GETTING TO YES

Negotiating an agreement without giving in

By Roger Fisher

A BOOK REVIEW

 "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" by

Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton is a groundbreaking
book in negotiation and conflict resolution. It presents a
practical approach to negotiations, focusing on collaboration
and problem-solving. It highlights the importance of
understanding interests rather than just positions, finding
mutual benefits, and using fair criteria to assess solutions. The
book includes many real-world examples, case studies, and
actionable tips applicable in personal and professional
situations. Renowned for its clear insights and lasting impact,
"Getting to Yes" is a must-read for anyone seeking to improve
their negotiation skills.

 It provides a practical guide for approaching negotiations in a

positive and collaborative manner. The book emphasises the
importance of focusing on interests rather than positions,
finding solutions that benefit all parties involved, and using
objective criteria to evaluate potential agreements. Filled with
real-life examples and actionable strategies, For example, when
 a person negotiates with his wife about where to go for dinner
or with child about when they ask for pocket money or when
the lights go out. It basically provides a lucid explanation of how
negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from
others. This book is about the method of principled negotiation.

 The first chapter discusses the problems that arise in using the
standard strategies of positional bargaining. The next four
chapters lay out the four principles of the method. The last
three chapters answer the questions most commonly asked
about the method: What if the other side is more powerful?
What if they will not play along?

 Negotiations usually involve positional

bargaining . This means that both sides choose
a position to defend and end up at something in
the middle, like when a shopkeeper quotes a
price and a customer bargains them down.
Effective negotiation strategies have three
traits: they lead to wise agreement , they are
efficient, and they do not worsen the
negotiating parties’ relationship. While
positional bargaining lets people clearly
communicate their interests in a negotiation, it
usually does not lead to wise agreements.
 Although a negotiator may think that the best way
to get what they want is to openly propose and
defend a plan, the other side will probably never
agree to simply follow this plan—just like a
negotiator will almost never agree to the other
side’s opening proposal. Positional bargainers
forget that there are several possible ways to get
what they want, and it is counterproductive and
childish to insist on getting their way rather than
someone else’s—even if their own plan produces a
worse outcome for everyone.
 For instance, talks about nuclear inspections
between the United States and the Soviet Union
broke down because each side refused to
 change the initial number inspections it asked
for. But they never ever got to discussing how
the inspections would work.
 Next, the authors explain that “arguing over
positions is inefficient.” Whether parties reach an
agreement or eventually give up, positional bargaining
takes much longer than the alternative. It
incentivises people to stick with their initial
extreme positions and yield as little as possible
over time. Moreover, it forces people to decide
individually what offers and concessions they are
willing to make. Positional bargainers also often
delay the negotiation process to exhaust their
opponents. Ultimately, these factors make
negotiations slow, inefficient, and unlikely to
produce wise agreements
 “Being nice is no answer” to the difficulties
posed by positional bargaining. In a table, they
contrast hard and soft negotiation. Hard
negotiators treat other parties as enemies to
defeat through demands, threats, and lies.
Meanwhile, soft negotiators view other parties
as friends and value reaching agreements, so
they make concessions, offer their trust, and
prioritize the other party’s needs. This avoids
conflict and leads to quick agreements, but it
forces the soft negotiator to cede control and
sacrifice their goals. Accordingly, hard
negotiators easily take advantage of soft
negotiators.

II The Method
2. Separate the people from the problem
3. Focus on interests not positions
4. Invent options for mutual gain
5. Insist on using objective criteria
The chapter then presents the alternative
approach of principled negotiation, which focuses
on four key principles:

1. Separate People from the Problem:

Instead of viewing the other party as the enemy,
principled negotiation encourages separating the
individuals from the problem at hand. By
addressing the problem collaboratively,
negotiators can avoid personal attacks and focus
on finding mutually beneficial solutions.
2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions: Rather
than sticking rigidly to predetermined positions,
negotiators should focus on understanding each
party’s underlying interests. By identifying
common interests and goals, negotiators can
create solutions that meet everyone’s needs.
3. Generate Options for Mutual Gain:
Principled negotiation encourages creativity in
finding solutions. Instead of settling for a single
compromise, negotiators should explore multiple
options that offer mutual benefits. This approach
expands the possibilities for agreement and
encourages cooperation.
4. Insist on Using Objective Criteria: To
evaluate potential solutions objectively,
negotiators should rely on fair and reasonable
criteria rather than arbitrary standards or power
 dynamics. This ensures that agreements are based
on merit rather than manipulation.

 As an alternative to soft
and hard negotiation, the authors have
developed the principled negotiation
method (also called “negotiation on the
merits”). It has four main principles, which
deal with people, interests, options, and
criteria. First, negotiators should view
themselves as a team in order to prevent
egos and emotions from getting in the way
of finding a solution. In other words,
they should “separate the people from the
problem.” Secondly, negotiators should “focus on
interests, not positions.” Thirdly, because pressure
and conflict stifle people’s creativity, negotiating
parties should “invent options for mutual gain”
before they decide on a final solution to their
problems. Finally, the best antidote to stubborn hard
negotiators is to “insist on using objective criteria

 The process of negotiation has three
stages, all of which force negotiators to
deal with people, interests, options, and
criteria. Analysis involves understanding
the situation, including the negotiators’
feelings and interests. Planning-requires
exploring and evaluating possible
solutions, not only to fulfil people’s
 interests but also to resolve interpersonal
problems. Finally, discussion-involves
working through differences and building
mutual understanding in order to arrive at
a mutually beneficial agreement. In
summary, principled negotiation leads
to wise agreements, is more efficient
than positional bargaining, and also
preserves amicable relationships.”
 Throughout the chapter, the authors illustrate
these principles with real-life examples and
anecdotes, demonstrating how they can be applied
in various negotiation scenarios. They emphasise
the importance of communication, empathy, and
collaboration in achieving successful outcomes.

III “YES,BUT
6. What if they are more powerful?(Develop
your BATNA)
7.What is they won’t play?
8. What if they use dirty tricks

Chapter 13 of “Getting to Yes,” titled “Yes, But…,”

delves into the common challenge of encountering
resistance during negotiations. The chapter focuses on
how to effectively address objections and move past
the “Yes, But…” responses that can stall progress
toward reaching an agreement. Here’s a detailed
analysis of this chapter:

1. Introduction to “Yes, But…”: The chapter

opens by acknowledging the inevitability of
encountering resistance and objections during
negotiations. It highlights the tendency for parties to
respond with “Yes, But…” when presented with
proposals or solutions that don’t fully meet their needs
or expectations.
2. Understanding “Yes, But…”: The authors
explain that “Yes, But…” responses are essentially
rejections disguised as agreement. They indicate that
while the other party acknowledges some merit in the
proposal, they ultimately find fault with it or have
concerns that need addressing.
3. Addressing Underlying Interests: The chapter
emphasizes the importance of uncovering the
underlying interests behind the “Yes, But…” responses.
Instead of simply dismissing objections or trying to
persuade the other party, negotiators should seek to
understand the reasons behind their concerns. This
requires active listening and empathy.
4. Reframing the Discussion: The authors
propose reframing the conversation to address the
underlying interests and explore alternative options. By
shifting the focus from positions to interests,
negotiators can generate creative solutions that
address the concerns raised by the other party.
5. Exploring “What If?” Scenarios: Another
strategy presented in the chapter involves asking
“What If?” questions to encourage the other party to
consider alternative perspectives or solutions. This
approach encourages brainstorming and expands the
range of possible outcomes.
6. Testing Assumptions: The authors suggest
challenging assumptions and exploring the validity of
objections raised through open-ended questioning. By
inviting the other party to explain their reasoning,
negotiators can uncover areas of agreement or identify
areas where further negotiation is needed.
7. Building Momentum: The chapter emphasizes
the importance of maintaining momentum and
avoiding getting stuck in a cycle of “Yes, But…”
responses. Negotiators should strive to keep the
conversation moving forward by actively addressing
concerns and seeking common ground.
8. Case Studies and Examples: Throughout the
chapter, the authors provide case studies and examples
to illustrate the strategies discussed in action. These
real-life scenarios demonstrate how negotiators can
effectively navigate “Yes, But…” responses and work
toward mutually beneficial agreements.
9. Conclusion: The chapter concludes by
reiterating the importance of understanding and
addressing objections constructively in negotiations. By
reframing the discussion, exploring alternative options,
and maintaining momentum, negotiators can
overcome resistance and move closer to reaching a
successful agreement.

Getting them to play:

The case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull
 The following real-life example of a negotiation
between a landlord and tenant should give
you a feel for how you might deal with a party who
is reluctant to engage in principled negotiation. It
illustrates what it means to change the game by
starting to play a new one
IV
In conclusion
 You knew it all the time
There is probably nothing in this book which you
did not already know at some level of your
experience. What we have tried to do is to
organise common sense and common experience
in a way that provides a usable framework for
thinking and acting. The more consistent these
ideas are with your knowledge and intuition the
better. In teaching this method to skilled lawyers
and businessmen with years of experience, we
have been told, "Now I know what I have been
 doing, and why it sometimes works" and "I knew
what you were saying was right because I knew it
already."
Learn from doing
 A book can point you in a promising direction. By
making you aware of ideas and aware of what you
are doing, it can help you learn.
No one, however, can make you skilful but
yourself. Reading the pamphlet on the Royal
Canadian Air Force exercises will not make you
physically fit. Studying books on tennis, swimming,
riding a bicycle, or riding a horse will not make you
an expert. Negotiation is no different.
"Winning"
In 1964 an American father and his twelve-year-old
son were enjoying a beautiful Saturday in Hyde
Park, London, playing catch with a Frisbee. Few in
England had seen a Frisbee at that time and a
small group of strollers gathered to watch this
strange sport. Finally, one Homburg- clad Britisher
came over to the father: "Sorry to bother you.
Been watching you a quarter of an hour. Who's
winning?"
 In most instances to ask a negotiator, "Who's
winning?" is as inappropriate as to ask who's
winning a marriage. If you ask that question about
your marriage, you have already lost the more
important negotiation — the one about what kind
 of game to play, about the way you deal with each
other and your shared and differing interests.
This book is about how to "win" that important
game — how to achieve a better process for
dealing with your differences. To be better, the
process must, of course, produce good substantive
results; winning on the merits may not be the only
goal, but certainly losing is not 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. In addition, it should prove
more efficient and less costly to human
relationships. We find the method comfortable to
use and hope you will too.
 That does not mean it is easy to change habits, to
disentangle emotions from the merits, or to enlist
others in the task of working out a wise solution to
a shared problem. From time to time you may
want to remind yourself that the first thing you are
trying to win is a better way to negotiate — a way
that avoids your having to choose between the
satisfactions of getting what you deserve and of
being decent. You can have both.

Tulip, Eng/23/70