Thank you for all your good work – and for sharing it so openly. I`m not sure there`s a name for it, but I use a technique that seems very useful to help groups negotiate agreements, that is, by first testing simple agreements and then gradually moving on to more sophisticated agreements. It could be with, „Well, I hear that we all believe we need to solve this problem. Is that correct? I think it`s useful because it indicates that we agree on some things and that we`re making progress and moving towards a solution. It is also useful because it helps me to understand where the point of divergence and convergence lies so that I can guide the negotiation more clearly. Participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on common interests. If the interests of the parties are different, they should look for options in which these differences can be reconciled or even made complementary. The key to matching different interests is to „look for items that are inexpensive to you and very beneficial to them, and vice versa.“ [p. 79] Each party should try to make suggestions that are attractive to the other party and with which the other party could easily agree. To this end, it is important to identify decision-makers and align proposals directly with them. Proposals are easier to accept if they appear legitimate or are supported by precedents. Threats are generally less effective in motivating deals than advantageous offers. No method of negotiation can completely overcome power differences.

However, Fisher and Ury offer ways to protect the weaker side from a bad deal and help the weaker side make the most of its strengths. As early as 1965, Walton and McKersie`s revolutionary study, Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, clearly articulated what they called „integrative negotiation,“ with tactics such as mutual agreement on the problem, mutual information sharing, mutual trust, and the search for the best alternative. Does this sound familiar to you? Getting to Yes didn`t recognize Walton and McKersie`s book, although all the books I`ve read about collective bargaining do. Getting to Yes uses the phrase Be gentle with people and the problem. As an example, Walton and McKersie quoted Mr. Gandhi: Be antagonism and gentle on the antagonist. Misleading the other party`s intentions based on one`s own fear is a common mistake; The authors describe it as a bad habit that could cost „new ideas for a deal.“ [8] The authors explain that feelings during the trial are just as important as the content of the dispute. Communication is the main aspect of negotiation, and the authors point to three common problems in communication: This global bestseller by William Ury offers a concise, step-by-step, proven strategy for reaching mutually acceptable agreements in any type of conflict. Advice and negotiation techniques can be applied to family situations, commercial disputes. even international conflicts. The theories and tactics presented in Getting to Yes are based on the work of the Harvard Negotiation Project, an organization that deals with all levels of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution. Since its original release in 1981, Getting to Yes has been translated into 18 languages and sold more than a million copies in its various editions.

This completely revised edition is a universal guide to the art of negotiating personal and professional disputes. It provides a concise strategy for reaching mutually acceptable agreements in any type of conflict. Getting to Yes offers a concise and proven step-by-step strategy to reach mutually acceptable agreements in any type of conflict – be it parents and children, neighbors, bosses and employees, customers or businesses, tenants or diplomats. .