With Interest: A Review of Getting
to Yes
Everyone negotiates in
some form or fashion in their everyday life.
In reading Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury,
the authors address the subject from a perspective that may seem foreign to
many. Introducing the concept of
principled negotiation, the authors approach negotiations in a no-frills manner
that describes a process that goes beyond skin deep. This especially illustrated in their concept
of focusing on interests instead of positions. It is an approach, as will be
described in this paper as one that produces results.
Reading as a how-to
guide, Fisher and Ury give practical advice to resolving conflicts. Promoting the idea of principled negotiation,
they define a process as one that determines issues based on their merits
(Fisher and Ury, 1981, p. xvii). It assumes a goal of achieving results agreed
on by both sides that are mutually satisfactory (p. 14). Of the factors that go into the process, the
clear standout is the idea of emphasizing interests.
The obvious question at
this point is most likely “Why care about interests? Isn’t negotiating about
getting what you want in the first place?”
According to the authors, “positional bargaining becomes a contest of
the will” (p. 6). It’s a situation where those involved get entrenched in their
sides and attempt to get the other to back down (p.6). They further note that in such a situation it
is difficult to come to reconciliation (p. 5).
Most people have seen
enough court shows to know that most aren’t there for the money, but “the
principal”. Or, in the case of the all-too-familiar high profile divorce, one
side (usually the wife) argues for alimony in order to “maintain the lifestyle
enjoyed during the marriage” As the authors contend, the primary issue in
negotiating isn’t about positions, but interests (p. 40). Given this, they argue for focusing on
interests in order to achieve resolution (p. 41). Going back to the aforementioned court shows,
many have ended in one side getting something of value comparable to the amount
money they were being argued for. The
authors go further in making their argument, however, by delving into the
reason this technique works.
In explaining the
usefulness of focusing on interests, Fisher and Ury explore the concept of
shared and conflicting interests as being hidden under differing
positions. They argue that looking at
these issues will lead one to find more similarities than differences (p.
42). Even if there are differences in
interests, they argue, resolution is possible (p. 43). With this in mind, the conversation moves to
how to identify interests.
Fisher and Ury solve
this conundrum by beginning with asking the questions “Why” and “Why Not?” (p.
44). The first question requires a negotiator to
analyze the other side’s position and look at the reasoning behind that
position, focusing specifically on understanding the desires, hopes, fears, or
needs that it addresses (p. 44). The
second requires a negotiator to look at the other side’s state of mind by
asking themselves why the other side didn’t take the position they felt the
aforementioned negotiator would take (p. 44).
These are techniques that are more than applicable to the real world.
In contentious
situations, many try to “get in the head” of their opponents. Given this, it would be logical to attempt to
understand the reasoning for a opponent’s particular position. In this regard, Fisher and Ury makes a strong
case. Nevertheless, they delve into the subject even deeper.
The authors further
contend that each side in a negotiation has varying interests, therefore making
this fact necessary information for negotiators (p. 47). Such realizations, they argue, enables both
individual and shared interests to be pursued by both parties involved in the
process. In analyzing this point, its
value becomes self-evident. Like the layers of an onion, Fisher and Ury attempt
to peel away to the core of the negotiating process-basic human needs.
Earlier in the book, the
two promote the idea of negotiators are, first and foremost, people (p.
18). With this, there are basic needs
people desire to be met, such as security, belonging, and financial stability
(p. 50). However, as Dale Carnegie
(1936, p. 18) notes, there is an even deeper human need that is “gnawing and
unfaltering”-the need to be important.
Simple yet elusive, Fisher and Ury in no uncertain terms define this
fundamental concept of negotiating.
With everything in mind, the book next takes the reader to the following
step-communicating interests.
Common knowledge
dictates communication as a necessity for negotiating. As the saying goes, “closed mouths don’t get
fed”. At the same time, bad
communication has been proven time immemorial to be a deal-breaker. Fisher and
Ury describe various methods for one to express their interests when
negotiating-making the interests come alive, acknowledging the other side’s
interest as part of the problem, putting the problem before the answer, look forward, not back, and be simultaneously
concrete and flexible (pp. 50-53).
In describing the first
method, the book reasons for using details when talking about interests during
negotiations (p. 50). This has become an
increasingly significant part of social interaction that almost every reality
TV show today has a segment where contestants make their cases for why they
should continue. As the authors note
negotiators should let the other side know that their issues “legitimately
demands attention” (p. 51). Going back to the aforementioned Carnegie, the
following phrase sums this technique best:
This is the day of dramatization. Merely stating a truth isn’t enough. The truth has to be made vivid, interesting,
dramatic. You have to use showmanship. (Carnegie,
p. 191)
Not to downplay the opposing side, the book further makes arguments for
affirming that side’s interests as part of the problem.
In light of aforementioned
basic human need for being important, Fisher and Ury again illustrate the
everyday usefulness of this method in negotiating. As they note “People listen better if they feel
that you have understood them” (p. 51). Not only this, they also tie this
concept with the aforementioned focus on shared interests (p. 51). Without mutual understanding, then, no mutual
agreement can be achieved. In order to
do this, the authors maintain, both parties should set their aims toward the
future.
Again connecting this
concept with the previous concept of asking “why”, the book notes that the
question “looks forward for a purpose” (p. 51). As the saying goes, “It’s not
where you come from, but where you’re going”.
Hence, coming to an agreement means reaching consensus on a future
solution. It is easy to move forward
when there are no obstacles coming from behind.
With this in consideration, Fisher and Ury take their focus on interests
to the negotiating table
When the time comes to
make a deal, the authors maintain the importance of keeping options concrete
yet flexible (p. 51). These options,
they note, should be in line with the negotiator’s interest (p. 51). As the book states, “The purpose of
negotiating is to serve your interests” (p. 50). Simply stated, it is a pure description of
everyday life.
Bringing the point home,
Fisher and Ury address a significant aspect on focusing on interests-attacking
the problem without attacking people.
This succinctly brings all the areas of the concept of interests
together. When a negotiator creates
interest on the part of the opposition in the underlying issues involved in the
conflict, they are directly addressing the problem while focusing less on who’s
involved. That frees up room to create
mutual understanding. Hence, there is
room for consensus.
The concepts of Getting to Yes are presented in a
concise and readable manner. Each
example is taken from an everyday situation, making it relatable for the
readable. It is in this that the book
has its potency. As each point
delicately intertwines with another, the advice it gives becomes all the more
relevant and useful.
In many negotiation
scenarios, it is difficult to focus on anything other than success. In their book, Roger Fisher and William Ury
illustrate the concept of focusing on interests in such circumstances. By explaining the why and how of this aspect
of negotiating, Getting to Yes gives
the reader gets a no-holds-barred picture of the fundamentals of their
“principled negotiation” style. It is a
style, tested by time and common knowledge that offers satisfying results for
all parties involved..
References
Carnegie, D. (1936). How to
Win Friends & Influence People. New
York
Fisher, R. and Ury, W
(1981). Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New
York
No comments:
Post a Comment