Book Analysis

Title: Getting To Yes¹

Authors: Roger Fisher and William Ury

The following analysis will examine three major sections of Fisher and Ury's book, Getting To Yes. Following this analysis will be a critique of the ten common questions/answers posed by the authors.

Chapter 1 - The Problem

Getting to Yes is a book that deals with the process of negotiation. The problem, as defined by the authors, is that people negotiate over positions. Their contention is that bargaining over positions is counterproductive to a wise agreement. This does not mean a solution will not be reached or that it will not be an amicable agreement. The key is that it is a wise agreement.

A wise agreement is defined as the result of negotiation which has these characteristics:

It meets the legitimate interests of each side in the negotiation.
It results in a fair and durable resolution.
It takes community interests into account.
The process is efficient and amicable.

The authors assert that positions will divide each side into potentially intractable causes. Interests, on the other hand, can be shared or at least complementary. Therefore, finding legitimate interests in common for each side will tend to unite the various parties. Positional bargaining is inefficient and often endangers relationships. Exploring mutual interests will more quickly result in a good resolution while preserving the relationships. Positional bargaining is exponentially complicated the more parties involved. Interests can be explored by many parties; in fact, the more parties involved the greater the likelihood of finding mutual interests. Positional bargaining can use only hard or soft tactics. Exploring interests allows negotiators to be hard on the problem but soft on the people.

The authors also provide a brief introduction to the “Getting to Yes” method. It centers on four strategies: people, interests, options, and criteria. The first strategy is to be hard on the problem but soft on the people. This involves techniques for separating people from the problem. Second, negotiate over interests not positions. So negotiators should seek to understand the underlying interests to any stated position. The third strategy is invent many options for mutual gain without requiring commitment. Brainstorm many potential solutions in an atmosphere of “What if?” that frees each side to consider the possibilities without retreating from a position. Fourth, try to establish objective criteria or standards by which the agreement will be measured. This requires some level of mutual agreement on one or more criteria.

This section was simply a brief overview of the method. My initial concern is that each party proceeds into negotiation independent of trust. Trust is not established by them prior to discussions nor do the author think it necessary. If people have a fundamental distrust for one another, no amount of negotiating will overcome this. The authors contend that trust will just happen as a result of using their method. I think this is optimistic at best. It may cause negotiations to drag on for a long time without ever reaching an agreement to which either side will commit.

I was also concerned about a key assumption the authors make in regard to interests. They assume that all interests of each side in the negotiation must be met. This contention is simply wrong. Any individual or party in a negotiation may have underlying interests that are unreasonable, desirable but not needed, immoral, or illegal. The bottom line is that every member of the human race has a sin nature and exposes it regularly. In a negotiating situation, the natural tendency is to grab for everything you can while preserving your assets (was that a polite way to say that or what?). So one cannot assume that the underlying interests, if they can be discovered, are legitimate and must be met. I would agree that they must be considered in preparing your negotiation strategy. But I patently object to the notion that they must be met in all cases.

Chapter 2 - The Method

The four strategies for negotiation are covered in-depth in this section. Each strategy will be critiqued in the order presented in the book.

1) Separate the people from the problem

In positional bargaining, the person and his position become tightly intertwined. The position cannot be challenged without, in essence, insulting the person behind it. As an example, in the family a husband who makes a statement like “The kitchen is a mess” will undoubtedly create conflict since the kitchen is the responsibility of the wife. It may be a mess. But since the wife has ownership of the kitchen duties, she sees it as an attack on her cleaning responsibilities. Face-saving is of paramount importance in positional bargaining. So the first strategy in “Getting to Yes” is to separate the people involved from the problem to be solved.

The technique of separating people from problems involves three areas: perception, emotion, and communication. Dealing with perceptions is a particularly difficult one since you may not know the other side’s perceptions until you enter face-to-face negotiation. Emotional responses will also get in the way of a rational discussion of the conflict. Accurate communication, then, is difficult to achieve between parties involved in a conflict. It requires active listening skills, speaking for yourself and not about others, and seeking to understand the other side’s comments. These three areas intermingle; miscommunication may make it difficult to understand the other side’s perceptions resulting in angry outbursts.

I found it interesting that the authors conclude “Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people’s heads" (p22). They feel that it is more important to deal with the perception of truth than the actual truth. Their main point seems to be that you should seek to understand the other side’s perception of the world in general and the problem in specific. You should “put yourself in their shoes" (p.23).

I find it hard to believe that ignoring the facts of a situation will help resolve the problem. Even if you somehow meet the other side where they are at perception-wise you run the risk of a breakdown in the agreement process. The factual part of a problem cannot be ignored. Truth will always help define the substantive aspects of a conflict. Truth can be used as a weapon to beat people into submission. But properly exposed, truth can cut to the heart of a conflict. It seems to me it is better to know if the conflict is over people unwilling to accept the facts or just people misunderstanding the facts.

The authors conclude discussion of this strategy with the admonition to develop strong relationships with the other parties independent of the negotiation process. Working with friends is always easier than with enemies or unknowns. Strong relationships build trust. The greater the degree of trust between the parties, the greater the chances of resolving the problem amicably. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Even the worst of fights with those you love are easier to deal with than small squabbles with bitter enemies.

2) Focus on interests not positions

The second strategy which I believe offers incredible insight into negotiation is to determine what the underlying interests are for each party. Each party normally issues or defines a position in a negotiation. But behind the position one will find a number of interests or needs that must be satisfied. The position stated is generally one of many ways to satisfy those interests. So a wise agreement can be reached if the underlying interests of the two parties can be met. I find this to be a powerful strategy for negotiating since it removes the association of a position with a person. The focus of the discussion can move to the interests behind each other’s position. This provides each participant with valuable face-saving and frees them to communicate openly about their interests.

The interesting thing about underlying interests is that there may be interests shared by the parties in a negotiation. Behind the stated position of opposing camps there may actually be interests in common that neither have considered. Also, interests that are different may be complementary or mutually inclusive -- they may both be met without impacting the other. The example of the Camp David accord illustrates this beautifully -- Israel desired peace and their position was to overtake and control the Sinai peninsula (which they did). Egypt wanted sovereignty over the land and was willing to fight for it again. The agreement worked out between the two allowed Israel to return sovereignty of the peninsula back to Egypt with the agreement that it would be a demilitarized zone.

Interests can be discovered by asking questions, in a non-threatening way, such as “why?” and “why not?” about the stated positions. The point must be made that it is only to understand their position, not to gain justification. Sharing your own underlying interests may provide the impetus for the other side to open up. Also, consider the basic human needs we all have -- security, provision, relationships. Probing each these areas will yield insight into the underlying interests of each party.

Talking through these underlying interests indicates a willingness to understand the other party’s position. The authors encourage a forward-look when examining the interests and flexibility in the ways those interests can be satisfied. The conclusion of this is to be hard on the problem and soft on the people. There is no harm in being hard while speaking about your interests if you uphold the other people involved in the negotiation. Talking through your interests helps all parties discover together the various ways your interests overlap, complement, or are non-competitive.

3) Invent options for mutual gain

This third strategy primarily deals with various techniques to develop options which satisfy the interests of all sides. The authors cover things which inhibit creativity and how to overcome these things. Key inhibitors are:

Premature judgment -- this is the immediate criticism of any idea that differs from a stated position which immediately squashes any creative solutions from being discovered.
Searching for a single answer -- the desire to be “right” and conclusion that only your position is the “right” answer rather than a solution being found which addresses the interests underlying the position.
Assumption of a fixed pie -- this gets into the notion that only one position or the other can prevail rather than the idea that the interests of both sides can be addressed.
Thinking that solving the other side’s problem is their own problem -- this very common view prevents a party from seeing where the other side is coming from and how their interests may overlap.

Overcoming these inhibitors means separating the inventing of options from any judgment of the options or commitment to them. People need encouragement to creatively explore the possibilities without the fear that they are setting a precedent. Effective facilitators have long used brainstorming to do exactly this. The interesting thing to me is that this is the opposite of what people normally consider negotiation. Negotiation is to bring two sides together. Inventing and broadening the options considered would seem to take the sides farther apart. But the effect of inventing options with a noncommittal, nonjudgmental attitude is to create synergy between the minds sitting around the table. I have seen this work well when participants were prepared for it. I have also seen it very poorly facilitated with mediocre to poor results. The main thing is to create a safe environment for participants to engage the thought process.

All the options in the world will do no good if the underlying interests are not met. Brainstorming is a good start but critical thinking must follow. Finding mutual interests is a difficult process. It takes time and analysis of the problem from many angles. The authors conclude that shared interests are there but you really have to search for them. Also, you should not be afraid of the differences but instead look for ways the underlying interests may complement one another. In the end, the options must be formulated and formalized to an extent that each party can see how their interests are served.

4) Insist on using objective criteria

When interests conflict, the normal course is to resort to positional bargaining again. If you want the rent lower and the landlord wants it higher, then you lay out a price that is the highest you will pay. This creates deadlock which will normally not be resolved amicably. The solution is to find objective criteria to use in settling the differences. An agreement may be reached between you and the landlord to use the local newspaper’s guide to apartments in determining a fair price for rent. This moves the debate from a subjective “I will not pay more than X dollars” to an objective debate over the prevailing prices in the area for a similar apartment.

If one side’s position appears unreasonable in light of agreed-upon criteria, their natural face-saving instinct may push them toward a fair resolution. I would agree with this strategy knowing full well that it requires constant patience and control of emotions throughout the negotiation. Once people begin operating on feelings and not facts, the negotiation breaks down. The idea is to continually appeal to principle as the rationale for a position rather than arbitrary reaction or feelings.

Developing and using objective criteria may itself require creativity among the participants. The criteria needs to be unrelated to either party to enhance its acceptance among the participants. Consider the current budget standoff where the congressional participants insist on using economic forecasts prepared by the Congressional Budget Office. The President prefers figures developed by White House staff. According to the authors, they need to find other objective criteria to use in evaluating their proposals. Outside sources, generally accepted standards committees, business associations, and government agencies are all possible places to find objective criteria. Participants must evaluate their options with an open mind. It is intriguing to me that using this approach means you must be willing to accept options which meet the objective criteria you set. Otherwise, you will show your own position to be arbitrary.

So objective criteria can be helpful in negotiations to avoid the deadlock that often occurs when people hold to their stated position. It provides a non-threatening way to look at options that may well satisfy the interests of one or more parties in the negotiation. Participants then are backed into a corner of appearing arbitrary and unreasonable, a face-threatening event, or becoming flexible in how their particular interests can be met. I suspect that in practice finding objective criteria that all parties will agree to use is a difficult task to complete. But in doing so, all participants will benefit from a negotiation that can progress without damage to relationships.

Chapter 3 - Yes, But...

Each party in a negotiation will use whatever resources at their disposal to gain leverage over the other parties. The authors contend that you need to use whatever resources at your disposal to protect your own interests and see that any agreement you reach satisfies your interests as well as possible.

What if they are more powerful?

If the other side is clearly more powerful than your side and uses that power to manipulate the negotiation, then you must act to protect your interests as best you can. This means strengthening your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Settlement (BATNA). The BATNA, in effect, is your bottom line against which you measure any proposed settlement. You must be sure you understand fully your options if no settlement is satisfactory. You may need to use some of the brainstorming and analysis techniques discussed earlier to explore alternatives to a settlement. It is also helpful in negotiating to establish a “trip wire” -- that is an arbitrary limit above your BATNA that lets you know the negotiation settlement is getting close to your real bottom line.

What if they won’t play?

The authors suggest using “negotiation jujitsu” to get the other side into the game. If principled bargaining does not work, then try to counteract their moves with steps intended to bring them into a principled negotiation. With the following moves by the other party, the authors give these suggestions:

Asserting their position forcefully and unequivocally: Do not fight back. Assume instead they have a valid reason for their position. Begin the questioning process to understand the underlying interests and criteria which led to it.
Attacks on your position: Turn a negative attack into an opportunity to hone your ideas. Invite criticism and advice from the other party concerning your proposal.
Attacks on you personally: Again, take the energy from this offensive and channel it into the discussion of the underlying interests and potential criteria for an agreement. Take the issue brought up and repeat it back to them to ensure you understood what they said. Then use it as a springboard for analyzing the issue their attack represents.
Unreasonable demands: Ask questions and pause. Let silence judge the unreasonable demand for you. Many times the other side will begin talking to fill the silence, particularly when they have doubts about their demand.

When your own attempts to turn the discussion from positional to principled negotiation fail, you may consider a third party. The use of a one-text procedure may provide some relief to the stalemate. This involves the third party creating a straw man proposal which requires no commitment from either side except to poke holes in it. Over a number of cycles of criticism, revision, and review, the parties can possibly be led to an agreement that better serves each of their interests. The key is using the third party to question each party regarding specifics in their position (without stating or otherwise revealing his intentions). In so doing, the third party to gain insight into their underlying interests in order to incorporate them into his straw man proposal.

I agree with the suggestions provided in this section when the other side wants to play but only on their own terms. It appears to me that this would be very difficult to do in an interactive negotiation session. I suppose practice and time would provide the skills to quickly assess and react to the other party’s statements.

What if they use dirty tricks?

Human nature being in a fallen state leads people to fight dirty. They just will not play by the rules. Many dirty tricks are cited such as phony facts, ambiguous authority, questionable intentions, deliberately stressful situations, personal attacks, good-guy/bad-guy routines, refusing to negotiate, extreme and escalating demands, lock-in tactics, and the list could go on practically forever. There seems to be no end to the creativity in people trying to cheat the system. Normally, people either put up with it for a time or fight back. The authors do not suggest trying to reform the other side but to change the rules of the game.

In this book the authors stay away from making any moral judgments on anything. I find this objectionable. As a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ my role is to present Jesus Christ, “the Truth" (John 14:6), to the world. As such, I must stand on principles because they are right. Exposing what is right or what is wrong in the marketplace has long-term benefits. In the past few years, I have had a number of opportunities to confront what the authors here call “dirty tricks.” I have never once had someone come back and question or disparage a remark in a meeting such as “We need to do X because that is the right thing to do” or “They have made a mistake by giving us this and it would be wrong to keep it.”

The authors approach to fighting dirty tricks boils down to this prescription: “recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability [in order to begin negotiating about it]" (p.130). The idea is that exposing the issue may cause them to back off. Questioning its legitimacy raises an objection to it without calling it wrong directly. Moving to discussion of its desirability allows discussion to proceed on a principled basis. The bottom line is that they recommend you fight dirty tricks with integrity without calling attention to their obvious sin. I agree that one should always act with integrity. But I do not think it is wise to let deliberate sinful activity go unchecked. Once you let the standard of righteousness denigrate, it will take much more effort, if even possible at all, to move it back.

V. Ten Questions People Ask About Getting To Yes

1) Does positional bargaining ever make sense?

Positional bargaining usually is not a good approach to use. It can, however, make sense if:

An arbitrary outcome is acceptable.
The issues are trivial.
A good working relationship in the future is unimportant.
You have uncovered all interests, options, and objective criteria.

As a Christian, I would take exception to the third bullet. A good working relationship is a good witness. Bullying people to win an argument or to prove you are right will not lead anyone to the Lord Jesus Christ. But principled negotiation will reflect integrity and genuine concern for the other person’s needs. The only time I could imagine discarding the working relationship in order to have your way is if you see the other person’s life is in danger. But this may not qualify as a negotiating situation.

2) What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?

According to the authors, you should not spend a lot of time in debate over which standard is better. “Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another to the extent that it is more directly on point, more widely accepted, and more immediately relevant...” (p. 154). Their point is that criteria are only one tool to help forge an agreement where one might not be possible otherwise. Objective criteria should be seen as a means to an end and not the end itself. If the standards have been refined to the point that they each have equal merit, they suggest splitting the difference through compromise.

This seems to be a trivialization of what I thought was a rather important concept. I can see where participants could end up negotiating over the criteria rather than over the issue itself. But I think it is important to find external, objective criteria that both parties will agree to use in evaluating options. If they cannot agree on this, how could they ever agree on the options themselves?

3) Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?

As I stated earlier, the authors steer clear of any moral judgments about anything. But in response to this question, their answer was “YES.” They basically state that you should do what is fair because the long-term results will be better for you and the people you face in negotiations. To me, this sounds like an affirmation of what the Lord has been promoting since the beginning of time: “Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right (Psa 106:3).” A blessing accompanies obedience to God’s commands which are right and true and just.

4) What do I do if the people are the problem?

The authors state that the goal is to build a good working relationship with the other individuals independent of any negotiation. Separating the people from the problem, strategy number one of the method, means separating substantive issues from relationship issues. Substantive issues must be dealt with in negotiation. Relationship issues, ideally, should be handled outside of the negotiation sessions.

I found it interesting here that their first solution to continued people problems is to appeal to objective standards of fairness. Now where will they find this without a moral judgment entering into the negotiation? The truth is they cannot. This is the fault in a humanistic approach to things. Ultimately, morality will enter the picture and the humanist has no foundation on which to place it. Their admonitions in this book to treat others rationally and fairly regardless of how they treat you sounds very close to the golden rule.

In fact, this is where this advice came from: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Mat 7:12, NIV). No human can impose their own moral standard on another; a moral standard must come from the Creator to be applicable to all. Also, no one can really impose God’s standard on another; all one can do is live according to it to set the example for others. They may change and conform or they may not. For me, the only issue is whether I will do what is right by treating others with respect in spite of their behavior toward me.

5) Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?

There is a subtle implication in this question that negotiation somehow means giving in. This is not the case. In cases of emergency, either individual or national, negotiation using the right strategies may yield a more favorable outcome than refusing to answer their demands. This raises the question of your BATNA -- the availability of a favorable BATNA certainly gives you more options in these situations. Without one, the question is not “whether” you should negotiate but “how” to do so. Even if you have a good BATNA, is it probably not acceptable in the long-run to refuse to deal with a horrific situation like this.

The authors’ contention is that the alternative in this situation is continued aggression or war. Neither of these options is desirable. War may be used because the cause is right and true and we must stand strong in these causes. But they come at a high cost. If negotiation could produce an acceptable settlement then certainly it pays to use it first. War itself may just be a tool to lower the other side’s BATNA or raise your own.

In cases of terrorism or maniacal leaders such as Hitler or Stalin, I believe negotiation may provide a partial solution. There may be temporary relief from an immediate problem but a bigger one waiting in the wings. Look at the efforts to negotiate with Hitler -- his desire was world domination. How can you negotiate with someone whose BATNA (in their mind) is military force that will bring him world power? Hitler nearly succeeded in this. Negotiation may have simply given him the necessary time to build up his resources (improving his BATNA). The same could be said for terrorists. Time is usually on the side of the negotiators. But terrorists today are well organized and try their case in the media. Time may help bolster their case. Negotiation, if entered into with either of these situations, must be done quickly with decisive results.

6) How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on?

The authors response is that you should adapt your style to fit the particular persons you engage in negotiation. The more you understand them -- their way of thinking, their way of approaching things, their way of interacting with people -- the better you will be able to establish a clear two-way dialogue with them. Clear communication is at the heart of any negotiation.

I agree wholeheartedly with the authors on this. In fact, each person has unique styles, desires, and philosophies which will have some impact in the negotiation sessions. Being sensitive to these things, without necessarily agreeing with them, shows your respect for them as a person. All too often Christians end up offending other people and ruining their chance to witness to them all because they ignore that person’s right to have an opinion. Honor and respect have to do with how I treat the other person -- not whether I believe the same things they do.

7) How do I decide things like ‘Where should we meet?’, ‘Who should make the first offer?’, and ‘How high should I start?’”

Preparation is the key to answering these tactical questions. The more you understand your own interests and needs, the interests and needs of the other parties, your BATNA and theirs, the individual styles and sensitivities of the other parties, the better you will be able to determine the needed steps to address tactical concerns. I concur with the authors on this -- you must have specific situations in mind to answer these questions. The fear of not being able to answer them certainly comes up as we approach a negotiation session. But proper planning and preparation will tend to calm these fears and make the preferred steps clearer.

8) Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?

The definitive answer on this from the authors is do not move too quickly or too slowly. Do not give in nor be too firm. Basically, they have no specific answer to this question. It depends on the interaction among the parties. But since these are Harvard professors, they have a hard time saying “I don’t know.”

One suggestion they make is to draft an agreement document as you go. That is, draft a framework of an agreement, an outline of the headings to be covered, without the particulars to go in them. Then as specific things are agreed to during negotiation, pencil them in. This is a helpful suggestion that keeps the goal of closure out in plain view of all parties. It also helps in documenting progress made during the negotiation.

Another point they make is that some progress is better than no progress at all. Most of us have been in meetings where useless quarreling takes place. The authors point out that simply agreeing on where you disagree is progress over circular quarrels. The agreement on points of disagreement can actually aid in the search for objective criteria that may help settle these points.

Throughout the negotiation, keep the relationship separate from the points being debated. Be sure the participants can feel good about their participation with you regardless of the outcome.

9) How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?

The authors encourage the reader to just try these strategies. Take them one at a time, evaluate the results, and then try another one. Individual components of the method can be utilized even in traditional negotiation approaches.

I would also concur with their admonition to develop skills in this area. So many facets of our lives -- including home, work, church, neighborhood, and community -- end up with conflicts or issues in need of principled negotiation. In this study, I have realized how many times I have unilaterally settled a fight between my children (positional bargaining at its worst). This has given me some valuable tools to use in preserving the relationships while working toward a wise agreement between them.

10) Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power?

Even if the other side is more powerful, the way you negotiate will have an impact on the results. The bottom line, though, is that unless you can negotiate an agreement better than the other side’s BATNA, you will be wasting time. Your only option in this case is to try to improve your own BATNA or lower theirs.

If an agreement with the more powerful side is possible, then the way you negotiate will determine how much of the “pie” you leave on the table for the other side to keep. Power is something you can counter with principled negotiation strategies and objective criteria to use in evaluating options. This may work or it may simply minimize your losses. Either way, it should be preferable to simply giving in or not even trying to negotiate.

The authors also conclude that there is inherent power in using principled strategies. Building strong working relationships actually builds a degree of power to use in negotiating. Understanding interests builds power in being able to satisfy their interests at a minimum cost to yourself. Creativity and elegance in options for agreement provides power to influence the resolution. Clearly applicable external standards create power to settle differences without personal attacks. Strengthening your BATNA and your understanding of the other side’s BATNA provides power in evaluating your options. Finally, carefully drafting an agreement brings the power of commitment to bear on the dialogue.

I would concur with the authors in this. If you continue to confirm and uphold the relationships with the other parties, then use whatever resources you have to produce a wise agreement. I do believe, though, that as a Christian I have a responsibility to ensure an agreement that is fair to both sides. I may have to use power to be sure the other side’s needs are met.

End Notes

Fisher, Roger and Ury, William. Getting To Yes. Penguin Books: New York, NY. 2nd Edition. Copyright 1991.