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.

4
 SUMMARY ON
GETTING PAST NO: NEGOTIATING IN DIFFICULT SITUATIONS

________________________________

Summary Paper

A five-step method in negotiating with an uncooperative and unyielding

adversary is presented in this book, Getting Past No.

Typically, there are explanations behind a person's uncooperative

behavior. People might also behave poorly while in negotiations due to
negative feelings, i.e. anger or fear. Parties may not understand how to
conduct in a more positive way since either they do not foresee any
advantage from negotiating, or they prefer to insist their own choice to
maintain control and influence. Intransigent behaviors are likely to provoke
a negative response, and so the negotiator heightens up a different level of
control to manage the parties’ reactions.

The first step in bringing the other party to an affable negotiating behavior
is to control one’s personal behavior. When placed with a difficult
situation, the natural instinct for people is to strike back, give in, or break
off the relationship. These are counter-productive responses. When facing
an unyielding adversary, it is recommended to “go to the balcony.” Do Not
react. Instead, maintain mental equilibrium by emotionally detaching
yourself and viewing the situation objectively. Identify your underlying
interests and your best alternative to a negotiated settlement (BATNA).
Decide whether it is worth negotiating in that particular situation. Take a
second to understand the strategies your opponent is using, and to
apprehend your personal emotions and "hot button" issues. When in

5
negotiations, pause, take a time-out, or evaluate the dialogue in order to
gain time to "go to the balcony." Never make any decision on the spot;
constantly withdraw, even briefly, to assessment the resolve objectively.

The next step is to disarm the opponent by embracing their point. The aim
is to reassure the opponent and help them regain their mental balance.
Listen actively, by clarifying their statements and paraphrasing their ideas.
Acknowledge their points and feelings. Apologize if appropriate, or at least
express sympathy for their problem. Focus on areas to agree. The
importance of saying “yes” to reduce tensions and foster an atmosphere to
agree is greatly emphasized. It is suggested that in expressing your personal
views, it is an advantage to adopt the “both/and” approach. Say “Yes,
and…” rather than “But..” Make “I” statements instead of the accusative
“You” statements. "Whatever language you use, the key is to present your
views as an addition to, rather than a direct contradiction of, your
opponent's point of view."1

The next step is to reframe the conflict in terms of interests instead of

positions. The most effective way to urge the adversary is to inquire open-
ended, issue solving-oriented questions. Asking "why" questions can
obtain the opponent's interest. If by chance the opponent becomes enraged,
ask them "why not" questions on alternative solutions. "What if" questions
introduce new options without directly challenging the opponent's position.
Position-based negotiation strategies can be successfully managed by
ignoring them, or by reformulating them. Reinterpret firm positions as
passion. Reinterpret personal attacks as expressions of concern, or as
attacks on the issue. On the off chance that the opponent proceeds to utilize
counter-productive strategies, it may be essential to unequivocally (but
prudently) distinguish the behavior and have a negotiation within strategies
that are more acceptable.

The next step is to build a golden bridge to bring them from their personal
standpoint to an agreement. Make it simple for them to assert affirmatively
by dispensing with common deterrents to the agreement. Opponents may
stand up against ideas that are not their own. Avoid getting enticed in
informing the opponent what the best solution would be. Instead, gather
their ideas and constructive criticisms. Supply them with better options. An
opponent's resistance could show that she still neglected interests. Try and
perceive the opposite side's logic and perspective, and don't overlook
intangible interests like desires for recognition, identity or security.

1
Ury, W., 2007. Getting past no: Negotiating in difficult situations. Bantam.

6
Attempt to get it the other side's rationale and viewpoint, and don't ignore
intangible interests such as needs for acknowledgment, character or
security. Numerous people will reject an agreement rather than lose face.
Discover ways to arrive at an agreement without compromising the
opponent’s standards or give up their self-respect. One way is to look for
third-party recommendations. Alternatively, a third-party’s proposal may
be more acceptable than your own personal proposal. Accord the other side
the credit for finding a solution. Recommend ways of displaying an
understanding to constituents within the most favorable manner. People
may stand up to an understanding in the event that it is as well modified,
coming as well quick. Break the agreement into smaller agreements. If they
resist, console them that no agreement is final until all are. Do not hurry to
arrive to the ultimate agreement. Permit the opponent to "go to the balcony"
before choosing a decision.

If the other side refuses to take the golden bridge to an agreement, the next
step is to offer ways to make it difficult for the opponent to say “No.” The
common reaction at this point is to resort to power tactics and try to force
them to agree. This is counter-productive. However, instead of using power
to disarm the opponent, the alternative way is to bring him to his senses.
The goal is to educate the other party to realize that an agreement is in their
best interest. Ask them reality-testing questions about what will happen if
no agreement is reached. Remind them to your BATNA. If they still resist
agreement, you may need to deploy your BATNA. Power tactics must be
compounded with conciliatory moves. Seek to neutralize your opponent's
attacks, rather than responding with counter-attacks. Seek allies from the
larger community. Third-parties can inhibit threats oand can pressure both
sides to resume negotiations. Remind the opponent of the attractiveness of
the proposed agreement and reassure them that your aim is mutual
satisfaction. Because imposed settlements are unstable, it may be better to
negotiate an agreement even in cases where you have a decisive advantage.
The five steps of breakthrough negotiation identified by Ury are
demonstrated carefully.

1. Go to the Balcony. The first step is to control your own behavior,

rather than the other person’s behavior. When the other person says
no or bombards you with negative arguments, you may be
overwhelmed into giving in or reciprocate it. The best way is to hold
off your reaction and allow yourself time to think. Use the time to
reflect about your interests and your BATNA. Throughout the
negotiation, keep your mind on the goal. Instead of getting mad or

7
 getting even, focus on getting what you want. Don’t react: Go to the
balcony.

2. Step to Their Side. Before getting into a negotiation, it is necessary

to create a favorable atmosphere. It is required to pacify the other
side’s negative feelings, i.e. feelings of anger, fear, hostility, and
suspicion. Naturally, they would surmise you to retaliate or to resist.
So do the opposite. Actively listen to them, acknowledge their
points, and agree with them wherever you can. Acknowledge their
authority and competence too. Never argue, just step to their side.

3. Reframe. The next step is to reframe the process. When the other
side takes a very difficult stand, you may be persuaded to reject it,
but this usually only leads them to persist further. Instead, direct
their attention to the challenge of seeing each side’s interests. Accept
whatever statements they may say and reframe in order to deal with
the problem. Ask problem-solving questions, example, “Why is it
that you want that?” or “What would you do if you were in my
shoes?” or “What if we were to…?” Rather than infuse your personal
idea to the other side. Let the problem be their eye-opener. Reframe
their tactics, too, by skirting around their relentlessness, deflecting
their attacks, and exposing their tricks. It is important not to reject,
but to reframe.

4. Build Them a Golden Bridge. At this stage, you are now prepared to
negotiate. The other side, however, may still be hindered, and may
not still be convinced of the benefits of the agreement. You may be
tempted to enforce and insist, but this might lead them to thwart and
combat your ideas. Instead, do the opposite by bringing them in the
direction you would like them to go. Put yourself in the shoes of a
mediator who can easily make them say yes. Involve them in the
process to arrive at an agreement and incorporate their ideas. Try to
identify and satisfy their unmet interests, particularly their basic
human needs. Help them save face and make the outcome appear as
a victory for them. Go slow to go fast. But never push them, instead,
build them a golden bridge.

5. Use Power to Educate. If the other side continues to resist and holds
that they can succeed without negotiating, you will now need to
educate them. You need to make it hard for them to say no. At this
stage, force and threats may be enforced, however, these may
ricochet. Pushing them into the corner may cause them to lash you

8
out and throw even more resources into putting a fight against you.
Instead, educate them on the consequences of not agreeing. Ask
reality-testing questions, warn rather than threaten, and demonstrate
your BATNA. Use it only if necessary and minimize their resistance
by exercising restraint and reassuring them that your goal is mutual
satisfaction. Make sure they know the golden bridge is always open.
Never escalate, instead, use the power to educate.