Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

Rating:
Summary: No One Has Topped It
Review: This is the timeless book that launched the concepts of "principled negotiation." Some criticize it here for its simplicity or even redundancy, but its power lies there.

Before this book, what we saw written about negotiation was how to win, and do so competitively or at the expense of the other party.

After this book, Stephen Covey was able to speak credibly about "win-win or no deal." The idea that no negotiation is successful without some advantage to both parties was, if not pioneered in this book, explained with greater reality and clarity than ever before. And where, before, did we learn what BATNA means and how vital it is to gaining and maintaining leverage in any negotiation?

I think that some of the negative reviews are grounded in the actual widespread acceptance of this book's principles. In other words, "OK, yeah, Henry Ford democratized the automobile, but we've moved so far beyond the Model T..."

Well, that might be true. But there is still great value in a deep understanding of the fundamentals.

To the new reader, you have here a lively and engaging style of learning. To the seasoned professional, there is still something to learn.

Rating:
Summary: Necessary... but definately not sufficient.
Review: Three and 1/2 stars rounded up.

Principled bargaining rests on a controversial proposition-that a scrupulous approach to negotiation is always in a disputant's best self-interest. Its adherents exhort us to stop negotiating the old way. Avoid dickering over margins, say Fisher and Ury. Instead, try to adapt your underlying interests to those of the other party. Their first two cardinal rules are, "Separate the people from the problem" and "Focus on interests, not positions." Rather than mire your negotiation in personality conflicts or the recounting of past "wrongs," be future-oriented. Be creative. Be a problem-solver. Don't haggle!

According to this school of thought, a negotiator should do this not out of some ethical imperative, nor even necessarily to strengthen long-term relationships (which may or may not be present), but simply because doing so promotes one's own immediate self-interest. And while they assure us that "[b]eing nice is no answer" (p.7), Fisher and Ury would have us eschew hard bargaining, pressure tactics, and threats. For its adherents, principled bargaining is a kind of jujitsu. Find the other parties' differing interests, and you can forge a deal that satisfies you both, no matter how aggressive they are. This is that familiar yet elusive Shangri-La, the win-win. Such "dovetailing" requires creativity, empathy, and a willingness to forego the "cheap tricks" of the bare-knuckles negotiator. But is this approach really preferable---or even possible---most of the time?

While certain tactics in Getting to Yes are useful (indeed, some are imperative), its authors overstate many of their claims. Their tools are especially appropriate for certain kinds of negotiations. Where there is complexity, brainstorming really can develop a multiplicity of interests. Like the ubiquitous example of the children fighting over the last orange, each party can leave the table with the thing they value most. Find out where your interests differ (rather than where they converge), and you can better reach consensus.

In many cases though, "growing the pie" will only produce more of some fungible item (typically money). In which case, adverse parties are still left with a pie to cut; it just happens to be bigger. The paradigm example is that of moneymaking partnership. Whether between principal and agent, management and labor, or investor and sweat equity, such relationships have peak financial returns based on mutual investments. Finding that Pareto-optimal peak is crucial. But once the pie is enlarged, the parties will still debate how to slice it. It would be neat to think that differing fringe benefits, payout schedules, or work environments could create the sort of complexity that principled negotiation thrives on. But in a world where those things have readily ascertainable monetary values, the expanded pie is still just a pie. Convincing the other side that they are better off getting $75 worth of fringe benefits rather than $100 of net profit is a clever trick, but some might call it "dirty."

Similarly, it is crucial that a negotiator know her Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Ignoring it would be like placing poker bets without first calculating the odds. And just like in a poker game, information during bargaining is frequently scarce. For that reason, a good BATNA is less like a single alternative, and more like a set. But sometimes your best alternative will be leveraged on their worst alternative. And that's where threats come in. If you are trying to settle a tort suit, one of the most effective things you can say is: resist if you like, but if we don't settle this to my satisfaction, I'm going to the press.

The principled bargaining approach has some merit, but there is no reason not to exercise competetive bargaining stategies when those would be effective. Although Fisher and Ury have a lot of good advice, their book is marred by too much emphasis on avoiding the skillful (and, yes, devious) appropriation of value. In trying to avoid the Prisoner's Dilemma, they fall a little too far on the side of scrupulous cooperation. Of the twin Biblical injunctions, "Be ye wise as serpents and innocent as doves," they somewhat rashly emphasize the latter at the expense of the former. It is a costly mistake that a lot of experienced negotiators will be sure not to make.

Rating:
Summary: Getting Divorced? Pair this with my book to settle fairly.
Review: Unfortunately, this excellent book slipped below my radar when I was writing "The Complete Guide to Protecting Your Financial Security When Getting a Divorce." Otherwise, I would have included it in the part of my appendix that recommends other books.

The principles the author espouses are very much in keeping with the new collaborative divorce movement in which parties from both sides work together, not adversarially, to reach an equitable settlement that isn't exactly win-win, because nobody wins in divorce, but shares the pain and loss fairly. It can also work well in mediation, when both parties are assertive, and neither is cowed by the other.

"The Complete Guide to Protecting Your Financial Security When Getting a Divorce" covers these approaches and the numerous issues with which both parties must be knowledgeable in order to negotiate effectively.