Wise Agreement Avoid Arguing Over

¶ … Wise Agreement

Avoid Arguing over positions

Soft and hard negotiations

separating the people from the problem

focusing of interests instead of positions

create options that lead to mutual gain

encouraging the use of objective criteria

Alternatives to Negotiation agreement

BATNA

Reluctant participants

Rules for the development of an alternative agreement

The art of negotiation can be a difficult endeavor in any environment. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton attempts to provide a blueprint for how to mediate in any context. The book explores several primary issues related to mediation. These issues include the problems involved with taking a position, the methods that should be used in the negotiation process, and what to do after a negotiation when issues arise.

Taking a Position

As it pertains to taking a position the authors explain that the beginning of negotiations usually involves each side taking a position and providing a basis for why they believe the way that they do. During this aspect of the negotiating process the parties involved usually come to compromise so that both parties receive some of what they want. The authors also point out that there are three criteria by which negations can be fairly judged: "It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties (4)." Additionally the authors explain that the parties must not just come to any type of agreement but to a wise agreement. A wise agreement is defined as "one which meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable and takes community interests into account (4)."

The authors also explain that when negotiating it is important that the parties involved do not argue over positions because the end results of such arguments are unwise agreements. Such arguments lead to unwise decisions because the parties get further locked into their positions and it makes it more difficult to see the other point-of-view. Arguing over positions is also detrimental because it can damage existing relationships. The aim of negations is to improve relationships between the parties and not damage them. In many cases when positions are argued it lead to bitterness as one party tries to convince the other party to change their position. With this understood, parties involved in negotiations have to keep in mind the type of outcome that they desire to achieve.

The book also warns that negotiations involving many parties can become quite complex. This type of negotiation often happens between countries when treaties and different types of agreements are made. In cases where more than one party is involved positional bargaining is difficult to achieve because there are so many positions that coalitions form and once a compromise is reached it is difficult to change.

Soft and hard negotiating strategies are also emphasized in the book. The authors assert that the type of negotiations used is often dependent on the relationship between the parties involved in the negotiation. For instance, in negotiations between parties that have long-term contractual obligations may choose soft negotiations because they will still have to work together long after an agreement is reached. On the other hand, hard negotiations are sometimes necessary, particularly if the parties have reached a stalemate. In many cases parties choose an approach that lies between hard and soft. Such a balanced approach often leads to the best outcomes for all parties involved.

Overall this aspect of the book provides good insight as it pertains to the manner in which negotiations are approached. The authors make it clear that both parties need to be heard and understand so that wise agreements can be reached. The authors also emphasize the importance of not damaging the relationship between the parties. This is an important point because in many cases the parties will have to work together in the future. This is true regardless of whether or not the parties are family members or business partners. Additionally the authors explain that when negotiations are taking place it is important to not argue about the positions because such arguments make it difficult to create a lasting compromise to the problem.

Methods

The authors also focus on four issues that need to be taken into consideration as it pertains to the methods that are utilized in the context of the negotiation process. These issues include separating the people from the problem, focusing of interests instead of positions, creating options that lead to mutual gain, and encouraging the use of objective criteria. As it pertain to separating the people for m the problem the authors explain that human beings are extremely complex as it pertains to emotions and the values that they hold dear. As such negotiations can be difficult to master as a result of the human element. For this reason, while negotiating, participants should be cognizant of the fact that problem being mediated is only part of the issue and the issue of human emotion must also be taken into consideration while negotiating.

There are two primary types of interests that are also prevalent in the negotiation process. These interests include the substantive outcome of the negotiation and the relationship between the parties. As it pertains to substance, all parties involved want the compromise to be inclusive of an agreement that satisfies everyone. In addition parties involved in negotiations often desire to maintain the relationship that they have with one another. These interests influence the manner in which negotiations occur and the agreements that parties reach. The authors also explain that it is vitally important to focus on interest in the midst of handling negotiations. The authors assert that by focusing on interest the compromise that is reached will likely take into consideration the interests so that the solution the problem is multifaceted. Indeed when the parties involved focus on the interests instead of the positions of each party they can resolve the issue in a manner that is efficient and lasting.

Options that lead to mutual gain is also a mantra presented in the book. According to the authors options are essentials, especially those that allow both parties to benefit. Options are important because they allow for new opportunities to negotiate when certain circumstances arise. Brainstorming is an important aspect of creating options that lead to mutual benefit. The authors assert that brainstorming works as a tool to formulate ideas about the benefits of certain options, prior to actually coming to an agreement. While brainstorming it is also beneficial to seek out the expertise of outsiders who have a broader understanding of the issue or the problem at hand. These outsiders may present the parties with options that they had not thought of or disqualify some of the option the parties believed to be viable. As such it is crucial that the parties seek the opinions of those who know-how about the problems that the negotiating parties face. In doing this, various options can be weighed and the parties can choose which options are most suitable for the situation.

Options also guarantee that the agreements made during the mediation are not one-sided. One sided agreements can seriously damage the relationship between the parties involved. Damaged relationships, as we have already discussed, are not the goal of negotiations and lead to long-term problems for both parties particularly of the parties are bound to one another as a result of kinship or a contract. With this understood, the authors contend that options should be available and that these options should be of benefit to both parties.

As it pertains to the idea of mutual gain, it is essential that the parties attempt to determine shared interests. Shared interests can then act as a foundation to finding an agreement that results in mutual gain. Finding mutual gain can be difficult because parties have differences as it pertains to beliefs and aversion to risks. As it relates to differences in belief, there are often occasions when parties have beliefs that are fundamentally different. For instance, a husband and wife may have different beliefs about how to raise children. Perhaps one parent believes in spanking and the other one does not. In this instance thee differences in belief can complicate the negotiation process. The husband and wife will have to develop some type of common interests such as raising well behaved children and attempt to negotiate the manner in which the children will be disciplined. As it pertains to differences related to the aversion of risks, this issue can arise when there is a partnership between to business and one business is larger than the other. The larger business may not be as cautious with risk taking because it has greater financial resources than does the smaller company. This must be taken into consideration during the mediation so that both sides fill comfortable with the agreement.

Finally this section of the book also focuses on encouraging the use of objective criteria. The use of objective criteria is important because it is through such criteria that a balanced agreement can be developed. Objective criteria lacks biased and as such the interests of both parties is likely to be taken into consideration. A subjective criterion does not have this quality and as such it has no place in the negotiation process.

Overall this section of the book reflects a clear picture of the attitudes and methods that need to be adopted during the negotiation process. In this section the authors remind the reader that negotiation is a serious skill that has to be developed and examined from many different angles. In addition this section provides the structure needed to ensure that a wise agreement can be reached between the parties.

Alternatives to Negotiation agreement

After negotiations have taken place, there are still issues that might have to be resolved. In some cases parties have to develop an alternative to the negotiated agreement. Although the ultimate goal of negotiations is the development of a wise agreement, there are times when such agreements do not work because of internal or external circumstances. For instance, companies may have made a wise agreement prior to an economic downturn. As a result of the downturn the agreement is no longer viable. In many cases businesses understand how volatile the economy can be and as such they will create alternative agreements. According to the authors, such agreement should be based on the concept of Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Such alternatives take into consideration everything that is occurring and create a new agreement that has many of the qualities of the negotiated agreement. BATNA is important because it ensures that the parties still have in place some type of solution to the dilemma that is being confronted.