Peter Ickes

Negotiations
Fall 2018
November 26, 2018

Getting to Yes Critique

Overall, Getting to Yes seems to take a much more optimistic and collaborative approach to
negotiation techniques than the 6-steps method described in our textbook. Getting to Yes
seems to presume that “teamwork makes the dream work,” which may be true in some
situations, but I don’t think is an absolute. There are definitely times when it might be
beneficial to play hardball with an opposing negotiator, particularly if they are using some of
the dirty tricks the book talks about in Chapter 8.

One of the more positive things I got out of Getting to Yes was the idea of using principled
negotiation rather than position-based bargaining. I think this is compatible with the 6-steps
method, but not well-described in the textbook. Principled negotiation challenges the
negotiators to look beyond their “bottom lines” and “deal-breakers” to examine both their own
motives and goals, and the motives and goals of the opposing party. It also requires the
negotiator to acknowledge their own motives and fears, but not project them onto the
opposing party. This

Another part of Getting to Yes that seemed to be fully in line with the six-steps method we’ve
learned in class is much of Chapter 4: Inventing Options for Mutual Gain. I really love the idea of
making the other party’s decision an easy one. In a sense, this seems to be making the
negotiator in a type of salesperson. It allows you to assume control of the negotiation, and
frame the options in ways that are always beneficial to you and your party, as long as you can
satisfy the goals of the other side.

I also found Chapter 5 of Getting to Yes to be extremely compatible with the six steps. Insisting
on objective criteria was something I had already been doing in our negotiations throughout
the semester. For example, I found it to be a very effective tactic to require a personal injury
plaintiff to itemize what damages they were claiming. It allowed me to see where they were
coming from, and gave me plenty of opportunity to obtain a more favorable deal for my client. I
was able to ask questions about why the plaintiff thought he/she was entitled to each
component of damages. It also helped me slow the negotiations down to the pace I liked. This is
something that I think will be very useful in the real world, particularly if I do any defense work,
because it seems like plaintiffs really like when they can gloss over damages and don’t like
having to justify every single penny they are asking for. Even if both sides don’t have the same
measure by which they evaluate damages, it is important to get justification for everything.

Finally, one of the better tips Getting to Yes gave was in Chapter 6, which concerned developing
your BATNA. A BATNA was something I had heard about before, but was not super familiar
with. Specifically considering your BATNA can be a very powerful tool that can be used
throughout all of the six steps. You can do it during planning and preparation, and bring it up at
any point in the session. If the other negotiator is being unreasonable while narrowing
differences, you can calmly explain that you can and will walk away, because you have a
perfectly acceptable BATNA. Even if the bargaining power is heavily lopsided in favor of the
opposing party, establishing a BATNA can help make them sell to you, instead of vice versa.
Additionally, clearly elaborating a BATNA can be a necessary jolt of reality for how weak your
bargaining position is in certain cases. Regardless, it is definitely something that should be part
of every planning and preparation session, because it can help frame your position and
principles.

Getting to Yes seems to also be much more focused on any long-term relationship you might
have with the other party than the 6-steps method is. I think it takes a far more collaborative
view of negotiations, versus the more adversarial view the textbook seems to give. Getting to
Yes really pushes the thinking that it’s best for both negotiators to see themselves as on the
same side facing the problem together, as opposed to rams butting heads, but never yielding an
inch. I think this may or may not be effective, depending on the situation.

One aspect of negotiation that is a little lacking in Getting to Yes is what to do when the other
side is being hard-headed and bullish. In my opinion, it doesn’t give enough advice on what to
do in those situations, where some is being rude and unprofessional towards you and your own
emotions might flare up. It suggests that you don’t react to emotional outbursts from the
opposing party, but does not give you advice on how to deal with your own emotions that
might arrive. Perhaps this is a more specific question that varies from person to person, but it
would be helpful for the author to throw in a few paragraphs about how to channel your
emotions in the heat of a negotiation.

Finally, I would say that Getting to Yes does fit into what we have learned in class this semester,
but as only one method of applying the six steps to a situation. For some negotiators, Getting to
Yes might work very well, while for others, a different approach may be necessary. In this
regard, the more general method of the six steps seems to be more flexible, and so able to be
applied in a greater variety of situations. That being said, if the methods outline in Getting to
Yes work for you, then go for it, but they are certainly not exhaustive.