John Wren - Getting to Yes

Introduction

Getting to yes is a book by Roger Fisher and William Ury, first published in 1981 as a product of the Harvard Negotiation Project, an initiative founded by the authors at the Harvard Law School to “improve the theory and practice of conflict resolution and negotiation by working on real world conflict intervention, theory building, education and training” (The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2014). This book was recommended to me by one of my professors in the B. Ed. Program who felt that it teaches a unique strategy for conflict resolution that can be applied in the classroom. This book focuses on a general approach to negotiation that can be applied in any situation, and if we (as the reader) look at it from the teachers perspective, we can easily see a wide variety of applications.

Summary

Fisher and Ury (1991) suggest that negotiation is a fact of life, “like it or not, you are a negotiator” (p. 6). As a prospective teacher I know that this is going to be an increasingly true fact of life, as I expect my career brings me into thousands of negotiations with students, parents, other teachers and administrators over things as simple as marks or resources to more complicated issues like cheating and punishments. To imagine a world where a teacher does not need to negotiate with someone everyday is to imagine a fairytale world of the impossible. With this in mind, Fisher and Ury deliver a compelling read that instructs the reader with their particular strategy for approaching a negotiation, their so-called “principled negotiation” (p. 6), as opposed to the traditional “positional bargaining” (p. 6). Their method of negotiation is built on four tenants: separate the people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gains; and insist on using objective criteria. These concepts are introduced within the first introductory chapter, proceeded by a chapter covering each of the four tenants of the method. Chapters 6 - 8 focus on applying this method in more taxing situations, such as negotiating with a more powerful adversary, or those who play dirty. After the concluding comments, the second edition of Getting to Yes includes a page answering their top ten most commonly asked questions. Of the bulk body of the text the chapters on separating people from the problem (p. 13-22) and insisting on using objective criteria (p. 42-49) are most useful for prospective teachers, although some time should be spent on browsing the chapters “what if they won’t play?” (p. 54-63) and “what if they use dirty tricks?”  (p. 64-70).

Example Tip: Defining Positional Bargaining and why to avoid it

Positional bargaining is the most common method of negotiation, where “each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise” (p. 7). From the teachers’ perspective an example may be an interaction between two teachers over who gets the computer room for a particular day; if both teacher A and teacher B want the room the discussion may go as follows: 

Teacher A - “I have the computer lab booked friday afternoon, you cannot have it.”

Teacher B - “Well I need it for my class, they have a project due Monday.”

Teacher A - “I booked it first, so I can’t help you.”

Teacher B - “But my students need it more than yours.”

At this point both teachers have set out their positions, i.e. they both want the room, and it appears that the only possible resolution is for one of the teachers to compromise and accept the loss of the room for that class. 

Fisher and Ury identify multiple issues with this type of bargaining; firstly, “arguing over positions produces unwise agreements” (p. 7). This type of arguing encourages the negotiators to avoid changing their position in the name of ‘saving face’, regardless of the validity of the opponents position. In the above example, it appears that the teachers are headed towards a solution where one teacher will not get access to the computers for their class, which has consequences for their students. 

They also argue that negotiating over positions is inefficient and may not produce an agreement (p. 8). We can see in our example that the type of conversation being made is circular, discussing and clarifying the teachers’ respective positions, but not moving the negotiation forward. Furthermore, this type of argument can damage the ongoing relationship between the subjects (p. 8). The teacher who eventually compromises may feel resentment or anger towards their colleague. Along this point they also note that “being nice is no answer” (p. 9), which they describe as “soft-negotiation”, where the individual takes a submissive role, being more generous and forthcoming. Although, being agreeable may result in a more rapid resolution of conflicts the results can be much less favourable for the submissive party. 

Tip 2: Principled Negotiation

The Fisher and Ury describe their method for effective negotiation as “principled negotiation” which focuses on four tenants (p.9 - 10): 

Separate the people from the problem

Focus on interests, not positions

Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do

Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

Each of these points is driven by the idea that an amicable goal can be reached for most negotiations that will produce results that are satisfactory for both sides. Separating people from the problem removes the emotional element from the equation, ideally isolating the true issue from the personal feelings that the opponents may have towards each other. In our original example, it may be important to separate any preconceived impressions or history that these two teachers have towards each other before proceeding with a solution, i.e. one teacher may not like the other, which is part of the reason they don’t want to give up their time slot. Focusing on interests, not positions means that the end solution will attempt to satisfy the inherent interests that the individuals have, not just their ego. In our teacher example, the teachers should focus their interests on a result that is for the betterment of their students, not just because they booked the time and ‘those are the rules’. The third point is one that requires the opponents to step back and begin to imagine more solutions than what their original position demanded. For example, with the two teachers, perhaps they could arrange to share the computer lab, or maybe take their project to the library, or make it a collaborative project between the two classes. Finally, the criteria for a satisfactory outcome must be established objectively, i.e. the result should be something both parties are willing to do. For the teacher example, obviously neither teacher is truly willing to not have the computer lab for the period in question, but they may be willing to have it for a half-period or be willing to share their time. 

The authors provide the following table that nicely contrasts the two types of bargaining (p. 11-12). 

Tip 3: How to Separate the People from the Problem

When discussing how to separate the people from the problem Fisher and Ury stress that for the negotiation to go smoothly we must try to understand their view point (p. 16-17). They note that “Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it” (p.17), which is an important distinction when it comes to the clash of egos that commonly occur in these types of negotiations. One ‘trick’ they suggest is to consider their perceptions and act outside of them, i.e. if the students see you as a dictator in the classroom, provide them the opportunity to make up some of their own rules, showing them that you can give up control. Also, important is to give the other party “a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process” (p. 18), i.e. in the classroom if we can give our students some ownership over the expected outcome they will be more willing to work collaboratively in a negotiation. Finally, they note that the negotiator should make their proposals consistent with the other parties values (p. 18-19). This is an important point in the classroom, since much of the traditional teacher-student dynamic is based on the teacher dictating their viewpoint onto their students, which is an obvious source of conflict. A common issue in the modern classroom is the use of mobile devices during class time, a value that is held highly in the minds of our students but disruptive to the rest of the class. A volatile response could be expected if the teacher comes out with a position that all cellphones must be turned off at the beginning of class, but if they consider the value the students hold in their constant access to their media, perhaps a more meaningful solution can be made.

Tip 4: Proper Solution Brainstorming

  Part of the “getting to yes” method is focused on inventing a wide array of possible solutions to choose from, as opposed to staying focused on the original positions of the negotiating parties. Fisher and Ury suggest that these ideas are developed through a brainstorming session with all parties involved,(p. 33). Some of their suggestions are worth noting when discussing solutions with your students. Before brainstorming they encourage the parties to “define their purpose”, what result would allow you to leave the meeting satisfied. The negotiation should also occur in a different environment than your usual discussion, i.e. not at their desk or yours, in the case of a teacher-student meeting. During the brainstorm the participants should arrange themselves side-by-side, as they are tackling the problem together, this is yet another reason that you should meet your students in a place that is not their desk or yours. It may be necessary (essential?) to lay down ground rules before you begin any discussion, so as to encourage the most open discourse possible. Finally after recording all of the ideas during the meeting, both parties should evaluate them after the brainstorms conclusion, this is also the time that the authors suggest you look for improvements to those ideas (p.34). 

Critical Review of “Getting to Yes”

Getting to Yes is a useful and solid guide book to being a great negotiator. The vernacular used within the text lends itself to a quick, simple and direct read with plenty of clarifying examples for the reader. Much of the strength of the method described within this book comes from its simplicity, and ubiquitousness; it is a text that is equally applicable to the life of a teacher as to that of a lawyer, banker, plumber or anyone else. Although I think this book is extremely valuable to teachers, it could be argued that it is too generic and that more appropriate strategies could be found in a more education orientated text. I believe that the perspective that these authors have taken speaks highly of their experiences in the judicial system and gives a very thorough analysis of what others might brush away as ‘common sense’. With the number of times that we hear of conflicts between unions and employers (especially in education), it is surprising that this book is not required reading for the prospective teacher. The ideas within this text strongly support the movement of the education system towards a more democratic classroom. This method encourages that all invested parties (i.e. students, teachers, parents and administrators) should have some part in the negotiating process, similar to the recommendations of most modern education specialists. Fisher and Ury emphasize to “give them a stake in the outcome by making sure the participate in the process” i.e. if we do not allow our students to have some say in how their classroom is run (curriculum, rules, etc) they will have less connection to it. As we discussed in class and as was indicated in this text, if we approach our pedagogy critically and inclusively, together with our students, we can hope to make a meaningful contribution to our society. 

References

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books. 

The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2014. Harvard Negotiation Project. Retrieved from http://www.pon.harvard.edu/category/research_projects/harvard-negotiation-project/. Date accessed: March 15, 2014.