UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

School of Law and Governance

College of Law

Alternative Dispute Resolution Requirement:

BOOK SUMMARY – Getting to Yes

Submitted to:

Dean Joan S. Largo

Submitted by:

Tan, Rolan Vincent S.

LLB2 EH 402
Getting to Yes.

How efficient and useful is negotiation really in a conflict?

Is there always an assurance that a negotiation yields to conflict
resolution? These is basically the universal problem introduced
and highlighted by the book “Getting to Yes!” by Roger Fisher
and William Ury.
The authors have highlighted and identified that the actual
cause of an unsuccessful negotiation is that the parties
primarily bargain over positions, rather than arriving at a
considerable compromise beneficial to both.
In positional bargaining, a party tries to improve the
chance that any settlement reached is favorable only insofar as
that party is concerned, usually starting with an extreme
position, then by stubbornly holding on to it, eventually by
deceiving the other party as to your true views, and finally by
making a small concession only as necessary to keep the
negotiation going. Same goes for the adverse party. Each of
these factors cause to interfere with the possibility of reaching
a settlement efficiently and promptly, since the more extreme
the opening positions and the smaller the concessions are, the
more effort and time there is to be exerted in arriving at a
successful negotiation.
The danger of positional bargaining, however, is the fact
that it does not only produce unwise agreements, but it also
endangers an ongoing relationship between and among the
parties involved in the dispute or conflict. Although it does not
mean that one needs to just conform and concede at all
expense. On the other hand, soft bargaining and hard
bargaining is not the answer.
 In soft bargaining, the standard moves towards the idea of
making offers and concessions, trusting the other side, and
hearing his arguments, and being more friendly to his idea and
side on the negotiation process just so to avoid further conflict
and confrontation. It highlights the importance of building and
maintaining a friendly relationship. This process tends to be
efficient, at least insofar as the extent of producing a quick
result to the problem. But any negotiation primarily concerned
with the relationship brings with it the risk of producing sloppy
agreement. A hard negotiation on the other hand insists on
concessions and makes threats more likely while the adverse
party, here the soft bargainer, yields in order to avoid
confrontation. This kind of negotiating process, although will
definitely produce and agreement, is unwise and could likely be
too leaning towards the hard bargainer.
The authors however do not encourage parties to choose
between the two mode of bargaining, as there is such a method
called “principle negotiations” or negotiations on the merits
which boils down to four (4) basic key points. Each of these
points deal with a basic element of negotiation, and suggests
further what one must do about it. These are;
1. People – separating the people from the problem;
2. Interests – focusing on interests of both parties,
and not on positions in the conflict;
3. Options – generating a variety of possibilities
before reaching a decision on what to do
thereafter; and
4. Criteria – insisting that the result should be based
on some objectified standard/s.
Separating the people from the problem.
This method introduced by the authors tends to
acknowledge the actuality that humans have that strong sense
of emotions, and that it becomes entangled with the objective
merit of the actual problem. When parties take their own
respective position, tendencies are, the situation and the
problem only becomes worse than it already is, since the
individual egos become identified with the positions of each of
the parties. So, before working on the so-called “substantive
problems”, the “people problem” must first be disentangled and
dealt with separately so as to help the parties in a conflict yield
to a beneficial agreement.
To further help parties have a stronger grasp on this
method, the authors introduced three (3) basic categories to
make said method possible; perception, emotion, and
communication.

Perception.
Conflict ultimately does not lie in objective reality but
rather in the head of the people. The difference exists because
the same exists in their thoughts. Perception basically tells us
to always put yourself in the shoes of another. There definitely
exists another point of view towards the same problem which
both the parties share. There surely is that opposing perspective
towards one thing. Each party sees a problem from each others
side.
 When one is introduced to the point of view of the other
party, they are both able to reduce the area of conflict and helps
them advance their own newly enlightened interests.
It is but important as well that the parties be able to
discuss their own individual perspectives and take time in
finding opportunities which act inconsistently with their
perceptions. Give each other a stake in the outcome by making
sure they participate in the process of peace-negotiation.
Whenever they are not involved, they are less likely to approve
of the product of the negotiation.

Emotion.
In this phase, parties are encourage to recognize and
understand both their emotions, and then make it explicit and
acknowledged these emotions as legitimate ones. Through this,
parties will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem,
but will also make the negotiation process less reactive and
more proactive. Each party must also allow the adverse side to
loosen their emotions in order to let the steam cool off so as not
to result in emotional outburst. This phase will introduce the
parties to a more rationalized mode of negotiation.

Communication.
According to the authors, there are three (3) major
problems in communication; first, that negotiators may not be
communicative with each other; second, that even if they are
directly communicating, they do not listen to each other; and
thirdly, that they only tend to misunderstand one’s side. These
problems can be resolved by actively listening to each other and
later acknowledging what one has to say. Each must have to
speak about one’s self and not about the other.
Focusing on Interest, and not on positions.
This method is designed to supersede the drawback of
focusing in the stated positions of people whenever the objective
of the negotiation is to satisfy their underlying interests. A
negotiating position hinders what one really wants. To
compromise between the positions is never likely going to
produce an agreement which would yield to taking care of the
human needs which later led people to adapt to said positions.
It is intelligently a wise solution to reconcile interests
instead of reconciling one’s own position. Reconciling interests
instead of compromising between positions works best because
what lies beneath opposed positions are many more interests
than those which conflicts each other. When parties are able to
identify these interests, they then ask the “whys” and “why nots”
of the conflict, and eventually end up realizing the fact that each
one has multiple interests, but among these interests, the most
powerful off all is the interest in basic human needs. If one
desires for the other party to take his interest into account, he
must explain to them his interests and be more specified in
doing so On the other hand, one must also have to acknowledge
the interest of the other as one which forms part of the problem.
Noteworthy also, according to the authors, is to put the
problem first before the answer. If one wishes to be listened and
understood by the other, he must give his interests and reasons
first then his conclusions and/or proposals later, and instead
of bringing the argument of the past, parties are encourage to
talk more about the possibilities of the future. But most of all,
it is highly encouraged that parties must be hard on the
problem, and soft on the people by showing the other party that
one is attacking the problem and not them personally.
Invent options for mutual gains.
This method responds to the difficulty of designing optimal
solutions while being under pressure. To try to decide in the
presence of another would tend to narrow one’s vision. To
eradicate this constraints, one must set aside a designated time
within which to come up with a wide array of possible solutions
that advances shared and common interests and creatively
reconcile opposing interest.
There are four (4) major obstacles which inhibits the
invention of an abundance of options in most negotiations;
premature judgement, searching for the single answer, the
assumption of a fixed pie, and thinking that solving their
problem is their problem alone.
When one invents creative options, he would need to
separate the act of inventing options from the act of judgement
so as to widen the options at hand rather that to look for a
singular answer.

Insist on using objectified criteria.

When two or more interests oppose, the negotiator will
normally be stubborn. One may encounter a negotiator by
insisting that his single say-so is not enough and that the
agreement must reflect some fair standard. By discussing said
standard or criteria, both the parties may defer to a fair
solution.
Principled negotiation produces intelligent agreements
that are efficient and amicable. The more one brings standard
of equity, fairness, and efficiency, the more likely will one be
able to produce a final package that is wise and justified. The
more the parties refer to precedent and common practices, the
greater the chance that both will benefit from past experiences.
Developing one’s B.A.T.N.A
Your “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement”
(B.A.T.N.A) is not only a better measure but also has with it
certain advantage to be flexible enough to allow the exploration
of imaginative solutions. Instead of ruling out on any solution
that do not meet at one point, one can instead compare proposal
of B.A.T.N.A in order to see whether it better satisfies their
interests.
In generating possible B.A.T.N.As, it requires three (3)
distinct operation; (1) inventing a list of actions one might
conceivably take if no agreement is reached; (2) improving some
of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical
alternatives; and (3) selecting tentatively the one option that
seems best.

Negotiation Jujitsu.
There are three (3) basic approaches in focusing one’s
attention on the merits – what you can do, what they may do,
and what a third party can do. The first one focuses on you
concentrating on the merits of the problem, rather than on the
positions of the parties involved. The second is called
“negotiation jujitsu”. This strategy could be helpful in trying to
avoid positional bargaining and leaning it back towards the
merits of the problem. If everything else fails, one must resort
to the third approach where one must consider to include other
person not a party to the conflict who is trained and equipped
with the ability to focus on the discussion of interests, options
and criteria in helping resolve the conflict.
In negotiation jujitsu, one does not need to attack the
position but instead, one must look from behind. One must not
defend his ideas, nor try to invite criticisms and advice. Most of
the time in negotiation is spent in criticizing rather than
focusing on better ideas to resolve conflict.

Taming the hard bargainer.

There are three (3) steps introduced in negotiating the
rules of the negotiation game where the adversary seems to be
using a tricky tactic; (1) recognize the tactic; (2) raise the issue
explicitly; and (3) question the tactic’s legitimacy and
desirability.
Tactics which are tricky in nature can be divided into three
(3) categories; first, deliberate where there are
misrepresentation about facts authority, or intentions; second,
psychological warfare, designed to make you feel uncomfortable
so that you will have a subconscious desire to end the
negotiation as soon as possible; and lastly, positional pressure
tactics, designed to structure the situation so that only one side
can effectively make concessions.

Conclusion.
The authors acknowledge the fact that in order to get a
“yes” in a negotiation process, a lot of hardships and trials are
to be dealt with along the way. The foregoing strategies
presented in this book may not be new to most of us, but they
are more likely helpful in making every negotiations in conflict
worthwhile, if not easy.
From time to time, one may want to remind one’s self that
the primary thing to be considered in order to properly execute
a successful negotiation is but a scheme or a process better
than those which we are already used to. With that, we are able
to avoid having to chose between satisfactions of getting what
we deserve and of being decent, when we know we can have
them all at once.