View source for Social:Getting to Yes

{{Short description|1981 book about negotiation methods by Roger Fisher}}
{{Infobox book
| name          = Getting to YES
| image         = Getting to Yes.jpg
| image_size    = 
| caption       = 
| author        = Roger Fisher and William Ury; and Bruce Patton in 2nd and 3rd editions
| subject       = 
| publisher     = Houghton Mifflin
| country       = United States
| language      = English
| pub_date      = 1981 (2nd ed. 1991, 3rd ed. 2011)
| pages         = 200
| media_type    = Print, e-book
| isbn          = 978-0-395-31757-0
| dewey         = 158.5
| congress      = BF637.N4
}}

'''''Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In''''' is a best-selling 1981 non-fiction book by Roger Fisher and William Ury.<ref name="1stEd1981">{{cite book |last1=Fisher |first1=Roger |last2=Ury |first2=William |date=1981 |title=Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In |edition=1st |location=Boston|publisher=Houghton Mifflin|isbn=9780395317570 |oclc=7575986|url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/gettingtoyesnego0000fish_p7x7}}</ref> Subsequent editions in 1991<ref name="2ndEd1991">{{cite book |last1=Fisher |first1=Roger |last2=Ury |first2=William |last3=Patton |first3=Bruce |date=1991 |orig-year=1981 |title=Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In |edition=2nd |location=New York |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=9780140157352 |oclc=24318769 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/gettingtoyesnego00fish_0 }}</ref> and 2011<ref name="3rdEd2011">{{cite book |last1=Fisher |first1=Roger |last2=Ury |first2=William |last3=Patton |first3=Bruce |date=2011 |orig-year=1981 |title=Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In |edition=3rd |location=New York |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=9780143118756 |oclc=609540048 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/gettingtoyesnego0000fish_z1w8 }}</ref> added Bruce Patton as co-author. All of the authors were members of the Harvard Negotiation Project.

The book suggests a method of '''principled negotiation''' consisting of "separate the people from the problem"; "focus on interests, not positions"; "invent options for mutual gain"; and "insist on using objective criteria". Although influential in the field of [[Social:Negotiation|negotiation]], the book has received criticisms.

==Background==
Fisher and Ury focused on the psychology of negotiation in their method, "principled negotiation", which attempts to find acceptable solutions by determining which needs are fixed and which are flexible for negotiators.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Essay: The Dance of Negotiation | last = Morrow | first = Lance | date = December 7, 1981 | url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,953270-1,00.html | archive-url = | url-status = | archive-date = | journal = Time | access-date = January 22, 2022}}</ref> The first edition of the book was published in 1981.<ref name="1stEd1981"/> By 1987, the book had been adopted in several U.S. school districts to help students understand "non-adversarial bargaining".<ref>{{cite news | title = Alternatives to Adversarial Negotiations Being Used Successfully: Could Different Bargaining Format Have Prevented Strike? | work = Eugene Register-Guard | date = May 12, 1987 | last = Piele | first = Philip K. |author2=Stuart C. Smith | url = https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_sQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4151,3089660&dq=getting-to-yes+fisher | access-date = January 22, 2022}}</ref>

In 1991, the book was issued in a second edition with Bruce Patton, an editor of the first edition, listed as a co-author.<ref name="2ndEd1991"/> The main difference between the second and first editions was the addition of a chapter after the main text entitled "Ten Questions People Ask About ''Getting to Yes''".<ref name="2ndEd1991"/>{{rp|ix–x,149–187}}

The book became a perennial best-seller. By July 1998, it had been appearing for more than three years on the ''BusinessWeek'' "Best-Seller" book list.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Business Week Best-Seller List |work=Business Week |date=July 6, 1998 |url=http://www.businessweek.com/1998/27/b3585036.htm |access-date=January 22, 2022 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090215040748/http://www.businessweek.com/1998/27/b3585036.htm |archive-date=February 15, 2009 }}</ref> As of December 2007, it was still making appearances on the list as one of the "Longest Running Best Sellers" in paperback business books.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_49/b4061103.htm |title=The BusinessWeek Best Seller List |work=BusinessWeek |date=December 3, 2007 |access-date=January 22, 2022 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081003024129/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_49/b4061103.htm |archive-date=October 3, 2008 }}</ref>

The third edition was published in 2011.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/> Among other changes to the second edition, the third edition added newer examples of negotiations, such as a conflict in Iraq after Saddam Hussein had fallen from power;<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|xiv,5–6}} paragraphs on "core concerns" and "the role of identity";<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|32–33}} a section "How should we communicate?";<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|xv,171–173}} and a section "There is power in effective communication".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|xiv,185–188}} As of 2022, Ury asserted on his website that 15 million copies of the book had been sold, and that it has been translated into more than 35 languages.<ref name="AboutWilliamUryAsOf2022">{{cite web |url= https://www.williamury.com/about |title= About William Ury|last= Ury |first= William |date=n.d. |website= williamury.com |publisher= |access-date=January 22, 2022 |quote=}}</ref>

==Method of principled negotiation==
The book begins with a chapter "Don't Bargain Over Positions" that explains the undesirable characteristics of positional bargaining, in which the negotiating parties argue over a sequence of positions. Such an argument "produces unwise outcomes", "is inefficient", and "endangers an ongoing relationship".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|4–7}}

The next four chapters describe the method of principled negotiation which was developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project (part of the [[Social:Program on Negotiation|Program on Negotiation]] consortium) by Fisher, Ury, and Patton.<ref>{{cite web |title = About the Harvard Negotiation Project | work = Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School | date = November 7, 2018 | url = http://www.pon.harvard.edu/research_projects/harvard-negotiation-project/hnp/ | access-date = January 22, 2022}}</ref> The purpose of principled negotiation is to "decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|xxviii}} The method is based on four principles:

=== "Separate the people from the problem" ===
The first principle of ''Getting to Yes''—"Separate the people from the problem"—applies to the interaction between the two parties to a negotiation.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|19–41}} The authors point out that negotiators are people first—people who have different values, cultural backgrounds, and emotions.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|20–21}} The relationship between parties tends to become entangled with the problem that the parties are discussing; therefore, issues of perception, emotion, and communication need to be addressed during a negotiation.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|23–39}}

Concerning perception, the authors note that it is important for a negotiator to understand how the other party views an issue. Ways to accomplish this include "Put yourself in their shoes", "Discuss each other's perceptions", and "Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|24–31}}

Concerning emotion, the authors encourage negotiators to explore the causes of both their own and the other party's emotions.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|31–32}} Techniques may be needed to defuse anger, such as allowing the other party to voice grievances and to provide an apology as a symbolic gesture.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|33–35}}

Concerning communication, the authors point out three common problems and give suggestions to prevent or solve them:<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|35–39}} 
# Not speaking with the other party in a direct and clear manner;
# Not actively listening to the other party, but instead only listening to rebut the other party's statements; and
# Misunderstanding or misinterpreting what the other party has said.

=== "Focus on interests, not positions" ===
The second principle—"Focus on interests, not positions"—distinguishes the positions that the parties hold from the interests that led them to those positions.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|42–57}} For example, in 1978 Israel and Egypt both held positions about occupying the [[Place:Sinai Peninsula|Sinai Peninsula]], but the reasons for the positions were different: Israel was interested in security and Egypt was interested in sovereignty.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|44}} Addressing the underlying interests of the two nations led to the Egypt–Israel peace treaty of 1979.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|44}} The authors recommend that negotiators identify interests, such as the "basic human needs" of "economic well-being" and "control over one's life", behind the parties' positions.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|45–51}} Both parties should then discuss their interests and keep an open mind to the other side of the argument, in order to arrive at options that satisfy their respective interests.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|52–57}}

=== "Invent options for mutual gain" ===
The third principle—"Invent options for mutual gain"—seeks to benefit both parties that are negotiating.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|58–81}} To generate options, the authors suggest that the parties [[Social:Brainstorming|brainstorm]] separately and possibly together.{{rp|62–72}} The book describes specific techniques to promote effective brainstorming; for example, a "Circle Chart" diagrams the repeated steps of Problem, Analysis, Approaches, and Action Ideas that should occur.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|68–70}} Options can either meet shared interests or meet different interests that are complementary (as in the nursery rhyme "Jack Sprat").<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|72–77}} After a suitable option is developed, one side can draft a written agreement to make the decision easy for the other side.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|78–81}}

=== "Insist on using objective criteria" ===
The fourth principle—"Insist on using objective criteria"—encourages parties to "negotiate on some basis ''independent'' of the will of either side".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|82–95}} This approach can help produce "wise agreements amicably and efficiently", as in the case of negotiations about the Law of the Sea.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|84–85}}  Objective criteria can be based on factors such as [[Finance:Market value|market value]] and [[Social:Precedent|precedent]].<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|86–87}} The three steps for using objective criteria in negotiations are to jointly search for such criteria, to keep an open mind about which criteria should be chosen to be applied, and to never give in to pressure or threats.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|88–89}} The chapter on this principle concludes with an example of objective criteria being used successfully in a negotiation between a person whose car is a [[Finance:Total loss|total loss]] and an insurance [[Social:Claims adjuster|claims adjuster]].<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|93–95}}

== Answers to questions ==
All three editions of the book provide answers to three questions about the method of principled negotiation. The second and third editions answer ten other questions about negotiation.

=== "What if they are more powerful?" ===
If the other side "has a stronger bargaining position", the authors recommend "Develop Your BATNA—[[Social:Best alternative to a negotiated agreement|Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement]]".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|99–108}} The BATNA is "the results you can obtain without negotiating".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|102}} The authors give three suggestions to develop a BATNA that both protects the negotiator from accepting an agreement that should be rejected and improves any agreement that is accepted:<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|105}}
# Creating a list of actions one might take if no agreement is reached
# Transforming some of the more promising ideas into options
# Selecting the option that appears best

=== "What if they won't play?" ===
If the other side demands to use positional bargaining, a negotiator may attempt "negotiation jujitsu".<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|109–130}} One method is to ask a third party to mediate. In this "one-text procedure", the third party explores the parties' interests and iteratively develops a solution with them. The author cite the negotiations that led to the 1978 Camp David Accords as an example of the one-text procedure, with the United States drafting agreements between Egypt and Israel.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|118}}

=== "What if they use dirty tricks?" ===
The authors point to the outcome of the Munich Agreement in 1938 as an example of a negotiator's failure to address "dirty tricks", in that case Adolf Hitler's negotiating tactics with Neville Chamberlain.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|131}} Instead, the parties should negotiate about the rules of negotiation using the four principles stated earlier in the book.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|132–134}} This can overcome tactics such as misrepresentation and psychological pressure.<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|134–145}}

=== Ten other questions ===
The second and third editions contain a chapter after the main text entitled "Ten Questions People Ask About ''Getting to Yes''".<ref name="2ndEd1991"/>{{rp|149–187}}<ref name="3rdEd2011"/>{{rp|151–194}} The questions and answers concern "fairness and 'principled' negotiation", "dealing with people", "tactics", and "power".

==Reception==
The book has been called "arguably one of, if not the most famous, works on the topic of negotiation"<ref name="Schock2013">{{cite journal |last1= Schock |first1=Kevin R. |date=2013|title=Getting to Yes: Remembering Roger Fisher|journal=Arbitration Law Review |volume=5 | publisher = Penn State Law | pages=422–438 |url=https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=arbitrationlawreview}}</ref> as well as a "wellspring for cutting-edge academic research".<ref name="ThompsonLeonardelli2004">{{cite journal | last1 = Thompson | first1 = Leigh | last2 = Leonardelli | first2 = Geoffrey J. | title = The Big Bang: The Evolution of Negotiation Research | journal = Academy of Management Perspectives |publisher=[[Organization:Academy of Management|Academy of Management]] | date = August 2004 | volume = 18 | issue = 3 | pages = 113–117 | doi = 10.5465/ame.2004.14776179 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoffrey-Leonardelli/publication/242091294_The_big_bang_The_evolution_of_negotiation_research/links/53e82cf60cf25d674ea7ff49/The-big-bang-The-evolution-of-negotiation-research.pdf | access-date = January 30, 2022}}</ref> The principles in the book have been applied to numerous negotiations. Nevertheless, it has received criticisms.

===Applications of principled negotiation===
Organizational and individual negotiators have applied the principles of ''Getting to Yes''. In 2001, the health insurance company Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (later Florida Blue) formed a department to implement principled negotiation.<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004">{{cite journal |last1=Booth |first1=Bridget |last2=McCredie |first2=Matt |date=August 2004 |title=Taking Steps Toward "Getting to Yes" at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida |journal= The Academy of Management Executive |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=109–112 |doi=10.5465/AME.2004.14776178 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/4166097 |jstor=4166097 |publisher=[[Organization:Academy of Management|Academy of Management]]}}</ref> The purpose was to address the problems of increasing competition, rising healthcare prices, and increased customer expectations.<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004"/>{{rp|109}} For instance, the company used principled negotiation to form a [[Finance:Joint venture|joint venture]] with its competitor [[Company:Humana|Humana]].<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004"/>{{rp|110–112}} Applying principled negotiation techniques occurred more naturally at the executive level than at lower levels of management.<ref name="BoothMcCredie2004"/>{{rp|112}}

In [[Social:Social work|social work]], principled negotiation can be used to advocate for a client's interests.<ref name="Lens2004">{{cite journal | last1 = Lens | first1 = Vicki | title = Principled Negotiation: A New Tool for Case Advocacy | journal = Social Work | date = July 2004 | volume = 49 | issue = 3 | pages = 506–513 | doi = 10.1093/sw/49.3.506 | url = }}</ref> For example, a social worker may need to negotiate with a government [[Social:Social services|social services]] agency to obtain services for a client.<ref name="Lens2004"/>{{rp|508–511}} In the field of [[Social:Psychology|psychology]], principled negotiation has formed the basis for educational exercises about [[Critical thinking|critical thinking]].<ref name="Bernstein1995">{{cite journal | last1 = Bernstein | first1 = David A. | title = A Negotiation Model for Teaching Critical Thinking | journal = Teaching of Psychology | date = February 1995 | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | pages = 22–24 | doi = 10.1207/s15328023top2201_7 | pmid = | url = }}</ref>

A 2008 review of literature concluded that the book's ideas could be applied to cross-cultural negotiations "if interests are defined to include cultural interests".<ref name="Barkai2008">{{cite journal | last1 = Provis | first1 = Chris | title = Cultural Dimension Interests, the Dance of Negotiation, and Weather Forecasting: A Perspective on Cross-Cultural Negotiation | journal = Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal | date = April 2008 | volume = 8 | issue = 3 | pages = 403–448 | url = https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=drlj}}</ref> For example, when negotiating with people in China, a negotiator should be aware of the Thirty-Six Stratagems which may be employed.<ref name="Barkai2008"/>{{rp|436–444}}

===Criticism===
Gerald M. Steinberg in a 1982 review criticized Fisher and Ury for "describ[ing] the world as it should be, and not as it is".<ref name="Steinberg1982">{{cite journal |last1= Steinberg |first1=Gerald M. |date=March–April 1982|title=Book Reviews [Getting to Yes] |journal=Naval War College Review|volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=87–89 |url= https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4986&context=nwc-review}}</ref> For instance, in practice it can be difficult to find mutually agreeable objective criteria in a negotiation.<ref name="Steinberg1982"/> Furthermore, Fisher and Ury assume that negotiating parties are "unitary actors", but negotiations often involve "complex collective entities, such as states".<ref name="Steinberg1982"/>

James J. White, a professor of law at the [[Organization:University of Michigan|University of Michigan]], suggested in 1984 that ''Getting to Yes'' is not scholarly or analytical and relies on anecdotal evidence, and that "the authors seem to deny the existence of a significant part of the negotiation process, and to oversimplify or explain away many of the most troublesome problems inherent in the art and practice of negotiation".<ref name="WhiteFisher1984">{{cite journal |last1=White |first1=James J. |last2=Fisher |first2=Roger |date=1984 |title=Essay Review: The Pros and Cons of "Getting to YES" ['Reviewed by James J. White' and 'Comment by Roger Fisher'] |journal=Journal of Legal Education |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=115–124 |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/42897936 |jstor=42897936}}</ref>{{rp|115}} In particular, the book does not discuss in enough detail distributive bargaining, in which a gain for one party is a loss for the other.<ref name="WhiteFisher1984"/>{{rp|119}} Fisher responded that the book is intended to give advice, and that "distributional problems" can be reconceptualized as "shared problems".<ref name="WhiteFisher1984"/>{{rp|121}} Nevertheless, Fisher reported that when teaching a negotiation course he tore a copy of the book in half to emphasize that it was imperfect.<ref name="WhiteFisher1984"/>{{rp|120}}

Carrie Menkel-Meadow noted in 1984 that legal negotiators might adopt some of Fisher and Ury's ideas by using a problem solving approach instead of an adversarial approach.<ref name="Menkel-Meadow1984">{{cite journal | last1 = Menkel-Meadow | first1 = Carrie |  title = Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving| journal = UCLA Law Review | date = 1984 | volume = 31 | pages = 754–842}}</ref> Nevertheless, she felt that ideas such as "separate the people from the problem" would not apply.<ref name="Menkel-Meadow1984"/>{{rp|837,841}} In 2006, Menkel-Meadow praised ''Getting To Yes'' for inspiring a "rich research and teaching agenda", but also claimed that the factors leading to successful versus failed negotiations are still unclear.<ref name="Menkel-Meadow2006">{{cite journal | last1 = Menkel-Meadow | first1 = Carrie | author-link1 = Carrie Menkel-Meadow | title = Why Hasn't the World Gotten to Yes? An Appreciation and Some Reflections | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = October 2006 | volume = 22 | issue = 4 | pages = 485–503 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00119.x }}</ref>{{rp|500}}

In a 1985 article, William McCarthy described eight areas in which he agreed with the book, but also listed reservations and disagreements.<ref name="McCarthy1985">{{cite journal | last1 = McCarthy | first1 = William | title = The Role of Power and Principle in Getting to YES | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = January 1985 | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 59–66 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1985.tb00292.x | url = }}</ref> The reservations included the authors' emphasis on long-term relationships (when immediate actions are sometimes required); the assumption that trust is unnecessary in negotiation; and the suggestion to "avoid starting from extremes".<ref name="McCarthy1985"/>{{rp|61–63}} The main disagreement was that the book did not consider the need of a negotiator to prevail when a negotiation involves a power struggle.<ref name="McCarthy1985"/>{{rp|63–65}} Fisher replied that he agreed with some of McCarthy's criticisms, for example that "''Getting to YES'' probably overstates the case against positional bargaining".<ref name="Fisher1985">{{cite journal | last1 = Fisher | first1 = Roger |author-link= Roger Fisher (academic) | title = Beyond YES | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = January 1985 | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 67–70 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1985.tb00293.x | url = }}</ref>

A 1996 paper argued that the book's distinction between "interests" and "positions" was problematic.<ref name="Provis1996">{{cite journal | last1 = Provis | first1 = Chris | title = Interests vs. Positions: A Critique of the Distinction | journal = Negotiation Journal | date = October 1996 | volume = 12 | issue = 4 | pages = 305–323 | doi = 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00105.x }}</ref> There can be a difference between objective interests (that help an individual) and subjective interests (that the individual perceives to be helpful, but that may not be).<ref name="Provis1996"/>{{rp|307}} A negotiating party's public position may be different from that the course of action that the party will actually pursue.<ref name="Provis1996"/>{{rp|308–309}} If a party's interest is in maintaining internal unity, it may adopt a position that preserves that unity, thus causing an overlap between position and interest.<ref name="Provis1996"/>{{rp|313–314}}

A 1997 [[Social:Feminism|feminist]] analysis of the book's recommendations appeared in the ''Otago Law Review''.<ref name="Kirby1997">{{cite journal |last1= Kirby |first1= Justine |date= 1997|title= Would Principled Negotiation Have Saved Eve?: A Feminist Analysis of Getting to YES |url= https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/OtaLawRw/1997/6.pdf |journal= Otago Law Review |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=122–143 |doi= | access-date=January 30, 2022}}</ref> It maintained that the book is written from a male perspective, and that some of its advice may not be appropriate for female negotiators.<ref name="Kirby1997"/>{{rp|141–143}}

The author of a 2003 examination of the history of [[Social:Alternative dispute resolution|alternative dispute resolution]] felt that ''Getting to Yes'' is a "classic text".<ref name="Sanchez2003">{{cite journal | last1 = Sanchez | first1 = Valerie A. | title = Back to the Future of ADR: Negotiating Justice and Human Needs | journal = Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution| date = 2003 | volume = 18 | issue = 3 | pages = 669–776 | url = https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/77066/OSJDR_V18N3_0669.pdf }}</ref>{{rp|693}} Nevertheless, the book failed to realistically account for competition among negotiating parties and failed to consider complex personal dynamics during negotiations.<ref name="Sanchez2003"/>{{rp|694,772}} A 2013 ''{{wipe|Forbes}}'' article asserted that the techniques in the book do not work for three reasons: people do not trust other people, people are not rational, and people do not enjoy negotiating.<ref name="Jensen2013">{{cite magazine |last= Jensen|first= Keld |date= February 5, 2013 |title= Why Negotiators Still Aren't 'Getting To Yes' |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2013/02/05/why-negotiators-still-arent-getting-to-yes/ |magazine=Forbes |location= |publisher= |access-date=January 28, 2022}}</ref>

A 2012 commentary noted that Australian practice guidelines for lawyers supported interest-based negotiation of the type described in ''Getting to Yes'', but that such a negotiation style is not always more ethical than positional negotiation.<ref name="Wolski2012">{{cite journal |last1= Wolski |first1= Bobette |date= 2012|title= The New Limitations of Fisher and Ury's Model of Interest-Based Negotiation: Not Necessarily the Ethical Alternative |url= http://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2012/7.pdf |journal= James Cook University Law Review |volume=19 |pages=127–158 |doi= | access-date=January 30, 2022}}</ref> It is possible for both types of negotiation to be unethical.<ref name="Wolski2012"/>{{rp|145}} Instead, it is ethical for a lawyer to be able to adjust negotiation strategies to provide effective advocacy for a client.<ref name="Wolski2012"/>{{rp|154–155}} The need for flexibility in negotiation styles was echoed in a 2015 paper calling principled negotiations a "false promise".<ref name="Reyes 2015">{{cite journal |last1= Reyes |first1= Victor Martinez |date= 2015|title= The False Promise of Principled Negotiations |url= https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol9/iss2/3 |journal= Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective|volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=3–18 |doi= | access-date=January 30, 2022}}</ref>

Chris Voss, a former FBI agent, mentioned ''Getting to Yes'' in his 2016 book ''Never Split the Difference''.<ref name="Voss2016">{{cite book |last=Voss |first=Chris | date=2016 |title=Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if Your Life Depended on It |location=New York |publisher=HarperBusiness |isbn=9780062407801}}</ref> He called Fisher and Ury's book "a groundbreaking treatise"<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|11}} and wrote "I still agree with many of the powerful bargaining strategies in the book".<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|13}} But he criticized their methods as inadequate for hostage negotiations such as the [[Biography:Waco siege|Waco siege]]: "I mean, have you ever tried to devise a mutually beneficial win-win solution with a guy who thinks he's the messiah?"<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|14}} Voss presented alternative techniques for such situations, including "the flip side of ''Getting to Yes''": getting to "no".<ref name="Voss2016"/>{{rp|20}}

==Related books by Fisher and Ury==
Fisher and Ury wrote related books whose titles played on the title of ''Getting to Yes''. Fisher and Scott Brown wrote ''Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets to Yes'' (1988). Fisher and Danny Ertel wrote ''Getting Ready to Negotiate: The Getting to Yes Workbook'' (1995). Ury wrote ''Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People'' (1991, revised in 1993 as ''Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation'' or ''Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations''); ''Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World'' (1999, later released as ''The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop''); ''The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes'' (2007);<ref>{{cite book |last=Ury |first=William |date=2007 |title=The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes |location=New York |publisher=Bantam |isbn=9780553804980 |oclc=70718568 |url=https://archive.org/details/powerofpositiven00uryw |url-access=registration}}</ref> and ''Getting to Yes with Yourself (And Other Worthy Opponents)'' (2015).

==See also==
* [[Conflict resolution research]]
* [[Finance:List of books about negotiation|List of books about negotiation]]
* [[Negotiation theory]]
* [[Philosophy:Rogerian argument|Rogerian argument]]
* Vicente Blanco Gaspar

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.williamury.com/books/getting-to-yes/ Summary of book on coauthor William Ury's website]
*[https://www.ted.com/talks/william_ury_the_walk_from_no_to_yes Getting to Yes: Negotiating in Challenging Times] – Video of William Ury at [[Organization:University of Geneva|University of Geneva]] in June 2016 explaining concepts from the book

[[Category:Business books]]
[[Category:Dispute resolution]]

{{Sourceattribution|Getting to Yes}}