SUMMARY ON

GETTING TO YES: NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITHOUT GIVING IN

________________________________

Summary Paper

It is argued by the authors that the most important trouble in many

negotiations is that people expect positions as hard or soft. They suggest
that, rather than being either hard on people and problems, or soft on people
and problems, it is possible to be soft on the people and hard on the
problem. This technique is referred to as the Principled negotiation or
Negotiation on its merits.

The Principled negotiation or Negotiation on its merits figures out issues

on their merits rather than through a haggling technique focused on what
every facet says it will and may not do. It suggests in identifying mutual
positive factors, and if interests come in conflict, the end result must be
based totally on an honest condition independent on the will of either side.
Simply put, this approach of principled negotiation plays to be tough on
the merits, tender on the people.

When entering into a negotiation, positional bargaining tends to be the first

strategy that people adopt. This method is often perceived as problematic,
because as the negotiation advances, the negotiators become more and
more committed to their positions, continually restating and defending
them. “A strong commitment to defending a position usually leads to a lack
of attention to both parties' underlying interests.”

In this book, the authors developed four principles of negotiation, namely:

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
processes of principled negotiation can be used effectively on almost any
type of dispute.

The first principle is to separate the people from the issues. Naturally, the
tendency for people is to be elaborate with the issues involved and with
their own positions. In effect, they tend to take responses to those problems
and positions as personal attacks. Separating the people from the issues

1
allows the parties to impartially tackle the issues without affecting their
relationships.

The authors identify out three basic sorts of people problems. First are
differences on perception among the parties. Since most conflicts are based
in differing interpretations of the facts, it is critical for both sides to
understand the other's viewpoint. Emotions are a second source of people
problems. Negotiation can be a frustrating process. People often react with
worry or anger when they experience that their interests are threatened. The
first step in dealing with emotions is to identify them, and to attempt to
understand their source. Dismissing another's feelings as unreasonable is
in all likelihood to provoke an even extra intense emotional response.
Communication is the third source of people problems. The negotiators and
parties may no longer be listening to each other, but instead plan their own
responses. To combat these problems, the events have to engage in active
listening.

Generally, the best way to deal with people problems is to prevent them
from arising. People problems are less likely to come up if the parties have
a good relationship and think of each other as partners in negotiation rather
than as adversaries.

The second principle is to focus on the parties' interests. The first step is to
identify the interests of the parties on the problem. This can be performed
by probing the reasons for their positions and considering other viable
positions they can opt. Parties may have a number of various interests
underlying their positions. However, people will share certain simple
interests or needs, such as the need for protection and financial well-being.
When parties have identified their interests, it must be discussed by them
together. If a party wants another pursuit into account, that party has to
clearly explain their interested. The other side will be influenced to take
these pursuits into account if the first party manifests that they are paying
attention to the other side's interests. Discussions should aspire to reach to
a desired solution, rather than focusing on previous events. Parties should
maintain their interests but remain open to proposals and positions.

The third principle is to generate creative options for solving a problem.

Parties may initially determine an option and so fail to consider
alternatives. They may narrow their alternatives, define the trouble in win-
lose terms, or may decide to leave to the other party to come up a solution
to the problem.

2
The authors also advocate four techniques to overcome these obstacles and
produce innovative options. First, it is important to separate the invention
process from the evaluation stage. The parties come collectively in an
informal manner and brainstorm for all possible options to the problem.
Parties may also endorse partial options to the problem. Only after a variety
of proposals have been made must the group flip to evaluating the ideas.
Evaluation have to begin with the most promising proposals. The parties
might also additionally refine and enhance proposals at this point.

The fourth principle is to use an objective criteria to arrive at a good

resolve. The first step is to develop an objective criteria keeping in mind
three points. First, each issue should be approached as a shared search for
objective criteria. 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

However, there are instances when the other party is more powerful, the
authors suggest concentrating on assessing for the best alternative to a
negotiated agreement (BATNA). The authors note that "the reason you
negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain
without negotiating." The weaker party should reject agreements that
would leave them worse off than their BATNA. The BATNA is also key
to making the most of existing assets. Power in a negotiation comes from
the ability to walk away from negotiations. Thus, the party with the best
BATNA is the more powerful party in the negotiation. Generally, the
weaker party can take unilateral steps to improve their alternatives to
negotiation.

In instances when the other party won't use the principled negotiation, three
approaches for dealing with opponents who are stuck in positional
bargaining are identified. First, one side may simply continue to use the
principled approach. Second, the principled party may use "negotiation
jujitsu" to bring the other party in line. The key is to refuse to respond in
kind to their positional bargaining.

Negotiation Jujitsu is a strategy that sidesteps the other party’s attacks and
channels the focus towards exploring interests, inventing options for
mutual gain, and searching for independent standards. Example, when a
party sets forth their position, it should neither be accepted nor rejected.
Instead, it shall be treated as a possible option and questions shall be asked
to evaluate its practicality. The principles underlying the other side’s

3
positions must be sought and discussed. Criticism of the negotiator’s ideas
must be invited and reworked, keeping in mind what is learned about the
other side’s values. Two things must be used to the advantage of the
negotiator. First, use questions rather than statements in evaluating the
other side’s proposals. Second, use silence as a response when a party has
made an unreasonable proposal or unjustified attack.

When the other party remains stuck in positional bargaining, the one-text
approach may be used. In this approach a third party is brought in. The
third party should interview each side separately to determine what their
underlying interests are. This process continues until the third party feels
that no further improvements can be made. At that point, the parties must
decide whether to accept the refined proposal or to abandon negotiations.

Lastly, when the other party uses dirty tricks, the best way to respond is to
explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled
negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. The
best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other
side's claims. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a
bargaining tactic and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate. They
may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The
principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants
and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue
negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable
commitments to certain positions, or to an impasse offers. The principled
party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer,
instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests. Insist that any
proposals be evaluated on their merits, and don't hesitate to point out dirty
tricks.