In negotiations, the parties must resist the urge to constantly compromise for fear of losing the negotiation altogether. Such compromises can allow for shorter negotiations, but also leave the main party with an agreement that has not fully benefited it. Establishing a “final outcome” may protect the negotiator`s final offer, but it may limit the ability to learn from the negotiation itself and preclude further negotiations that could potentially lead to a better benefit to all parties involved. When considering final decisions, each party may want to take a step back and consider all possible alternatives to the current offer. An example in the book describes a house on the market: all other options if the house would not be sold should be compared to the option to sell the house to ensure that the best decision is made. [8] Participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on common interests. If the interests of the parties are different, they should look for options in which these differences can be reconciled or even supplemented. The key to balancing different interests is to “look for items that are inexpensive to you and very beneficial to them, and vice versa.” [p. 79] Each party should try to make suggestions that are appealing to the other party and with which the other party can easily agree. To this end, it is important to identify decision-makers and align proposals directly with them. Proposals are easier to accept if they appear legitimate or are supported by precedents. Threats are generally less effective in motivating deals than advantageous offers.
Arriving at YES offers a concise, step-by-step and proven strategy to reach mutually acceptable agreements in any type of conflict – be it parents and children, neighbors, bosses and employees, customers or businesses, tenants or diplomats. Based on the work of the Harvard Negotiation Project, a group that continually deals with all levels of negotiation and conflict resolution, from the national to the business world to the international world, Getting to YES tells you how to do it: Getting to Yes provides a simple and universally applicable method to negotiate personal and professional disputes without being seized and without getting angry. In this seminal text, Ury and Fisher set out four principles for effective negotiations, including: separating people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, generating a variety of options before agreeing on an agreement, and insisting that the agreement be based on objective criteria. Three common obstacles to negotiation and ways to overcome them are also discussed. As early as 1965, Walton and McKersie`s groundbreaking study, Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, clearly articulated what they called “integrative negotiation,” with tactics such as mutual agreement on the problem, mutual information sharing, mutual trust, and the search for the best alternative. Does this sound familiar to you? Getting to Yes didn`t recognize Walton and McKersie`s book, although all the books I`ve read about collective bargaining do. Arriving at Yes uses the phrase Be gentle with people and the problem. As an example, Walton and McKersie quoted Mr. Gandhi: Be antagonism and gentle on the antagonist.
Often, negotiators establish a “quintessence” to protect themselves from a bad deal. The bottom line is what the party expects to be the worst acceptable outcome. In the run-up to the actual negotiations, the negotiators decide to reject any proposal below this line. Fisher and Ury object to the use of the final results. Because the final score is set before the discussions, the number can be arbitrary or unrealistic. Having already committed to a rigid end result also inhibits inventiveness in the generation of options. Where interests are directly opposed, the parties should use objective criteria to resolve their disputes. Allowing such differences to trigger a battle of will to destroy relations is ineffective and unlikely to lead to sound agreements. Decisions based on reasonable standards make it easier for the parties to come to an agreement and maintain good relations. Thank you for all your good work – and share it so openly.
I`m not sure there`s a name for it, but I use a technique that seems very useful to help groups negotiate agreements, that is, by first testing simple agreements and then gradually moving on to more sophisticated agreements. It could be with”So I hear that we all believe that we need to solve this problem. Is that correct? I think it`s useful because it indicates that we agree on some things and that we`re making progress and moving towards a solution. It is also useful because it helps me to understand where the point of divergence and convergence lies so that I can guide the negotiation more clearly. The principles-based method of negotiation was developed at the Harvard Program on Negotiation by Fisher, Ury and Patton. [6] Their objective is to reach an agreement without jeopardizing business relations. [7] The method is based on five theses:[8] Distorting the other party`s intentions on the basis of one`s own fear is a common mistake; the authors describe it as a bad habit that could cost “new ideas to reach an agreement.” [8] The authors explain that feelings during the trial are just as important as the content of the dispute. Communication is the main aspect of negotiation, and the authors point to three common problems in communication: on the contrary, they argued, negotiation strategies can and should look for who can help both sides get more of what they want. By listening carefully, treating each other fairly, and jointly exploring options to increase value, negotiators can find ways to achieve a yes that reduce the need to rely on difficult negotiation tactics and unnecessary concessions.
.