Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher William Ury - Book Report/Review Example

Getting To Yes “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher & William L. Ury was first published in 1981, and became non-fiction best seller that year. The bookwas later revised in 1991 with Bruce Patton playing an integral role in the second publication. The second publication of the book was listed in the Business Week “Best Seller” list. Roger Fisher and William Ury are planning to announce the third edition of the book, and would be available in major stores by the end of December 2014. The Main Points of the Book The book is about the perfect way to negotiate. In our daily endeavors, negotiation is part and parcel of our life. Disagreement between wife and husband over where to visit over the holiday is commonplace in many families, at workplace disagreement over crucial matters affecting the firm exists on a daily basis, how to combat terrorism menace in Pakistan is yet another havoc to the U.S government – how well they handle this situation depend on the contribution of both government and the opposition. In all these situations negotiation becomes inevitable for all the included parties to reach an amicable solution. Getting to Yes third edition bring all the possible alternatives to reach at solutions to problems amicably without the parties involved feeling sidelined. The main focus of the book is the principled negotiation model, explicitly bringing out the most appropriate channel to reach an agreement in negotiations, while at the same time attaining the best interest to both parties. Principled negotiation incorporates both soft and hard aspects of negotiation and at the same time putting the interest of both parties as the integral subjects and distancing the persons involved, in order to reach at an amicable solution. Merits in negotiation become the subjective objects in the negotiations process. Reaching a negotiation through merits not only creates wise solutions to problems, but also improves the relationship of the persons involved in the negotiation. The agreement reach are satisfactory to both parties and offer a long lasting solution. There are four elements that guide principle negotiation when settling a dispute: i) separating people from the problem b) focusing on interest rather than positions c) generating a variety of options before coming into an agreement d) basing the agreement on objective criteria. In this new edition the elements have been revised to make the process of negotiation capture all the dimensions of settling disputes amicably. Elements of Principled Negotiation A) Separating People from the Problem This involves separating the people negotiating over a dispute and substance being discussed. By so doing barriers such as emotions, anger, fear, distrust and anxiety that polarize substantive issues under discussion are eliminated in the discussion. Separating people from the problems ensures substantive issues find conducive environment for both parties’ interests to be discussed in depth. When separating people from problems it is important to gauge people perception and their objective about the issues in questions. In a case of selling a product, the buyer and the seller perception are vital elements that set the pace for negotiation. The buyer might have a pre-conceived notion that the buyer is selling at a higher price and besides he/she have also overrated the product. On the other hand the seller might have the perception that he/she is offering the good at a lower price, considering the price offered elsewhere. The perception of both parties poses a serious challenge, and if not checked it is impossible for a wise and amicable agreement to be agreed upon. Understanding the perceptions of parties involved is crucial for an agreement to be made. The parties should ensure that their communication is clear and that perceptions and feelings that can become stumbling block for an agreement to be reach are spoken out in a sensitive manner that will not spark or arouse feelings of distrust and anger. It will be wiser for the buyer to tell the buyer “I bought the same product at another shop relatively cheaper than what you are offering”, instead of telling the seller “you are very expensive”. B) Focus on Interests A good agreement is based upon parties’ interest, and dissociate from their positions. As Fisher and Ury posit “your position is something that you have decided upon” and that “your interests are what caused you to so decide. “ (P.42). When a dispute is subjected to positions, it is obvious that one party must “lose” to set the pace for an agreement to be reached. Contrary, when a problem is based on parties’ self-interests, it is more likely that a satisfactory solution will be met. In a negotiation process it is vital to define parties’ interests regarding the issues brought forward. This is possible only if parties involved internalize the main reasons why they have certain positions, and getting to know why it is hard to shift to other possible positions. Parties settling a dispute will always have differing interests that make them hold certain positions, however, the parties have common needs that propagate binding interests. The binding interests’ ushers in subjective issues that keep parties involved obliged to negotiate for a satisfactory solution, which present parties’ interests as equally paramount. Parties’ in a dispute are mandated to presents their interests clearly and precisely. The parties must engage in a mutual discussion, in which each party must be attentive to the other party’s interests. When a party is attentive, it show the good will and by so doing the other party will reciprocate by showing interest to know the interests of the other party, and overall improve the chances of creating desired solutions. It is important for a party to remain focused and present its interests fully, but remain open to new proposals. C) Generate Options In the new edition, Fisher and Ury have discussed hindrances that impede generating creative options in settling a dispute. Pre-mature determination of alternative might cause parties not to reach in an amicable solution. The parties might be squeezing so shallow with an aim of developing a single answer. The parties might be in oblivion and let the other party generate solutions. When parties remain closed in their alternative, and present either a win or a lose situation, such scenario compromises the best solution to be agreed upon. It is important for parties’ to maneuver and weigh the best alternative solutions that present parties interests. Parties should engage in brainstorming activities and create various sessions to evaluate all possible alternatives before reaching into a consensus. In the brainstorming activities it is important to: state the problem, analyze the problem, weigh common approaches and consider specific action. Parties should avoid falling into win-lose battle and instead come up with reconciling interests as proposed by Fisher and Ury, “look for items that are low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa.” (P. 79). D) Use Objective Criteria Sometimes the interests of parties oppose each other. Under such circumstances, objective criteria become essential in settling disputes. At times the conflicting parties might be at loggerheads making it hard for them to reach at a satisfactory solution. In such cases objective criteria become useful in finding a balance of fairness in the possible available solutions. In a situation of finding fairness, the most preferred solution by the parties’ might not be reached because both parties have to forego some of their interests in order to accommodate a compromise solution reached by parties involved. Strengths and Limitation of the Book “Getting to Yes” is one of the many books of negotiation tactics available in the market. Previous versions of the book have become bestsellers because most readers find negotiation approaches discussed in the book simplified, direct and practical than any other negotiation books in the market. The third edition is more reader friendly, and has maximized on past critics of the previous versions and incorporating ideas from readers and has come up with a more comprehensive copy. The book begins with reflection questions and answers many thoughts that the readers might have prior to reading. Fisher and Ury have also demonstrated the four elements of principle negotiation with apt examples and made the book more direct in its approach in settling disputes. The only limitation of the book is that it is too systematic in its approach and therefore might be hard for some readers to follow up the stages required in settling of dispute. My advice to the reader is to take time and read the book carefully, and practice how to use the four elements as explained in the book. To get better result the reader should try by starting applying these negotiation tactics by focusing on simple issues before engaging in dispute that require to make hard decisions. It is also important for the reader to note that it might not be appropriate to follow the book and try to win even in situation where sometimes you have to welcome lose situation as the best alternative at the moment. Work Cited Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 1991. Print. Read More

Elements of Principled Negotiation A) Separating People from the Problem This involves separating the people negotiating over a dispute and substance being discussed. By so doing barriers such as emotions, anger, fear, distrust and anxiety that polarize substantive issues under discussion are eliminated in the discussion. Separating people from the problems ensures substantive issues find conducive environment for both parties’ interests to be discussed in depth. When separating people from problems it is important to gauge people perception and their objective about the issues in questions.

In a case of selling a product, the buyer and the seller perception are vital elements that set the pace for negotiation. The buyer might have a pre-conceived notion that the buyer is selling at a higher price and besides he/she have also overrated the product. On the other hand the seller might have the perception that he/she is offering the good at a lower price, considering the price offered elsewhere. The perception of both parties poses a serious challenge, and if not checked it is impossible for a wise and amicable agreement to be agreed upon.

Understanding the perceptions of parties involved is crucial for an agreement to be made. The parties should ensure that their communication is clear and that perceptions and feelings that can become stumbling block for an agreement to be reach are spoken out in a sensitive manner that will not spark or arouse feelings of distrust and anger. It will be wiser for the buyer to tell the buyer “I bought the same product at another shop relatively cheaper than what you are offering”, instead of telling the seller “you are very expensive”. B) Focus on Interests A good agreement is based upon parties’ interest, and dissociate from their positions.

As Fisher and Ury posit “your position is something that you have decided upon” and that “your interests are what caused you to so decide. “ (P.42). When a dispute is subjected to positions, it is obvious that one party must “lose” to set the pace for an agreement to be reached. Contrary, when a problem is based on parties’ self-interests, it is more likely that a satisfactory solution will be met. In a negotiation process it is vital to define parties’ interests regarding the issues brought forward.

This is possible only if parties involved internalize the main reasons why they have certain positions, and getting to know why it is hard to shift to other possible positions. Parties settling a dispute will always have differing interests that make them hold certain positions, however, the parties have common needs that propagate binding interests. The binding interests’ ushers in subjective issues that keep parties involved obliged to negotiate for a satisfactory solution, which present parties’ interests as equally paramount.

Parties’ in a dispute are mandated to presents their interests clearly and precisely. The parties must engage in a mutual discussion, in which each party must be attentive to the other party’s interests. When a party is attentive, it show the good will and by so doing the other party will reciprocate by showing interest to know the interests of the other party, and overall improve the chances of creating desired solutions. It is important for a party to remain focused and present its interests fully, but remain open to new proposals. C) Generate Options In the new edition, Fisher and Ury have discussed hindrances that impede generating creative options in settling a dispute.

Pre-mature determination of alternative might cause parties not to reach in an amicable solution. The parties might be squeezing so shallow with an aim of developing a single answer. The parties might be in oblivion and let the other party generate solutions. When parties remain closed in their alternative, and present either a win or a lose situation, such scenario compromises the best solution to be agreed upon. It is important for parties’ to maneuver and weigh the best alternative solutions that present parties interests.

Read More