A common adage goes like this: “The greatest result starts from the

smallest step”. This applies as well with negotiation where it is manifested

in everything we do each day. Truth be told, negotiation happens to us daily
since it is considered an avenue by which we get the things that we want; not
all the time though but at least the chance to reach an agreement with
another is always there. When people have the same shared goals, then
negotiation for a solution or outcome is quite easy. All we need to do is take
that step to negotiate Emphasized however that negotiation as a tool, is a
two-way method. In other words, it is not only your interest that should be
considered but the other person’s interests as well.

The book, “Getting to Yes”, comes in handy in situations where

negotiation is present. The takeaway has always been to ensure that the end-
goal is to reach an agreement to avoid personal conflict with others.

There are two ways by which a negotiation is accomplished: soft or

hard. In soft, the negotiator compromises in order to reach a settlement while
in hard the negotiator ultimately wins. He sees a situation as a test for his
mettle in a way that whoever makes the more extreme position and holds out
longer fares better than the other party.

Just like any other system, these two types of negotiation present
danger as well. In the case of soft, the risk is that there is an expectation of
negotiator being exploited while in the case of hard, the risk is that it
requires more exhaustion of efforts and time since the latter does not
guarantee that there is success in negotiation.

However, a balance of both interests is possible such as in the case

where both soft and hard negotiation are employed. Known as the Harvard
Negotiation Project takes the importance of deciding issues on the merits
rather than the personal interests of each party. What is encouraged under
principled negotiation is to discover where mutual gains can be more
maximized; of course, this can be done through mutual respect, justice and
fairness.

But bear in mind, this cannot be done all the time. There are instances
where a negotiator is faced with an opposing side considered as more
compelling and influential. In such case, the principled negotiation employs
the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or use Negotiation Jujitsu.

The book discusses the approach on how to get that yes in the most
organized way. The author divides the methods per chapter, taking and
explaining each part one step at a time.

In the first part, what is discussed in detail is the “The Problem”-

considered the starting point and the root of a negotiation. The vital point
emphasized in here is the implication of taking a stand and position, finding
salient concessions to reach a settlement. The book also provides a criteria or
1
a standard on how to judge a method of negotiation such as: the agreement
has to be wise, efficient and would not strain the relationship between
parties. When arguing your position (positional bargaining), you become
attached to it; as a result it may be inefficient, may endanger an ongoing
relationship, or may be so inflexible because once you take a position it may
be difficult to change it later on.

Noteworthy also from this Chapter is that being “nice” while a good
trait cannot be used here in negotiation for the reason that it can have serious
drawbacks in the employment of positional bargaining. If that is present, it
may bias the entire negotiation in favor of course of the hard player, which
can prejudice the entire process. Some argue that while this may be a
quicker approach, the downside is that it may result to a sloppy agreement
which was not thought through by both parties. In a nutshell, when
negotiators argue over positions, rather than interests, they lose the game of
negotiation. But truth and in fact, positional bargaining does not really solve
the problem. And so dilemma exists whether there is an alternative to
positional bargaining.

As mentioned in the earlier part of this book review, the Harvard

Negotiation Project identified an alternative to the hard and soft negotiation
scheme. This is known as Principled Negotiation or Negotiation on the
Merits. Important points that need to be considered are: people, interest,
options, and criteria.

How are these points relevant?

The first point that need to be discussed is that negotiators should

separate the people from the problem. With regard to interests, the focus has
to be the balancing of these interests and not the positions. In case of the
options, what must be remembered is that the negotiators must be able to
generate various possibilities that can be alternative options before even
deciding what to do. Lastly, the standard must be objective and not
subjective.

After tackling the problem, the next step is knowing and applying the
method. The method of principled negotiation is relevant from the time you
think about negotiating until the time either an agreement is reached or you
decide to break off the effort. There are the following stages under this
method enumerated as: (a) analysis stage, (b) planning stage, and (c)
discussion stage. In the analysis stage, negotiators simply diagnose the
problem. They gather the relevant information, organize it and think about
their interests. The planning state is where the parties generate the ideas
relevant to the problem and decide what they will do. Lastly, in the
discussion stage, the negotiators communicate back and forth to produce a
joint agreement that is mutually satisfactory based upon the objective
standards.

First question: How do we separate people from the problem?

2
 It must be acknowledged that there are two interests of every
negotiator- in the substance and in the relationship. The guiding principle
under this is that negotiators are human beings as well. In other words, there
are always emotions and different views involved. The key to a successful
negotiation under this step is ensure that trust, understanding, respect and
friendship are mutually acknowledged and practiced by both parties.

Under people problems, the three basic categories are perception,

emotion and communication. In perceiving others, one has to put himself or
herself in the shoes of others. There should not be a blame game especially
in terms of each intention of the participants. It is expected the perceptions
of others will be inconsistent with yours; however, what is important is that
conflict lies not in objective reality but only in people’s minds. Not everyone
might be gifted on this but there are just negotiators who have the ability to
see the situation on the other side and remain empathetic to the point that
there is a belief that their views though different can be reconciled one way
or another. The objective is that there should be a discussion on each other’s
perceptions and be able to look for opportunities to act inconsistently with
their perceptions.

Second question: How do we reconcile interests?

It is the interests that must be reconciled and not the positions. This is
something that is easier said than done. It is but natural that the parties will
think of their interest benefitting them more and these interests are driven by
their needs, desires and even their issues and concerns. Irony is that it is the
very existence of differing interests that serves as the building block for a
wise agreement; the challenge is only finding a common ground.

The technique in identifying what are these interests as recommended

in the book is to ask the question “Why?” or “Why not?”. In asking the
question why, the motivation should not be to find justification on the
position but to find understanding of their situation. In asking the question
why not, think about their choices and figure out the choices that they are
faced with. What must be realized is that each side has multiple interests and
the most powerful are the ones that are the basic human needs often driven
by economic well-being, recognition, a sense of belongingness, security and
control over his or her personal life. The key in here is being able to
communicate those interests to increase the chance of them happening.

On how to communicate these interests, first thing that must be

remembered is that these interests should be specific and concrete in terms
of details. There is a need of being able to show the ability of establishing
the legitimacy of these interests and that none of those are personally
motivated. This can be effectively done by making a list of the different
interests of each side and assessing why this particular interest should be
given value more than the other. In that way, you also acknowledge the
interests of the other party, and will make them feel that you have the best
intention for both interests and not just yours.
3
 Third question: How do you invent options for mutual gains?

As mentioned in the book, the case of Israel and Egypt negotiating

over who should keep how much of the Sinai Peninsula illustrates both a
major problem in negotiation and a key opportunity. It shows that there
seems to be no possible way where the pie can be split in half, each part
constituting the slice in the pie of every party concerned. In any case,
whether it could be apportioned accordingly or not, would not guarantee that
both parties will be left satisfied.
To invent new creative options, there are ways as mentioned in the
book. Firstly, separate inventing from deciding. A brainstorming session
should be done without thinking whether an idea is legitimate or not. Be as
creative as much as possible and not be hindered by any critical judgment.
An effective way to do this is through brainstorming sessions done jointly;
this creates a joint problem-solving and educational environment. Secondly,
the options should be broad enough to cover every possible solution out
there. Do not try to decide right from the starts; keep the many options open.
One can derive a better solution through this way; ask for the preferences of
each with regard to each option and invent agreements of which options are
the stronger or weaker ones (done through a circle chart). Thirdly, search for
mutual gains. An assumption that there is only one concrete answer, or a
“fixed pie,” limits the creative option that may be mutually beneficial to
both parties. It is essential that not every problem can be solved at the first
instance. Sometimes, time is needed to create the perfect solution. And
lastly, invent ways in making their decisions easy through persuasion by
throwing arguments why the other option is stronger than the other. By
doing this, each point is strengthened and explained well resulting to an
agreement that is satisfactory to both sides.

Last question: How does one insist on an objective criteria?

The fourth point is to have a criterion, or a fair standard such as a

precedent, fair market value, expert opinion and the like. Negotiators should
insist on using an objective criterion. This might be difficult but may be the
most effective one mainly because the negotiation is based on a standard that
is independent of the will of the parties. The merits must be duly assessed
and a commitment must be made that the solution is based on principle
rather than pressure imputed by external factors. When the parties abide with
the objective criteria that guides their problem, they will feel that they were
not cheated out of the negotiation.

But there are instances when the opposing party is much powerful
than the other. This is where BATNA comes into the picture. The Best
Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement is your standard against each
proposed measure. It is your protection from accepting terms that are too
unfavorable and terms that do not serve your interests. It is however
noteworthy that your BATNA may not be the only alternative option. The
other party might have his or her own BATNA. In this case, a balancing of
4
interests must be considered in which attention must be on the merits of the
case rather than their positions. Instead of constantly opposing their
perspective, a negotiator should look behind their position. In other words,
focus on the merits of their position.

So, how do we develop BATNA?

The book has also discussed in detail how to arrive to a BATNA that
is effective and useful. To develop your BATNA: first, formulate a list of
actions that you will take if no agreement is reached; second, improve your
best ideas to make them promising options; and third, select the best among
the options you were able to make.

Being a negotiator means being able to use your potential and

commitment in arriving at the most effective and appropriate agreement. The
power of negotiation is an elegant way of using standards that could
persuade others who might differ in opinion to yours. Enhance this power;
who knows, it might take you to places.