Generate a variety of options before settling on an agreement
Fisher and Ury
identify obstacles to generate options for solving a problem. First one is that
Parties already have one option in mind and then they don’t consider other
alternatives and sometimes to find single answer they narrow their choices. The
parties keep win-lose terms saying that one side will win and the other will
lose or sometimes party decide that other side should come up with a solution
to the problem. In my learning people should
sit and brainstorm their ideas to find all possible solutions to problems. They
should first state the problem then analyse it, consider approaches and actions.
Each side should try to make proposals that are pleasing to the other side so
that the other side could easy agree.
Past No” it has been asked to “build them a golden bridge” to draw
them from their position to an agreement. It has been said that understand
opponent logic as well and do not overlook intangible interests such as identity,
needs for recognition and security.
Connect- Both says that options should be generated.
Ask other party for their ideas and productive
criticism. Both the books believe that at times third party is a better
option because offer coming from the opponent party is sometimes unacceptable
but the same offer coming from third party is understandable.
be based on objective criteria-When interests are directly opposed, the
parties should use objective criteria to resolve their differences. In
objective criteria parties should agree which criteria is best for both of them
as it should be both genuine and concrete.
A very good example has been given that children divide a piece of cake by
having one child cut it, and the other choose their piece. There are three
points to keep in mind when using objective criteria. First ask for the
reasoning behind the other party’s suggestions. Second, each party must keep an
open mind. Third, negotiators must never give in to pressure, threats, or bribes.
understanding from “Getting to Yes” is when the other party Is more powerful than
a weaker party should not give the bottom line and instead the weaker party
should concentrate on consider their best alternative to a negotiated agreement
(BATNA). Because “the reason of negotiating is to produce something better
than the results you can obtain without negotiating. I found that before learning BATNA concept we were simply negotiating
blindly and after learning it helped me in negotiating with a powerful person and
it also helps in raising the minimum bar.
But in “Getting Past No” says that power should be used to bring
opponent in to senses. The aim is to tell them that agreement is the best
option for them and keep asking them what you will do if agreement does not
happen. Give them a reality check that what they are losing.
Connect- In “Getting to Yes” it is more
tilted towards the helping the weaker party that how they should do negotiation
and what to reveal and what not. It is basically helping in making weaker party
strong in points while in “Getting Past
No” it has been said how to handle stubborn party; how to show them reality and
how one should defuse their tricks.