Getting to Yes in Negotiation

Getting to Yes in Negotiation

Conflicts are common occurrences in human relations and can be a cause of tension. Excellent conflict negotiation skills, however, can lead to positive outcomes in relationships. Most parties to conflict commit the mistake of maintaining positions and thus curtail the process of achieving solutions. The negotiation method adopted must produce a wise agreement, gain efficiency, and yield positive relationships between parties. When parties decide to take positions, they set their minimum conditions that only destroy relationships. There is a need for conflict resolution strategies that deal with the problem but maintain good relations between parties. An individual who takes positions in a negotiation exercise jeopardizes the settlement of the matter under contention. Good negotiators do not begin the activity by firmly stating their views and are keen on making substantial concessions aimed at obtaining agreement. Relationships between parties can be maintained if the parties jointly work on a mutually acceptable solution. Parties can achieve higher degrees of efficiency when they commit to initiating the negotiation process with openness and a readiness to make concessions for the sake of building good relations.

Negotiation is critical in conflict resolution, and towards this end, this report will consider the example of two library users found at the beginning of chapter three. In the story, two users of the library quarrel over the position of the window; whereas one wants it open, the other wants the window closed. When the librarian comes and enquires about the cause of the conflict, he realizes that the individual who wants the open window needs fresh air. The party who desires it closed, on the other hand, seeks “to avoid draft.” The librarian thinks objectively, and as a solution to the problem, he opens a full window in the room adjacent bringing in the air without allowing the draft. The example is a perfect illustration that conflicts can be solved when the problem takes attention away from the individuals. Parties to a conflict must emphasize reconciling between interests rather than maintaining their respective positions. Conflicts will always occur among individuals and organizations in society, but they can lead to positive outcomes when parties develop focus on solving the problem rather than maintaining positions.

Focusing on Interests

Parties to a negotiation process must identify the reason why they conflict and decide on the best method to obtain a solution. In the worst-case scenario, conflicts result in the best alternative for a negotiated agreement (BATNA). This situation is also known as a no-deal scenario where individuals compromise for a solution that partly addresses their interests. In such conflicts, both parties feel aggrieved, and none of them is willing to cede substantial ground to reach an amicable agreement. However, the parties can achieve better results in negotiation by identifying their interests. The case of two men quarreling at the library over the position if the window best illustrates the place of interest in the bargaining. Whereas the parties focus on defending the views, it took the intervention of the librarian as the external negotiator to resolve the problem. By opening the window in the next room, he met the interests of both parties. Creatively, the librarian realized that the window was not the real problem. He directed his attention to the goal by taking action away from the positions taken. However, the story does not proceed to state the status of the men after the solution. Building relations is one of the goals of negotiation, and it is likely that the librarian attended to the needs of the men but failed to restore their relationship. The process must not only focus on the problem but look at the fears and attitudes that people develop towards each other in the conflict process.

Negotiators must seek to find areas of agreement in every conflict. Whereas conflicts happen by the distinct positions taken by the parties, sometimes shared interests occur within the problem (Fisher, Ury and Patton 45). People who focus on the areas of division rather than uniting forces create social distance and escalate the conflict. To achieve lasting solutions to disputes, the individuals adopt mechanisms for identifying their interests. Usually, the benefits of the parties are unexpressed and happen by a defense of positions. The example of the library quarrel, reflecting the need for fresh air, was silent and directed towards the opening of the window. In a similar manner, the second party expressed the fear of draft through the request to close the window. It was the effort of the librarian to transcend beyond the expressed sentiments to investigate the hidden needs that saved the situations. Parties in a conflict must therefore always ask the question, “why?” ( Fisher, Ury and Patton 45). The subject addresses the challenge faced by the individual and enables them to look at it objectively. Individuals also need to reasonably consider the situation of the other party, and for this reason, they must consider the question of “why not?”. Through this question, they can keenly find the position of the other person and avoid bias in reasoning.

The author considers the dilemma of interests in negotiation using the capture of fifty-two U.S. diplomats and other embassy personnel by Iran student militants in 1980. Although there were several stumbling blocks in the process, the author demonstrates how the Interests represented by the students influenced the decision-making process. The decision on whether to release hostages or to retain them held myriad repercussions on the relations between the U.S. and Iran. Releasing the hostages implied that the students were selling out a revolution and could portray Iran as a weak party (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 47). If they failed to release the hostages, they would build national hegemony at home and obtain broader television coverage.

Nevertheless, they could consider alternative options where the U.S. could intensify the sanctions imposed on the country. A feasible option to solve the stalemate, according to the author, would be releasing the hostages and thus provide space for the U.S. to end the sanctions.  A negotiator must make concessions and consider the situation of the other party objectively to resolve conflicts.

The successful resolution of conflicts depends on the ability of the parties to recognize the multiple needs represented. Where there are more than two parties involved, the negotiator must be mindful of the varied interests. Although several individuals mat maintains the same position in a conflict, the negotiator must recognize that they may have distinct benefits. The basic human needs are the most portent during negotiations. Processes that consider the social needs of the parties stand a better chance of reaching a solution faster. People feel respected when others address their needs in conflict. In this regard, processes of negotiation must consider such interests as security, economic well-being, recognition, and a sense of well-being, among others. The librarian, in the example found in this research, only attempted to look at the interests of the parties. It is, however, possible that the parties suffered damage to their self-esteem and, therefore, were denied recognition in the process. The librarian could have considered engaging them in the search for a solution and assuring them that their needs were critical before proposing the opening of the window in the next room. The situation of needs also applies to nations in a negotiation exercise. The author gives an example of where human needs featured in trade negotiations between Mexico and the United States. The U.S., in the talks, sought for a reduced price for the purchase of natural. The U.S. secretary of energy, however, declined to approve the price increase following the negotiation based on the observation that Mexico did not have another potential buyer at that time. The U.S. failed to realize that Mexico sought to obtain a better price as evidence of equality (50). Consequently, the country erupted into violence because of anger. Instead of selling the oil, the Mexicans opted to burn it as an expression of indignity. Negotiators must, therefore, consider human relations in a problem to enhance good relationships and more favorable outcomes.

Interests in a conflict are mostly concealed and may escalate the conflict when not communicated. Parties to a negotiation process must take the initiative to express their interests to each other. Emotional engagement in conflicts may cause people to focus on past occurrences and thus deviate from constructive arguments. Besides, people may cease to listen to reason when they are engrossed in defending their positions. In the library conflict experience, it is vivid that the users failed to communicate their interests and instead focused on the status of the window. Although the librarian helped to solve the problem quickly, they wasted substantial time talking about the window instead of addressing their issues. In expressing their interests, each party must be specific and must never assume the other person understands what they need (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 51). Offended parties can take time to explain their situation and ask for feedback to ensure that the other party appreciates their point of view. Individuals must express their interests as legitimate and worthy of attention from the other side.

Using Objective Criteria in Negotiation

Conflict situations that end up in deadlock mostly result from decision making based on the will of either or both the partners. Parties must decide to identify an objective criterion for solving conflicts.  Problem-solving is enhanced when concerned individuals begin from the point of clarifying a neutral procedure for discussion. The failure to develop this framework results in a waste of time as individuals make rash decisions which they might reverse. When the two individuals engaged in conflict seek to establish objective criteria, they may experience difficulties because of their inherent biases emanating from the challenge at hand. To resolve this challenge, they should consider engaging neutral parties. In the library quarrel case, a solution was only obtained between the two users when the librarian was involved. Third parties who are indifferent to the case could see things from an unbiased perspective and propose alternative views. The assisting individuals must design a strategy through which they can form the criteria and define the extent of its application.

Choosing an objective criterion must be based on fair standards. Conflicts must consider aspects that ensure equal treatment based on established moral standards, scientific judgment, same treatment, tradition, and reciprocity, among other considerations. Fidelity to these guidelines will shield the parties from subjective decision-making and develop practical solutions. A fair parameter is to deduce whether the solution steers clear of the will of the other party. Additionally, the negotiators need to adopt reasonable procedures that stay away from their will. In the text, the authors provide the analogy of two children who decide to share a cake by cutting the sections they choose. When this happens, none of the children can complain about unfair treatment.  The process can be enhanced using an independent negotiator to whom the parties can submit their concerns. The mediator considers the information placed before him and advises on the best decision.

After successfully developing an objective criterion, the negotiator must decide on the modalities to use to communicate with the conflicting parties. While considering the best process, the negotiator must frame every issue as an aspect of the quest for objective criteria, exercise objectivity with regards to the most appropriate standards and maintain fidelity only to principle rather than pressure. The individuals concerned in a matter must appreciate that each one of them is looking for a solution. They must be willing to accommodate the position held by the other individual (Fisher, Ury and Patton 84). Further to considering the perspective of the other side, the persons must approach the negotiating table with an open mind. He must cease from the practice of citing precedents as a reference point for the position he holds. Most negotiations result in a deadlock when either one or both of the parties refuse to consider the other using such terms as “it’s a matter of principle.” The result is that differences morph into principled differences that create barriers to agreements. Dissenting individuals must appreciate that their definition of objective criterion must be agreeable to both parties. Once an individual decides to use a specific approach for conflict resolution, the negotiation must remain calm and never give in to pressure from any side. Pressure in bargaining may take the form of threats or a financial inducement. The negotiator can respond to these forces by inviting the concerned to voice their perspective and advise them on methods that he thinks to apply. He must maintain his position and refuse to bulge by reiterating his commitment to principle.

Applying Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

The reality in negotiations is that there are factors that are difficult to change. Every individual involved in the process must, therefore, guard against arriving at conclusions that are inconsistent with their desires. Furthermore, the agreement achieved must entail reasonable utilization of the available assets and fulfill individual assets. While approaching the negotiation table, an individual faces the risk of excessively considering the perspective of the other party to reach a quick settlement. The result is that the process may yield outcomes that are not favorable for the individual. To overcome this challenge, negotiators must develop a bottom line that states the lowest point they can go in accommodating the other party. The bottom line strategy protects the individual against adverse outcomes and frustration in a negotiation exercise.

Negotiations seek to achieve better results compared than could have been made in the absence of the process. The negotiators must identify their Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) as a standard guiding a proposed agreement. Although the individuals may have set up their bottom-line, they should consider its closeness to their BATNA to find out whether the solution satisfies their needs. Psychologically, the individual must realize that they can only choose one alternative if they do not reach an agreement in negotiation (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 93). Although they may consider varying options, they should not think about them in aggregate. When engaging with others in a negotiation exercise, individuals must be sensitive to the BATNA expressed by the other individual. In some instances, the BATNA of the other party may result in better outcomes for the conflict, and in this regard, the individual must be open-minded. When the other party is more robust regarding physical or economic power, it is in the best interest of the negotiator to engage in the process in consideration of merits. In such instances, they can use a wide range of available resources, including money, time, and people to develop solutions that are independent of the permission of the other side.

Options when the other party Maintains a Positional Stance

Negotiators face difficulties when the other party refuses to cede ground to yield a compromise. The individual may insist that their position is the best and focus their attention away from the existing problem. The negotiator, in such situations, must focus on merits and shift attention away from positions. As a starting point to break the deadlock, they can focus on what they can do (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 98). Through this mechanism, the individual provides options for solving the stalemate by talking about interests and criteria objectively. It is, however, possible that the other party may continue maintaining its stance and fail to appreciate the merits of the process. The other option, in this case, is to shift the focus on what they can do. The strategy moves the ground from positional bargaining and is also known as “negotiation jujitsu.” Failure to gain success between the two parties creates an opportunity to engage another person in the conflict. When the other party insists on a particular position, there is the temptation for the first individual also to defend their proposal. The situation may result in a vicious cycle that diminishes the chances of resolving a problem. Negotiators must consider ideal strategies to keep the conflicting party available to participate in the process of attaining a solution.

When a party to conflict states and maintains their position misleadingly, the negotiator should desist from attacking their situation and instead look at the interests behind it. He must assume that they have the right intentions in addressing the concerns and treat their position as one of the options considered. He must further seek to engage in a fair discussion on the opportunity provided by the other person. The next step must involve directing attention towards the improvement of the available options and create a scenario of possible outcomes of each proposal. In this process, the negotiator must state their ideas but invite criticism and divert any attack directed to him towards the problem instead. The negotiator must exercise the patience to engage with a party that takes a position in conflict and focus on interests and criteria for better outcomes.

Individuals sometimes employ dirty tricks to have their way in a conflict. Some of the strategies employed towards this end is the use of lies, engaging in psychological abuse and other unethical behavior designed to take advantage of the other party. Generally, people to put up with the may opt to keep quiet. Another response is to respond in kind by depicting opposing mannerisms like starting at an outrageously low point. Both t responses are undesirable, and the process must address the deception at the earliest. Negotiators must clarify using an objective criterion to solve the problem and resolve the deceiving behavior at the earliest. Negotiators must pursue the use of dirty tricks and establish an environment of trust to prepare the ground for objective conflict resolution.

Personal Reflection

I find the ideas contained in this book comprehensive in addressing all forms of conflict through negotiation. The author considers all possible responses and insists on the development of objective criteria in addressing challenges. I appreciate the candid approach to conflict using a variety of practical examples. I find this approach enriching as it helps me apply the various principles addressed to multiple situations. He proposes, for instance, that individuals must not look for natural options and compromise their position in favor of the other party. I agree with him that in some cases, people seek quick solutions to problems and give in to the demands of the other person. However, such actions may address the issue but ruin the relationships between the parties. I feel that the authors provide a practical guide for negotiation in conflicts touching on different scenarios at the individual, group, and corporate levels. The approach adopted by……njhk in the book promotes achieving several gains by the parties involved by addressing both the problems and the relationships among the participating parties. I feel that most conflicts fail to meet their desired solutions because of lack of appreciation of alternative views. I am therefore glad that the authors acknowledge that individuals may stall the process by maintaining their positions. The book addresses how negotiators can break this deadlock by approaching the negotiating table with an open mind. The paper proposes a guide for conflict resolution by the conflicting parties. It makes a provision for third party intervention and thus covers the substantial ground in resolving challenges individuals face with each other. I will adopt the principles covered in this material to address the challenges in my personal life.

Closing Remarks

The book is a resourceful guide for addressing conflict situations among both individuals and organizations. The authors enrich their proposals with a variety of examples and help in understanding how to apply their ideas practically. Students must make use of the material in role-play to enhance their internalization of the options provided. Teachers must include practical presentation of the assignment to help students appreciate the importance of negotiation in addressing conflicts in different scenarios. I also propose that the material should be adopted for training all students, regardless of their specialization, in negotiation. Adopting negotiation in all forms of conflict will not only result in better decisions but will also enhance good relations among individuals in society.

Works Cited

Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. eds. No. 158.5 FIS. CIMMYT.. 1991.