INTRODUCTION
In this book, the authors have explained negotiation in a very simple way they say that negotiation is a fact of life. we negotiate every day when we try to discuss a raise with our boss or trying to agree to a stranger for price for their house, two lawyers trying to settle a lawsuit arising from a car accident, etc.
Further this book is developed in 4 main parts.
1st part (The problem) author describes the problem (do not bargain over position)
2nd part (The Method) he tries to solve that problem by using four problem-solving methods so-called (principal method)
3rd part (Yes But) discussed three common obstacles to negotiate
4th part (In Conclusion) is about overcoming this problem. this summary covers the first two parts of the book.
The problem
Don’t bargain over position
Negotiation often takes the form of positioning bargaining where each side takes position, argues for it, and makes a concession to reach a compromise. Fisher and Ury clarify that a great agreement is wise and efficient, and that enhances the parties' relationship. A wise agreement can be defined as one that satisfies the parties' interest and lasts for a long time.
Arguing over position actually produces unwise outcome.
When we try to negotiate on the position we always tend to lock ourselves in that position, our ego gets identified at that position. In positional bargaining, each part opens with their position on an issue.
The parties then negotiate from their separate opening positions to agree on one position. Bargaining over a price is a typical example of positional bargaining. In a situation where there are three or four parties involved then the situation becomes even worse.
Being nice is no answer.
Many people believe that being soft is a solution to the problem, they try to avoid that by being extra gentle. Instead of highlighting a victory, they highlight reaching the end of the agreement. The author has explained two styles of positioning bargaining soft and hard. As explain in the table.
There is an alternative.
So should we use soft bargaining or hard bargaining the answer is “neither one of this two”? The authors have developed an alternative solution for position bargaining, the solution is called principled negotiation or negotiation on merits.
Principal negotiation used 4 main principles they 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.
4. Insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria.
These principles must be noted at every phase of the negotiating process. The process begins with the analysis of the situation or problem, of the other parties' interests and perceptions, and of the existing options.
The next stage is to plan ways of responding to the situation and the other parties. Finally, the parties discuss the problem trying to find a solution on which they can agree.
The methods
1. Separate people from problem
So, the first principle is separating the people from the problem, it is very difficult to deal with the problem when people misunderstand each other’s emotions. In negotiation it very easy to forget that our colleagues or opponent also have feelings, opinions, values, and unique backgrounds that contribute to what they do and say during talks, so separating the people from the problem allows the participants to solve the issue without damaging their relationship. The people problem is actually derived from 3 main reasons.
1. Perception
2. Emotion
3. Communication
1. Perception
Perception, understanding other side thinking will not help you solve the problem, actually the problem is "their thinking".
Conflicts are mostly created by a different understanding of the real facts, it’s very important to understand the viewpoint of another side, they must try to see themselves in the place of their opponent.
Each side must tend to make a proposal that must be appealing to both sides. The more that the parties are engaged in the process, the more likely they are to be involved to support the final outcome.
2. Emotion
Negotiation is a frustrating process, people start reacting with anger and fear when they think their interest is in danger. Negotiation is driven by a core set of 5 interests they are autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, role, and status.
Trampling to this interest can generate bad emotion and attend to them can build strong positive emotion. In this book, they tell the story of a labor-management group which “implemented the rule that only one person could get angry at a time,” a strategy that prevented arguments from increasing.
They should not react emotionally to emotional outbursts. Symbolic actions such as apologies or a manifestation of empathy can help to calm powerful emotions.
3. Communication
Communication is the second source of a people problem, without proper communication, there is no negotiation. The Author explains three big main problems in communication.
First Negotiators may not be speaking to each other, but may simply be impressing for their areas and ideas. Secondly, even if we are talking clearly and directly to them they may not be hearing you. Often people do not pay attention to what you say. Third, the problem is misunderstanding what you say others may misunderstand.
So, there are four ways in which this problem can be solved.
First, one is to listen actively and acknowledge what is been said. Listening to them helps you to understand their perception, feel their emotions and hear what they are trying to say. The Second way is to “speak to be understood” talk to your opponents it is easy to forget something that negotiation is not a debate, nor it is trial. The Third way is to “speak about yourself, not about them” and the last way is to speak for the purpose.
Speakers should direct their speech toward the other parties and keep focused on what they are trying to communicate. Each side should avoid blaming or attacking the other and should speak about themselves.
2. Focus on interest, not position.
In agreement, if we want a wise solution we must always reconcile each other interest rather than their positions. As the authors explain. "Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide." The positions often directly result in conflict between each other’s emotional basis, which forms the foundation for our respective positions.
If we describe the problem in terms of position one party in the agreement will lose the debate on the other hand if we discuss the problem in terms of parties’ underline interests it is often possible to find a solution that satisfies both parties interests.
If we want to identify the interest of parties just start with the basic technique of put yourself in their shoes. Examine each position they take and ask yourself “why”. This can be done by the question "why they hold the positions they do", and by considering why they do not hold some other possible position.
There is a purpose behind every position. Without knowing the real motivating purpose or reason, it then becomes almost impossible to identify or appreciate the problem that needs to be addressed. The Author explains some of the most powerful interests of human beings are 1. Security 2. Economic wellbeing 3. A sense of belonging 4. Recognition and 5. Control over one life.
Once the parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together. If a party wants the other side to take their interests into account, that party must explain their interests clearly. The other side will be more motivated to take those interests into account if the first party shows that they are paying attention to the other side's interests.
Discussions should look forward to the desired solution, rather than focusing on past events. Parties should keep a clear focus on their interests but remain open to different proposals and positions.
3. Invest option for mutual gain.
Effective teams normally do not focus on solutions but a general path. Limiting yourself even if you have the right solution, might prevent you from potential opportunities that might arise in the future.
In most negotiations there are 4 main obstacles there are
1. Premature judgement:- Parties may decide prematurely on an option and so fail to consider alternatives.
2. Searching for a single answer:- The parties may be intent on narrowing their options to find the single answer.
3. The assumption of the fixed pie:- 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.
4. Thinking that solving their problem is their problem:- a party may decide that it is up to the other side to come up with a solution to the problem.
Future author has suggested 4 prescription to overcome this obstacle.
1. Separate the act of inventing option for the act of judging them:- it is important to separate the invention process from the evaluation stage. The parties should come together in an informal atmosphere and brainstorm for all possible solutions to the problem.
2. Broaden the option on the table rather than looking for a single answer:- Wild and creative proposals are encouraged, Brainstorming sessions can be made more creative and productive by encouraging the parties to shift between four types of thinking as mentioned below in circle chart
3. Search for mutual gain:- Sometimes, when people have disputes, they focus on convincing, arguing, manipulating, or pressuring the other side to agree with their opinion. That “technique” often works, although, it depends on the situation. However, the agreement not necessarily means that you will reach your goals. If the sides do not feel comfortable about the agreement, they might ask you to renegotiate. They might slow it down, refuse to implement it, not reach the intended quality, or they might simply quit.
4. Invent ways of making their decision easy:- even if they are not sharing them. Put yourself in their shoes and think what the drive for their position might be, for their decisions and behavior. You might realize something that you did not know before. That might lead you to a win-win solution.
4. Insist on using objective criteria.
In the final phase, Fisher and Ury again stress that we must avoid the danger of getting into a battle of wills. Instead, the authors say that we should negotiate on the basis of using objective criteria. Objective criteria could be market value, replacement cost, industry standards, Effectiveness, and reciprocity.
The first step is to create objective criteria. Usually, several various criteria that could be used. The parties must agree on which criteria are best for their circumstances. Criteria must be both valid and useful. Scientific conclusions, professional standards, or legal standards are possible sources of objective criteria. One way to test for objectivity is to ask if both sides would agree to comply with those standards. Rather than approving in substantive criteria, the parties may create a fair method for resolving their disagreement. For example, children may fairly divide a piece of cake by having one child cut it, and the other choose their piece.
There is 3 basis point to remember.
1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.
2. Reason can be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied.
3. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.
First, each issue should be addressed 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 position can be an effective 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.
If you like this summery, please feel free to give your feedback!
Thank you!
Summery by:- Nitin kale
References
1. getting to yes by roger fisher &William Ury
2. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/fisher-getting#:~:text=In%20this%20seminal%20text%2C%20Ury,be%20based%20on%20objective%20criteria.
3. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/six-guidelines-for-getting-to-yes/