Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

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: Don't take it personally!
Review: I must confess I ordered and read this book because my new boss recommended it. Well, now that we have unpacked all the boxes from our move to take this job - I find we have about 5 copies of this book. This book is GREAT! This is not a new book but has been read by millions of people and is now a classic. The first edition came out in 1981 and the second edition 10 years later. The newest edition benefits from many updates and has an additional chapter (#10) with common questions (and answers) that people have commonly asked about Getting to Yes. This new chapter really helps the reader to understand the method better - in fact I can't imagine the book without it. One of the best things that authors Fisher, Ury and Patton do in this popular book do is give the reader a practical framework for developing better relationships that lead to better outcomes in life and work. The ideas are helpful in getting along with family as well as in the workplace. In many cases their methods will sound like things you already knew and have practiced in some of the more successful moments in your life. However, the book puts it all in perspective and gives you the complete picture to know why it works better when you focus on helping the other person get what they want so you can, too. After reading Getting to Yes you will be more prepared to negotiate more effectively in every type of situation. This book helped me decide I like the new boss, too!