Getting to Yes: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:49, 29 February 2024

Latest revision as of 03:39, 2 June 2025

(11 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 23:

==Background==

Fisher and Ury focused on the psychology of negotiation in their method, "principled negotiation", which attempts to find acceptable solutions by determining which needs are fixed and which are flexible for negotiators.<ref>{{cite journalmagazine | title = Essay: The Dance of Negotiation | last = Morrow | first = Lance | date = December 7, 1981 | url = httphttps://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,953270-1,00.html | archive-url = | url-status = | archive-date = | journalmagazine = Time | access-date = January 22, 2022}}</ref> The first edition of the book was published in 1981.<ref name="1stEd1981"/> By 1987, the book had been adopted in several U.S. school districts to help students understand "non-adversarial bargaining".<ref>{{cite news | title = Alternatives to Adversarial Negotiations Being Used Successfully: Could Different Bargaining Format Have Prevented Strike? | work = Eugene Register-Guard | date = May 12, 1987 | last = Piele | first = Philip K. |author2=Stuart C. Smith | url = https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_sQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4151,3089660&dq=getting-to-yes+fisher | access-date = January 22, 2022}}</ref>

In 1991, the book was issued in a second edition with Bruce Patton, an editor of the first edition, listed as a co-author.<ref name="2ndEd1991"/> The main difference between the second and first editions was the addition of a chapter after the main text entitled "Ten Questions People Ask About ''Getting to Yes''".<ref name="2ndEd1991"/>{{rp|ix–x,149–187}}

Line 67:

=== "What if they won't play?" ===

If the other side demands to use positional bargaining, a negotiator may attempt "negotiation [[jujitsu]]".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|109–130}} One method is to ask a third party to mediate. In this "one-text procedure", the third party explores the parties' interests and iteratively develops a solution with them. The authorauthors cite the negotiations that led to the 1978 [[Camp David Accords]] as an example of the one-text procedure, with the United States drafting agreements between Egypt and Israel.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|118}}

=== "What if they use dirty tricks?" ===

Line 76:

==Reception==

The book has been called "arguably one of, if not the most famous, works on the topic of negotiation"<ref name="Schock2013">{{cite journal |last1= Schock |first1=Kevin R. |date=2013|title=Getting to Yes: Remembering Roger Fisher|journal=Arbitration Law Review |volume=5 | publisher = [[Penn State Law]] | pages=422–438 |url=https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=arbitrationlawreview}}</ref> as well as a "wellspring for cutting-edge academic research".<ref name="ThompsonLeonardelli2004">{{cite journal | last1 = Thompson | first1 = Leigh | last2 = Leonardelli | first2 = Geoffrey J. | title = The Big Bang: The Evolution of Negotiation Research | journal = Academy of Management Perspectives |publisher=[[Academy of Management]] | date = August 2004 | volume = 18 | issue = 3 | pages = 113–117 | doi = 10.5465/ame.2004.14776179 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoffrey-Leonardelli/publication/242091294_The_big_bang_The_evolution_of_negotiation_research/links/53e82cf60cf25d674ea7ff49/The-big-bang-The-evolution-of-negotiation-research.pdf242091294 | access-date = January 30, 2022}}</ref> The principles in the book have been applied to numerous negotiations. Nevertheless, it has received criticisms.

===Applications of principled negotiation===

Organizational and individual negotiators have applied the principles of ''Getting to Yes''. In 2001, the health insurance company Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (later [[Florida Blue]]) formed a department to implement principled negotiation.<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004">{{cite journal |last1=Booth |first1=Bridget |last2=McCredie |first2=Matt |date=August 2004 |title=Taking Steps Toward "Getting to Yes" at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida |journal= The Academy of Management Executive |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=109–112 |doi=10.5465/AME.2004.14776178 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/4166097 |jstor=4166097 |publisher=[[Academy of Management]]|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The purpose was to address the problems of increasing competition, rising healthcare prices, and increased customer expectations.<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004"/>{{rp|109}} For instance, the company used principled negotiation to form a [[joint venture]] with its competitor [[Humana]].<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004"/>{{rp|110–112}} Applying principled negotiation techniques occurred more naturally at the executive level than at lower levels of management.<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004"/>{{rp|112}}

In [[social work]], principled negotiation can be used to advocate for a client's interests.<ref name="Lens2004">{{cite journal | last1 = Lens | first1 = Vicki | title = Principled Negotiation: A New Tool for Case Advocacy | journal = Social Work | date = July 2004 | volume = 49 | issue = 3 | pages = 506–513 | doi = 10.1093/sw/49.3.506 | pmid = 15281706 | url = }}</ref> For example, a social worker may need to negotiate with a government [[social services]] agency to obtain services for a client.<ref name="Lens2004"/>{{rp|508–511}} In the field of [[psychology]], principled negotiation has formed the basis for educational exercises about [[critical thinking]].<ref name="Bernstein1995">{{cite journal | last1 = Bernstein | first1 = David A. | title = A Negotiation Model for Teaching Critical Thinking | journal = Teaching of Psychology | date = February 1995 | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | pages = 22–24 | doi = 10.1207/s15328023top2201_7 | pmid = | url = }}</ref>

=== Cross-Cultural-Applications ===

A 2008 review of literature concluded that the book's ideas could be applied to [[cross-cultural]] negotiations "if interests are defined to include cultural interests".<ref name="Barkai2008">{{cite journal | last1 = Provis | first1 = Chris | title = Cultural Dimension Interests, the Dance of Negotiation, and Weather Forecasting: A Perspective on Cross-Cultural Negotiation | journal = Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal | date = April 2008 | volume = 8 | issue = 3 | pages = 403–448 | url = https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=drlj}}</ref> For example, when negotiating with people in China, a negotiator should be aware of the [[Thirty-Six Stratagems]] which may be employed.<ref name="Barkai2008" />{{rp|436–444}}

A 2020 literature review found significant differences in negotiation styles across various cultures, suggesting that negotiators must adapt their strategies based on cultural contexts.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schoen |first=Raphael |date=2021-04-01 |title=Lacking pluralism? A critical review of the use of cultural dimensions in negotiation research |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00187-5 |journal=Management Review Quarterly |language=en |volume=71 |issue=2 |pages=393–432 |doi=10.1007/s11301-020-00187-5 |issn=2198-1639|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Schoen |first=Raphael |date=2020-04-26 |title=Lacking pluralism? A critical review of the use of cultural dimensions in negotiation research |url=https://www.schoen-negotiation.com/en-gb/outreach |access-date=2024-05-07 |website=Schoen-Negotiation}}</ref> Additionally, a 2022 literature review found that the successful application of most principled negotiation techniques is often hindered by the predominantly Western perspective through which these techniques were conceptualized.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schoen |first=Raphael |date=2021-01-01 |title=Getting to Yes in the cross-cultural-context: 'one size doesn't fit all' – a critical review of principled negotiations across borders |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2020-0216 |journal=International Journal of Conflict Management |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=22–46 |doi=10.1108/IJCMA-12-2020-0216 |issn=1044-4068|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Schoen |first=Raphael |date=2022-01-11 |title=Getting to Yes in the cross-cultural-context: 'one size doesn't fit all' – a critical review of principled negotiations across borders |url=https://www.schoen-negotiation.com/en-gb/outreach}}</ref>

===Criticism===

Line 90 ⟶ 93:

[[James J. White]], a professor of law at the [[University of Michigan]], suggested in 1984 that ''Getting to Yes'' is not scholarly or analytical and relies on anecdotal evidence, and that "the authors seem to deny the existence of a significant part of the negotiation process, and to oversimplify or explain away many of the most troublesome problems inherent in the art and practice of negotiation".<ref name="WhiteFisher1984">{{cite journal |last1=White |first1=James J. |author-link=James J. White |last2=Fisher |first2=Roger |date=1984 |title=Essay Review: The Pros and Cons of "Getting to YES" ['Reviewed by James J. White' and 'Comment by Roger Fisher'] |journal=Journal of Legal Education |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=115–124 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/42897936 |jstor=42897936}}</ref>{{rp|115}} In particular, the book does not discuss in enough detail distributive bargaining, in which a gain for one party is a loss for the other.<ref name="WhiteFisher1984"/>{{rp|119}} Fisher responded that the book is intended to give advice, and that "distributional problems" can be reconceptualized as "shared problems".<ref name="WhiteFisher1984"/>{{rp|121}} Nevertheless, Fisher reported that when teaching a negotiation course he tore a copy of the book in half to emphasize that it was imperfect.<ref name="WhiteFisher1984"/>{{rp|120}}

[[Carrie Menkel-Meadow]] noted in 1984 that legal negotiators might adopt some of Fisher and Ury's ideas by using a problem solving approach instead of an adversarial approach.<ref name="Menkel-Meadow1984">{{cite journal | last1 = Menkel-Meadow | first1 = Carrie | author-link1 = Carrie Menkel-Meadow | title = Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving| journal = UCLA Law Review | date = 1984 | volume = 31 | pages = 754–842}}</ref> Nevertheless, she felt that ideas such as "separate the people from the problem" would not apply.<ref name="Menkel-Meadow1984"/>{{rp|837,841}} In 2006, Menkel-Meadow praised ''Getting To Yes'' for inspiring a "rich research and teaching agenda", but also claimed that the factors leading to successful versus failed negotiations are still unclear.<ref name="Menkel-Meadow2006">{{cite journal | last1 = Menkel-Meadow | first1 = Carrie | author-link1 = Carrie Menkel-Meadow | title = Why Hasn't the World Gotten to Yes? An Appreciation and Some Reflections | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = October 2006 | volume = 22 | issue = 4 | pages = 485–503 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00119.x | doi-access = free }}</ref>{{rp|500}}

In a 1985 article, [[William McCarthy, Baron McCarthy|William McCarthy]] described eight areas in which he agreed with the book, but also listed reservations and disagreements.<ref name="McCarthy1985">{{cite journal | last1 = McCarthy | first1 = William |author-link= William McCarthy, Baron McCarthy | title = The Role of Power and Principle in Getting to YES | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = January 1985 | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 59–66 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1985.tb00292.x | url = | doi-access = free }}</ref> The reservations included the authors' emphasis on long-term relationships (when immediate actions are sometimes required); the assumption that trust is unnecessary in negotiation; and the suggestion to "avoid starting from extremes".<ref name="McCarthy1985"/>{{rp|61–63}} The main disagreement was that the book did not consider the need of a negotiator to prevail when a negotiation involves a power struggle.<ref name="McCarthy1985"/>{{rp|63–65}} Fisher replied that he agreed with some of McCarthy's criticisms, for example that "''Getting to YES'' probably overstates the case against positional bargaining".<ref name="Fisher1985">{{cite journal | last1 = Fisher | first1 = Roger |author-link= Roger Fisher (academic) | title = Beyond YES | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = January 1985 | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 67–70 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1985.tb00293.x | url = | doi-access = free }}</ref>

A 1996 paper argued that the book's distinction between "interests" and "positions" was a problem.<ref name="Provis1996">{{cite journal | last1 = Provis | first1 = Chris | title = Interests vs. Positions: A Critique of the Distinction | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = October 1996 | volume = 12 | issue = 4 | pages = 305–323 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00105.x }}</ref> There can be a difference between objective interests (that help an individual) and subjective interests (that the individual perceives to be helpful, but that may not be).<ref name="Provis1996"/>{{rp|307}} A negotiating party's public position may be different from that the course of action that the party will actually pursue.<ref name="Provis1996"/>{{rp|308–309}} If a party's interest is in maintaining internal unity, it may adopt a position that preserves that unity, thus causing an overlap between position and interest.<ref name="Provis1996"/>{{rp|313–314}}

Line 102 ⟶ 105:

A 2012 commentary noted that Australian practice guidelines for lawyers supported interest-based negotiation of the type described in ''Getting to Yes'', but that such a negotiation style is not always more ethical than positional negotiation.<ref name="Wolski2012">{{cite journal |last1= Wolski |first1= Bobette |date= 2012|title= The New Limitations of Fisher and Ury's Model of Interest-Based Negotiation: Not Necessarily the Ethical Alternative |url= http://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2012/7.pdf |journal= [[James Cook University Law Review]] |volume=19 |pages=127–158 |doi= | access-date=January 30, 2022}}</ref> It is possible for both types of negotiation to be unethical.<ref name="Wolski2012"/>{{rp|145}} Instead, it is ethical for a lawyer to be able to adjust negotiation strategies to provide effective advocacy for a client.<ref name="Wolski2012"/>{{rp|154–155}} The need for flexibility in negotiation styles was echoed in a 2015 paper calling principled negotiations a "false promise".<ref name="Reyes 2015">{{cite journal |last1= Reyes |first1= Victor Martinez |date= 2015|title= The False Promise of Principled Negotiations |url= https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol9/iss2/3 |journal= Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective|volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=3–18 |doi= | access-date=January 30, 2022}}</ref>

[[Chris Voss]], a former FBI agent, mentioned ''Getting to Yes'' in his 2016 book ''Never Split the Difference''.<ref name="Voss2016">{{cite book |last=Voss |first=Chris |author-link = Chris Voss | date=2016 |title=Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if Your Life Depended on It |___location=New York |publisher=HarperBusiness |isbn=9780062407801}}</ref> He called Fisher and Ury's book "a groundbreaking treatise"<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|11}} and wrote "I still agree with many of the powerful bargaining strategies in the book".<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|13}} But he criticized their methods as inadequate for hostage negotiations such as the [[Waco siege]]: "I mean, have you ever tried to devise a mutually beneficial win-winwin–win solution with a guy who thinks he's the messiah?"<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|14}} Voss presented alternative techniques for such situations, including "the flip side of ''Getting to Yes''": getting to "no".<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|20}}

==Related books by Fisher and Ury==

Line 108 ⟶ 111:

==See also==

* [[Conflict resolution research]]

* [[List of books about negotiation]]

* [[Negotiation theory]]

Line 122 ⟶ 125:

[[Category:1981 non-fiction books]]

[[Category:BusinessBooks booksabout negotiation]]

[[Category:Collaborative non-fiction books]]

[[Category:Dispute resolution]]

[[Category:Negotiation]]

[[Category:Personal development]]