Number of words: 695
The article “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in” was originally written by Roger Fisher and Ury William in 1981. The chosen fragment covers the two main chapters, namely, “The Problem” and “The Method.” Both chapters outline the criteria for negotiating effectively without biases. The primary purpose of the article is to address the negotiation problems which, according to the authors, people often assume as either soft or hard positions. So, based on the principled negotiation, the authors suggest that it is conceivable to act soft on people while being hard on the problem.
The article delves predominantly on negotiation methods. It was written to help people improve their negotiations skills, so that the solution to conflicts in an organization can be sorted out amicably. The main point of view as described in the article entails a mediation approach that isolates an issue, stresses on the interests, establishes feasible new options, and utilizes objective methods to aid the involved parties to attain an agreement (Fisher and William 39). Therefore, a reader is expected to use practical negotiation criteria that benefit everyone involved in the conflict by using the five main principles described below.
The Five Main Principles
The authors defined the five main approaches which every person should use in a negotiation process.
– A person should refrain from bargaining for positions. In this tactic, the negotiation process is believed to be judged by the three main perceptions:
- in case an agreement is possible, there should be a wise concession
- the pact should be efficient
- the treaty established should improve or not damage the preexisting cordial relationship between the involved parties
– One should be able to separate people from the problems. This tactic has the seven main premises upon which decisions can be based, namely:
- consider that people who negotiate are humans with flaws and biases
- note the importance of relationship and substance
- deal with the problem directly
- take note of each party’s perceptions
- consider emotions
- study the communication patterns
- remember that prevention is most appropriate
– Focus on the interests of each party, not the positions. In this category, the three main approaches are listed below:
- a wise solution should ignore positions while reconciling the interests of each person
- each party should be able to identify the interests of the other party
- the interests of every individual should be understood in detail
– Parties should be able to discover new methods that promote mutual gain. In this premise, one is supposed to diagnose the issue, avoid immature judgments, and avoid searching for a single answer. It is noteworthy that concentrating on one possible solution may block the other feasible resolutions.
– The use of objective approach should be persistent. This category bases on the ability to be fair and efficient in order to establish a wiser resolution.
The conclusion drawn from the article entails stepwise resolution to conflicts between two or more parties. Disagreements may occur anywhere in life: during shopping, in an office, and in family feuds, among others. So, conflicts can be resolved quickly by following the five prescribe steps, which include refraining from bargaining for positions, delineating problems from people, focusing on people’s interests and not positions, inventing strategies for mutual gains, and using persistent objective models.
Conclusion and Personal Opinion on the Article
On the whole, the article provides negotiation techniques and models which are crucial in the realm of economics. For instance, the agreement process can be useful in resolving debts, getting a bargain price, and achieving a better deal on products in order to enhance the contract conditions. Also, every business setting needs people to work collaboratively and build a healthy rapport; these purposes are only achievable through effective negotiations.
Fisher, Roger, and William Ury. “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in.” Penguin, 1981, pp. 3-57.