Getting To Yes a book review by: J.E.

Bundy Lubbock Christian University

Roger Fisher and William Ury have crafted a memorable book with the goal of helping those who read it to become better negotiators. I would say that they have done so rather successfully and have provided the reader with a plethora of information to take with them into their next negotiation. There are a number of key points that I would disagree with them on, but for the most part I believe that those who read Getting to Yes, will be glad they did when they enter the negotiating room the next time. The authors begin their instruction with a brief introduction into the problem of negotiation. The main problem as they see it is the issue of position. Most people when entering into negotiations argue from a point of position. That is to say that they have chosen a side on a particular topic. For example, one could be for or against an increase in price at the school cafeteria, you could be for or against a decrease in taxes for the upper middle class. These are positions that we take and once we have made our positions we argue accordingly. The problem with this approach is that it fails to address the real problem that is up for discussion. This point reminds me of a counseling

term called the identified patient. In it we look at the symptoms of an underlying problem and do our best to treat them, but until we take a deeper look at what is really going on, and what the real issues are, we will never be able to cure our patient. Similarly with negotiating if we simply argue from our position without taking the time to look deeper at our own interests and the interests of the other parties, we will seldom be able to arrive at a conclusion that is mutually satisfactory and beneficial to all parties. Finding out both parties interests is key in negotiating for several reasons; it allows both parties to see what is truly motivating each other, it provides a way for both parties to work together rather than adversarially, and it allows negotiations to address the heart of the issue rather than simply allowing for positions to be satisfied. After briefly explaining the importance of principled negotiation rather than positioned bargaining, the begin to explain the process of negotiation. This is where the reader really begins to benefit from the expertise of the authors. rather than simply lay out a step one, two, three solution the authors go into detail explaining the nuance and psychological nuance of negotiation. In this section they explain to the reader not only what to do in negotiation, but why to do it. For example, in their discussion of people vs. problem they not only explain to the reader how people get their wires crossed over issues of perception or emotion, but how to avoid this and how to recover from it, if it has

already happened. In particular the section on symbolic gestures was very interesting. This is a tactic that seem very common sensical. I find it interesting that often time people let their pride get in the way of making rational decisions when it comes to settling negotiations. Small gestures can go along way to smooth over misunderstanding and rebuild bridges that have been burned due to misunderstandings and communication errors. As we progress through the negotiation we are reminded by the author to be hard on the problem, but soft on the person. This is an extension of an earlier idea introduces by the author, separate the people from the problem. Perhaps the most important point in the book, and perhaps the most difficult. As human beings it is difficult for us to depersonalize an issue and deal with the problem only without looking at the individuals involved. I am reminded of a conflict that I am presently going through that is suffering from this exact pitfall. While discussing an issue with the elders we ended up going round in circles over position. The elders opposed my idea, and I fought for it. Neither of us took the time to understand the interests of the other and therefore were inflexible in our approach to solving the problem. As a result we became angry with each other and our emotional entanglement prevented us from finding a solution to our problem. We walked away from each other frustrated because we were unable to sepa-

rate the people from the problem. Furthermore since we equated person with problem, we both took the attacks on our position as personal attacks and left with hurt feelings and damaged relationships. A reading of this book prior to our problem would have prevented us from falling into these traps. Continuing on in the process of negotiations the authors emphasize the importance of inventing new options that are mutually satisfactory to each party. Here the authors and I disagree. Not entirely mind you, I do believe that finding alternatives when impasses are reached are vital to continued progress through the negotiation. The main problem that I have with this book is that I am not sure it is entirely realistic. Theoretically every aspect of this book is spot on. In practice however I feel that there are some areas that may be unattainable in most situations. I agree that principled negotiation is far superior to simple positional bargaining. I believe however that if we follow our principles that they lead to positions. It seems that if we take this book to the end extreme that the negotiator must be willing to give up on a position that he believes to be the best, maybe even the best to both parties if he is unable to convince the second party of the benefit. I feel like this compromise could lead to a solution that has succeeded in maintaining relationship, but has sacrificed the most beneficial solution to each party. I believe that there are time when a person should stand there ground on a position that

they have been led to as a result of understanding their interests. IN this section of the book, I feel that the authors have placed too much importance on interests and have not allowed for the fact that some solutions are better than others and worth fighting for. In my own conflict that I spoke of earlier, many peoples feelings could have been saved had we not allowed our emotions to get in the way, but I do not believe that inventing new solutions to our problem is the best course of action. There are several solutions that we could have come up with that may have benefitted both sides to a point, but with compromise of ideas also comes compromised solutions. I believe that in our inventing solutions we may come to a solution that goes a long way towards resolving the issue at hand yet falls drastically short of being the best solution for all parties involved. It is like the story of the children who both wanted the orange. Compromise in that situation was not the best solution. Over all I found this book to be very enlightening and readers will do well to read and understand the material that Fisher and Ury have provided for them. I do believe that at time the book became very theoretical and not as grounded in real life as it could have been despite the real life examples that were interspersed through out the book that really did help the reader to grasp the concepts. I also felt that this book could be wrapped up in its first principal which is to understand the interests of the parties in-

volved in the negotiation and that throughout the book this concept was simply restated and repeated in various ways. I would have liked less restatement of this idea and more ground to be broken in other areas. All in all I would recommend this book to anyone who seeks healthier conflict and the ability to understand the psychology of conflict better. Certainly a careful reader will be able to pull the useful sections, which were plentiful, in this book together and increase their own skills as a negotiator.