Getting to yes

Getting To

YESNegotiating Agreement

Without Giving In

BY ADAM BISCHOFF

1

Executive Summary

Roger Fisher and William Ury illustrate in Getting To Yes a single negotiation strategy called the principled negotiation. Originated at the Harvard school of business, principled negotiation in the eyes of Getting to Yes authors is the method of choice to conquer any negotiation that may come forth. The book covers both the typical way negotiations take place and then dismantles it down into different pieces to explain why they may be harmful and how you can fix them by using principle negotiation key point. They focus on five keys points: removal the human element, focus on interest(not positions), pinpoint and establish objective criteria, mutual gains, and hard and soft strategies. With simple examples and a variety of applications for each of these books the book they are able to reach the readers and gives them the tools they need to solve many problems. In addition they also have a question section in the back for addition assistance. This book covers a vast amount of area regarding negotiations and communications in a simple, ease ready as well as in an engaging way.

2

Separate human element

from problem

Focus on interest, not

position

Non-Zero Sum Game

Hard vs. Soft Strategies

Objective Criteria

Outline of Critical Criteria

3

Remove, but no Disregard, the Human

ElementNegotiators are people, thus emotions involvedProblem & the person are not one, seperate• Substance & Relationship Interest• Recognize & comprehend emotions of parties and

selfHandle people-problems directly

Perception: people see what they want to see

Establish repore & build relationships• Separate business from pleasure

4

Human Element

Emotions

Values

BeliefsExperiencesPerception of

self

Others

The Human Element5

Application Regarding the Last year when there was issues with how our coach handled student funds, I

had proof that coach had mishandled the funds and violated rules and regulations that govern guidelines on how student monies need to be handled. When talking to fellow teammates and showing them my findings they refused to accept it. For example a member on the woman’s bowling team said she understands the documentation but to her it still didn’t matter because the coach should be able to do what they want. This shows that even when there is evidence and laws showing error, that humans believe and see only what they want to see.

When in a meeting following this issue with the President of the Union, IU men’s and women’s bowling coach, and 2 additional administrators where the conversation was supposed to focus on interest of the bowling team and treatment of myself and the bowlers, it ended up being a battle of the human element. They refused to focus on the issue that brought us together(the bowling team) and decided to focus on how I made errors, thus focusing on the human side. Both coaches, which were the other parties, when I brought up the interest and issues at hands continued to take it back to that one email I sent which I sent after the team (without the coach) said to. Thus stalling the potential outcomes as well as burning bridges.

6

Focus on the interest, not the position

Interest Focus

• Timely• Focus on

underlying issues• Relationship

building• Trust building• Collaborating to

develop solution• More solution

options

Position Focus

• Ego tied into position

• Stalling• Compromise focus• Relationship harm• Zero-Sum Game• Position lock• Agreements less

likely• Parties =

Complexity

7

Again focusing on the issue of the mishandling of funds on the IU bowling team. When speaking directly with our coach, our coach revealed evidence that he was taking the questions personally as well as tying his ego to his position. He made the comment there is no one that knows more than he does and that the bowling team needs him. After team collaboration on what the good and bad of last season as well as how to better our program for future years, our coach took it as a personal attack stating he has done the best he can since he is also juggling his family life.

Additionally he has been indecisive on whether to focus on bowling or on his family. Prior to the beginning of the 08-09 year he said he was not coming back then later said he was. When I mentioned to him that I understand the family, love of bowling conflict my coach became emotional and flared up. It was assumed that because he was indecisive on which route to take he wasn’t fully committing himself to either activities which in turn harms the relationship for both activities. From a bowling standpoint it is hard to improve and build a program when a coach cannot make it to all the tournaments and practices and does the bare minimum. And doing so means the interest is not completely separate.

Application of Interest & Position Focus

8

Goal: Develop a solution independent of either sides’ will

Jointly seek object criteria• Examples:

• Legal Precedent• Scientific

Standards• Agree on criteria

first• What’s Your Theory

• Understand other partners

Reason & Be Open to Reason• Don’t focus on self

only• Reasonable On

Merits• Be the Judge

• Evaluate both sides based on reason and equally

Yield only to Principle, Not Pressure• Pressures:

• Bribes• Threats• Manipulation

Creative Objective Criteria

9

Last summer I uncovered information regarding our coach withholding financial information on student monies and placing it within his own personal checking account. I was uncertain how to handle this situation because I have never dealt with anything like this before. My next step was to check the rules and laws focusing on the issue at hand. I first searched for legal precedence in such a case and found that it is state law that all student monies should be placed under the supervision of the university. Thus I took this information back to the coach and later to administration to help fix the situation. Later I learned even if there are criteria set in place by the state or any organization that the other party must accept them or see them in the same light. In my case it seemed as if personal ambitions and ego clouded over the criteria set by state and college governments. I took from this situation the notion that although one side may be right in the eyes of the law or of the majority it does not make it right. That you are not working with them but you are working just with the other party and to make things right you have to focus on them and not the over idea. However this seems to conflict with the notion of focusing on the interest. Because in some cases the other party entangles themselves in the situation and even through precedents or administration getting involved they still remained entangled. So to focus on the interest both sides must put in the work to obtain that goal, and not leaving it up to just one side.

Application of Objective Criteria

10

Non-Zero Sum Game Mindset

• Mutual Gain• Optimal Solution• Collaboration• Inventing & Being Open to Alternatives

What It Is

• “I Win, You Lose” or Fixed-Sum• Give & Take• Single Answer• Fixing their Problem is only their Problem• Assuming and Premature Judgment

What it is Not

11

• ID what can be done• Possible

Implementation Steps

• What’s wrong?• Symptoms?• Factual situation

• Develop of possible solutions

• Application of theory• Brainstorming

• ID barriers• Categorize• Suggest causes• Descriptive Analysis

II. Analysis III. Approache

s

IV. Action Ideas

I. Problem

Creation of AlternativesCircle Chart

Anaylze

Planning

Discussion

12

Currently I am in the process of developing two different bowling tournaments for youth bowlers. Bowling tournament one focuses on aiding high school bowlers on the transition to collegiate bowling as well as to publicize Indiana University. With any tournament there are unlimited ways to develop them. Thus what I have done is spent an hour by myself in the library with noise cancelling headphones on with no music brainstorming ideas that came to mind. From there I typed them out and emailed them to two other bowlers and currently waiting to receive there response. I have also spoken to my father(high school bowling coach), a fellow college bowler, ex. President of the Indiana Youth board, and to two college bowling coaches to get their opinions and criticisms. I came to these individuals to get a variety of perspectives within the bowling industry: coach, youth coordinator, volunteer, college bowlers, etc. In addition we all had the same interest in mind: assist and better youth bowlers. When explaining to them the idea I did not hold anything back I explained to the best of my abilities my reasoning. I asked them to openly suggest and criticize my ideas in hopes to form better ones. Originally the intents of this tournament was to prompt Indiana University’s bowling team but later that interest faded because I came to realize it should be about the bowlers and not the school. I do admit that we will have information and documentation on Indiana University there at the tournament but priority one is the bowlers. I am still receiving input and ideas regarding rules, awards, tournament schedule/layout, locations, and much more. Such creativity and brainstorming brought about another idea for a tournament one that is going to take place during the Junior Olympic Gold Tournament in Indy in the upcoming years. Without such creativity and collaboration neither tournament would have been in the process of development. Such collaboration has also developed new leads to try new things as well as attempting new activities and events.

Application of Creation of Ideas

13

Whenever a group of individuals are involved in a decision on what to do, collaboration is at the center of decision making. Fall ‘09 I studied abroad in Copenhagen, Denmark for a semester. During a weekend myself and seven others traveled to Hamburg, Germany. Prior to arriving in Hamburg little discussion had taken place on what activities and attractions we should visit. While one-hour out via train a member was going through all she wanted to do and once she was finished she came over to myself and three others and said here is what we are going to do and handed us her papers and started to explain everything. We went along with it to hear what she had to say because we believed places listed in her research were of interest to us. After she explained she left the paper there and then went back to her seat. We collaborated and found we did not want to do all of that via due to conflict of interest, finances, etc. When we all arrived at the hotel we communicated with her our ideas and our disagreement of her making the weekends agenda alone. At first she was a little taken back then came to around. At breakfast the next morning we sat down and discussed potential options and developed a rough idea on what we wanted to do with focusing on the map and trying to cover as much area as possible. Problems still arose while out sight seeing in which we had to see what everyone wanted to do and in one case broke into two groups to accommodate everyone. In the end everyone got to see the places they placed in their top 10 things to do in Hamburg. Thus by setting priorities we were able to collaborate and develop mutually benefiting ways to fulfill everyone’s needs and wants while maintaining our relationship.

Application of Collaboration Efforts

14

Hard• Goal = Victory• Other side is the

enemy• Make Threat• Distrust in other

party• Apply Pressure• The single

answer is the answer

• Dig into position• Mislead bottom

line

Soft• Soft on People &

Problem• Goal =

Agreement• Participants are

friends• Yield to pressure• Compromise to

better relationship

• The single answer is one they will accept

• Change Easily

Hard vs. Soft Strategies

Which is better? A Mix of Both

15

Hard Strategies Soft Strategies

Mixed

What Strategy to Use

• Parties are problem solvers• Create multiple options• Yield to Principle• No bottom line• Soft on people, hard on problem• Explore interest• Standards Independent of Will• Independent of Trust

16

Application of Hard Strategies

I was risen in a house with a father that saw things in two colors: black and white. That’s right no gray or what I call silver. Till this day I still carry this trait and only in some cases(ethics, morals, responsibility) do I only see things in black and white. During the end of my sophomore year I came across an issue I could not stand on the side lines to watch. The president of our fraternity, SAE, & current roommate had a 1.7 GPA due to plagiarism and a 1.6 the semester after. I was unaware of these issues when he was voted in. We value and see SAE has having high scholastic standards and yet we had our Eminent Archon(president) failing these standards and no one was saying a word. I decided to step in because not only is he my brother in sense of the fraternity but he was my best friend at the time and he needed my help. I started by communicating with each member and nationals to explain the situation and be honest with how I felt of about it. Although I removed the human element from the problem it became involved in our discussion. When talking to him it was hard to pull the friendship aside but alas I did. In our conversation he got heated and focused on the human said and said I hated him and thus he was my target. I then held firm to my position and tried to pressure him into stepping down by holding firm to our morals and values that we preach and stand by in addition to the opinions and votes of everyone else in the chapter. He continued to throw out excuses and refused to step down. I continued to pursue the only action I thought was correct forceful removal and expulsion. Any individual who acts this way or treats an human in the way that I was treated is wrong and is not deserving of the SAE letters. Although he was not banned he was given the opportunity time and time again for volunteer removal because he would miss deadlines and the fraternity(local) did not want to make anyone unhappy. I continue on with my one solution and told the fraternity that I will not be involved in any aspect he is in. To me this is more of a hard strategy because I am still holding on to my answer. In addition I applied pressure due to my communication with nationals and other brothers and distrusted him because of his past lies and deceit. From personal experience it seems that when emotions are involved hard strategies seem to arise. 17

Due to my unfamiliarity with the hierarchical structure at the Union and zero experience in dealing with politics I applied a soft strategy when dealing with administration and faculty regarding the bowling team issue. My uncertainty on what I should do also played a part. I started by slowly tip toeing and contacting administration from low levels to high levels. I started with the Student Activities Director on the Union Board. I expected to be treated respectfully and believed I would receive truthful responses and information. I remember speaking to my father and telling him I think Rob(the SA Director) was on my side and could help. However I later found out of his acceptance on how Bo, our bowling coach, hid the funds from us and how he treated myself and my bowlers even after showing him documentation of it. Several times Rob told me to forget bowling and move on as well as there was no need for an audit or any other investigation to take place that there was no basis for doing so, which later the Director ordered. I then decided to go to Rob’s boss, but my father said go straight to the top, so I did. I contacted Bruce Jacobs, Director of the IMU, and spoke with him. Bruce seemed to be upfront and honest. He jumped right into the problem to assist in the solution development and his words contradicted that of Robs. Currently I am in the same position with Bruce as I was with Rob. I am being given the run around, promised communication regarding the audit and a personnel investigation have not taken place, closing the investigation without involving myself (when I was told I was supposed to be apart of it), myself accepting an alternative position instead of blowing the whistle and going to the student legal office, I have yet to change my strategy. I am in agreement with the book a mixed strategy must take place because this is now twice that I have felt like I have been walked on and not being treated fairly.

Application of Soft Strategy

18

If I could sum up the what I have learned in this entire book in one phrase it would be: negotiations are a two way street. Meaning that combined interaction from all parties are needed in order to make things successful. Within mutual gain both sides need to understand the wants/needs of the other party. To develop objective criteria both sides have to see it in the same manner and agree to it. For both sides to get along both have to focus on the issue and not the position. If one side is focusing on the position element problems will arise and solution development will be a lengthy process. Focusing on the issue at hands helps create open minds to help find mutual gains. Creation of alternatives, brainstorming and involving both parties enables the best outcomes possible by combining all minds that understand the task at hand. In addition both sides have to remember that the other party is human. That the human elements are also surrounding the issue and thus need to push those aside but also be weary of them when communicating. Lastly, communication can only take place with both sides willing and accepting of one another. Without this both sides are only talking to themselves, and thus solving nothing.

Personal Summary19

Closing Remarks

This is the second time I have read this book. I came to a group session you had last year with the SC group in which you mentioned this book when I spoke with you. I immediately read it and tried to apply it to the situation revolving around the bowling team I have expressed in the different sections of this assignment and it helped develop a better sense on how to do things and how to view it in a strategic manner. Without some of the key points to help guide me I would still be stuck wondering what is the right path to take.

This time when I read it I marked it up with comments and highlighter marks so when I am in need of some insight dealing with negotiating or in communicating with another party I have a resource I can turn to. Because from the reading I have found there are always better ways to change and modify my strategies because the parties and problems change. In a sense I think this book is a “negotiation lean book”. Helping removing the unwanted and problematic issues that may arise in negotiation and help get to fulfill both sides interest by producing the best solution in a time efficient time frame. This is one book that I will keep and hold on to, to use in the future.

20