain the differences between positional and principled
negotiation. Positional negotiation produces unwise agreements that satisfy no
one. To come to an agreement, at least one of the parties need to compromise on
their contrasting beginning positions. The authors argue that that is inefficient,
and it might ruin the relationships between the parties. Instead they develop
four straightforward principles of negotiation that could work on any conflicts.
The four principles are, 1) Separate the people from the problem, 2) Focus on
interests, not positions, 3) Invent options for mutual gain, and 4) Insist on using
objective criteria.

Fisher and Ury’s first principle involve separating people from the problems.
This encourages them to put their personal issues aside and address the real
issues at hand. This would help them to gain a clearer view of the problem
without the entanglement of the relationship.

The authors identify solutions to three common people problems that get in the
way. First, it is essential that both parties understand each other’s viewpoint.
This reduces the negative assumptions made by the both parties and dispels the
distrust between them. Second, the parties must allow the other side to express
their emotions, and not just dismiss them. Fear and anger often arise when
personal interests are threatened, thus it is important to acknowledge and try to
understand these emotions at their source. To achieve the aforementioned
objectives, amicable communication between the parties is emphasized. Note
that these methods do not call for acceptance of the other party’s viewpoints, but
instead understanding.

The first principle is useful to remind us not to get personal but to focus on the
real problem at hand; it does not need to be complicated further with our
emotions. This is especially applicable in our conservative Asian context, where
emotions are often neglected and dismissed. We are reluctant to discuss our
emotions in public, which leads to even more misunderstandings. It is important
that we get these emotions out of the way before we can start working out an
amicable agreement.

Fisher and Ury’s second principle involve focusing on the parties’ interests, by
identifying them and working towards a desired agreement. The key here is to
maintain a clear focus on the interests, but be open to different positions and
proposals as long as the interests are taken cared of.

Fisher and Ury’s third principle involves brainstorming for innovative methods
to solve the problem at hand. Obstacles to this step include premature
judgements of the methods, looking for only one method, the win-lose mentality
and leaving the other party to come up with the solution. The authors suggest
that broadening the parties’ options, and looking out for mutual gains could
eliminate these obstacles. The most promising proposals are then improved and
refined, working towards an agreement.

During a conflict, we often forget why we are insisting on a certain position. Our
interests influence positions that we take, but in the negotiation process we often
focus on our positions. The second principle is useful in reminding us that our
interests lie not in the positions that we take, and to remain open to other
options, which could take care of the interests of both parties. The third principle
reinforces the second principle by providing these new options, allowing the
disputing parties to work together for a common purpose.

Fisher and Ury’s fourth principle involves the parties using objective criteria to
when interests are in direct conflict. A battle of wills is inefficient; decisions
made based on appropriate standards make it more acceptable for the parties to
agree on. With the agreement of the parties on what objective criteria to use, this
would create a just procedure to resolve their differences.

One weakness with the fourth principle is setting the objective criterion. It is a
good method when the differences are quantifiable. A question to ask would be
how does one set a criterion for intangible differences, like personal values?
People do have different and strong convictions about certain issues, moral and
religious, which could become a platform for further conflict. It would be difficult
for the parties reconcile these differences, or to agree on an objective criterion.

Fisher and Ury also explore three common obstacles to an effective negotiation,
and suggest solutions for them.

First, if the other party is more powerful than you, instead of using a worst-case
scenario as a bottom line, establish a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated
agreement) would help to protect the weaker party against a poor agreement. It
would help to determine a minimally acceptable agreement.

The BATNA is a breakthrough concept developed by the authors, which serves to

empower the weaker parties. In my perspective, a BATNA is not much different
from a bottom line. Rather, the BATNA is a better method of establishing a
bottom line. However, this bottom line should be flexible, and should be revised
at every stage of the negotiation. The BATNA gives setting a bottom line a new
perspective, and is brilliant concept nonetheless.

Second, if the other party refuse to engage in principled negotiation, the authors
suggest two options. The first option is to persevere with principled negotiation
and continue to deflect their positional attacks unto the problem instead. In the
second option, a third party could be brought in to use the one-text approach. A
proposal is drafted by the mediator, commented on by the parties, and redrafted
again until the mediator feels that no improvements could be made. Then, the
parties must decide to either accept the proposal, or withdraw from the
negotiation.
In an Asian context, we are often reluctant to bring in a mediator into a dispute
due to our pride, especially in domestic affairs. Many relationships break down
because the parties refuse to seek help. Again, this is an issue involving the
emotional aspect, and it brings us back to the first principle, to focus on solving
the problem at hand.

Third, if the other party are using unethical or unpleasant tricks, the authors
suggest raising the issue up during negotiation. When deception is used, ask for
verification from the other party. When psychological pressure is used, express
your discomfort and suggest alternatives. When faced with a take-it-or-leave-it
offer as a bargaining chip, continue to take it as an expressed interest and treat it
as a proposal. Ultimately, do not hesitate to point out dirty tricks.

This is a good point to take note of, especially for Asians. Proven by research to
be less assertive and less willing to rock the boat, Asians may choose to endure
the dirty tricks the other party may be playing.

This text provides a lot of food for thought, but it also fail to highlight several
issues.

Firstly, the authors totally dismiss the notion of positional negotiation, failing to
explore a possible hybrid method combining both positional and principled
negotiation. In the second and third principles presented by the authors, by
focusing on mutual gains, the pie to be shared is enlarged via new options.
However, to split this pie, conflicting interests still need to be satisfied. At this
point, I believe that positional negotiation would be more applicable for the
parties to satisfy their own interests.

Secondly, the authors also fail to explore how the nature of the conflict,
characteristics of the parties involved and the relationships between the parties
can affect how the conflict could be resolved. The principled approach suggested
by the authors seems to be a one-size fits all method, which needs to be refined
for each different situation.

Lastly, the authors fail to consider how both parties’ desire for a successful
negotiation, and the size of the conflict could play a role in its outcome. If the
matter in conflict is a trivia issue to a party, and significant to the other, the latter
would desire reconciliation more. In this case, the former may either yield to the
latter as a gesture of goodwill, or he may use the situation to his advantage.

The book draws a lot on common sense and experience, putting words to our
thoughts. Many materials and ideas in the text are not things that we do not
already know, however it does place those materials and ideas into perspective
for us, creating a step-by-step guideline for one to follow. This text serves best as
a reminder and guideline for one on how to prepare and conduct oneself during
a negotiation. The guideline given though, is very general, and minor alterations
to it would be needed to suit each different conflict. This text would be a good
start for beginners to step into the world of negotiation and mediation.