Getting to Yes

Though not unique to negotiating, brainstorming can be highly useful in resolving disputes, and it’s a main pillar of the book’s problem-solving process. A brainstorming session should be done privately in a small group, where ideas, many of them wild or seemingly absurd, are generated without criticism until the group has a long list of possible solutions, which then can be winnowed for the most useful ones. These are presented to the other side as possible ways to a breakthrough.

Because the brainstorming process generates multiple ideas, it leads negotiations away from one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it positional bargaining. A collection of several ideas provides the luxury of many options and the ability to hit upon some combination or adaptation of ideas that work well to resolve a dispute.

A circle chart breaks a problem into four parts and arranges them in a circle. Beginning at the bottom left and moving clockwise, the parts are (1) describe the problem; (2) analyze it for causes, barriers, and the like; (3) think of broad approaches to solving it; and (4) decide on specific steps to deal with the problem.

Each possible solution can be re-inserted into the circle to describe, analyze, and theorize about it, which in turn often inspires further ideas: “The Circle Chart provides an easy way of using one good idea to generate others” (68).

Interests are what each side in a dispute really wants. These are different from the positions the sides take: “Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide” (43). Negotiations that satisfy both parties’ interests are much more successful than pacts that merely reach a halfway compromise, as in positional bargaining.

Resolving interests involves generating “a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests” (12). This requires that each side understand and respect the other’s views and needs, and that they work together to invent and develop solutions that fulfill both their interests. It’s not easy to do, since it forces participants to abandon their animosities, and it demands of them a great deal of creative, innovative work to find solutions that aren’t obvious at the outset.

A “one-text” is a document prepared by a third party that includes all the criteria for a given negotiation—the issues and concerns important to each side, the small details that need to be worked out, and the ways in which an agreement will be implemented. A third party presents this document to both sides, who each list objections, agree tentatively to parts that satisfy them, and then repeat this process many times as the draft document shapes up until both parties agree on everything in the text.

This procedure was used during the Camp David summit in 1978 between Egypt and Israel. The US acted as the third party who shuttled the one-text document back and forth between the two sides until all parts of the agreement met with approval. It can also be used in small disputes, as between a husband and wife who can’t agree on the design of their new home and hire an architect to walk them through every issue until they both are pleased with the building’s shape.

A position is a stand taken during a negotiation: “Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise” (3). One negotiator may offer, for example, to buy a product at a very low price; the other negotiator rejects it as too low and instead offers to sell at a price the first party dismisses as too high. The two sides either fail to strike a bargain or compromise at a price somewhere between their two positions. This positional bargaining can resolve some conflicts, but it tends to cause both sides to harden their stances and focus on saving face. Rarely does it fully satisfy the needs of both parties.

The authors cite several examples of famous negotiations that failed because the sides bargained from adamant positions, distrusted each other, and let pride get in the way. A better approach focuses on each side’s real interests rather than their positions, treats the negotiators as problem-solving allies, and searches for a solution that’s wise, efficient, and amicable.