The big bang: The evolution of negotiation research
Today I was reading a brief article for my Leadership Skills course titled “The big bang: The evolution of negotiation research”, which tried to prove that “Getting to Yes”, a book written by Roger Fisher and William Ury, developed and facilitated the study of negotiation by citing some of the most influential empirical research on negotiation.
The fundamental elements of Getting to Yes are: people, interests, options, criteria, the BATNA principle, and soft versus hard bargaining style. The main points about people are that the research shows that negotiators are more likely to allocate resources equally, rather than selfishly. Also emotions not only affect the negotiator experiencing them, they can also create emotional reactions in other parties. Furthermore, what matters most in understanding conflict is not reality itself but individuals’ perceptions of it.
As for interests, it is noted that to invent a creative solution to a problem, you first have to figure out the interests underlying the parties’ perspective positions. In order to do so, you have to get the better of a key error: the fixed-pie perception, which refers to the often-faulty belief that people’s interests are basically and directly represents a loss for the other parties.
With respect to options, mutual gains benefit both parties. In order to create options for mutual gain, negotiators need to overcome four obstacles that prevent opportunities, which increase bargaining value and develop the relationship. The first obstacle is fixed-pie perception, which was mentioned above. The Second obstacle is making premature judgment: at times, negotiators commit to a specific course of action and then find it difficult to change course even if doing so could yield a better, mutually beneficial outcome. The third obstacle is they tend to search for a single answer. The final, most important, obstacle is Negotiator A often