Getting to Yes: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:48, 16 January 2024

Revision as of 15:49, 29 February 2024

Line 94:

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 = }}</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 = }}</ref>

A 1996 paper argued that the book's distinction between "interests" and "positions" was problematica 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}}

A 1997 [[feminism|feminist]] analysis of the book's recommendations appeared in the ''[[Otago Law Review]]''.<ref name="Kirby1997">{{cite journal |last1= Kirby |first1= Justine |date= 1997|title= Would Principled Negotiation Have Saved Eve?: A Feminist Analysis of Getting to YES |url= https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/OtaLawRw/1997/6.pdf |journal= [[Otago Law Review]] |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=122–143 |doi= | access-date=January 30, 2022}}</ref> It maintained that the book is written from a male perspective, and that some of its advice may not be appropriate for female negotiators.<ref name="Kirby1997"/>{{rp|141–143}}