Since its original publication in 1981, Getting to Yes has been translated into 18 languages and has sold more than one million copies in various editions. This completely revamped edition is a universal guide to the art of negotiating personal and professional disputes. It offers a concise strategy to move from all conflicts to mutually acceptable agreements. An option such as a demilitarized Sinai can often make the difference between deadlock and agreements. A lawyer we know leads his success directly to his ability to invent solutions that are beneficial to both his client and the other side. He stretch the cake before sharing it. The ability to invent options is one of the most useful benefits a negotiator can have. Fisher and Ury state that a good agreement is smart and effective and improves relations between the parties. Smart agreements serve the interests of the parties and are fair and sustainable. The aim of the authors is to develop a method to obtain good agreements. Negotiations often take place in the form of position negotiations. In position negotiations, each party begins with its position on a subject.
The parties then negotiate from their separate opening positions to agree on a position. Bargaining at a price is a typical example of position negotiations. Fisher and Ury argue that position negotiations do not tend to make good deals. This is an ineffective way to reach agreements and agreements tend to neglect the interests of the parties. It promotes stubbornness and thus harms relations between the parties. Substantive negotiations offer a better way to reach good agreements. Fisher and Ury develop four negotiating principles. Their procedural negotiation process can be used effectively in almost all types of litigation.
Their four principles are 1) separate people from the problem; 2) focus on interests, not positions; 3) generate a variety of options before filing an agreement; and 4) insist that the agreement is based on objective criteria. [p. 11] We tend to start our negotiations by defining our views. For example, an owner might say to a developer, “I don`t allow you to develop this property.” If we are in fixed positions, we are getting ourselves into a bind. In our goal, yes, to achieve, we must identify the interests that underlie our opponent`s positions, asking questions like.B. “Why is this quality important to them?” By seizing the interests that motivate the other party and sharing your own interests, you can open up the possibility of exploring trade-offs between topics and increasing your chances, yes, of coming.