five star

I am a national debate champion. When new acquaintances learn this, I hear, 'You must be really argumentative' or, 'I'll make sure to avoid debating you then.' The pervasive view that debate engenders an adversarial mentality is false. Especially at the top tier of the activity. Top debaters share what otherwise is considered a cooperative skill: They listen well and understand the best arguments of the opposition. The elite also adapt and appeal to the judge's individual preferences. Empathy, not antagonism, is the key.

Fisher gets it. Throughout, he conceives of negotiation in a similar way. Avoid positions, favor principles. Improve your BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement), but don't flaunt it. Focus on understanding the other side - what are the incentives of the organization, the group, and each individual?

Getting to Yes has that critical quality: The advice is at once intuitive and something I had never thought of before. In the fundraising context, the common wisdom is to create competition, in essence to pit the potential investors against one another. This can work but often creates problems where the investor feels commodified. Fisher's paradigm addresses this. Instead of creating explicit competition, develop a BATNA and improve the perception of your BATNA. The difference is nuanced but key, which is what I liked about Getting to Yes.

Como escrito em parte do texto, o livro tem como ponto positivo sistematizar ideias - já aplicadas irrefletidamente nos processos de negociação - e a experiência comum nessas relações, formulando um esquema organizado a ser aplicado. Claro, referido método deve ser aperfeiçoado com a prática e de acordo com as peculiaridades do caso concreto, como, aliás, alertam os autores ao longo do texto. O livro não floreia e não apela para frases de efeito, mas, ao contrário, busca deixar clara as premissas básicas para o processo de negociação baseado em princípios e, ainda, de certo modo, estimula a importância da mudança de hábito e a separação das emoções da essência/mérito da negociação.

The book provides four principles to follow when negotiating:
1) separate the people from the problem;
2) focus on their interests rather than their positions;
3) generate a variety of options before attempting to come to an agreement;
4) insist that the agreement be based on an objective criteria.

There are chapters that cover the principles in-depth, including giving examples that illustrate how applying these principles can dramatically improve the chances of an agreement. For example, instead of saying "this room is a mess" (implying that the person is the cause of the problem), state the problem objectively, "I would like to keep this room organized." The book provides a lot of examples to learn from. The key is using and practicing the techniques. Just like reading a book on bike riding doesn't make you a capable rider, reading this book will not make you a good negotiator. You will need to practice negotiating, observing the results, developing a sensitivity to understanding situation, and using the right approach.

It’s probably a sign of my advancing years that I’m re-reading this book. My boss recommended it to me as part of my first job and it certainly felt like a chore. Getting to Yes is absurdly dense and is more of a textbook than the typical business/self-help dross. It’s an incredible collection of techniques, masterfully categorized into easy-to-remember approaches and filled with examples to spice up the reading. The stories about high-stakes politics in the 70s and 80s feel dated, but it’s still a superb tome for all but masterclass negotiators.

Recommended.

I am researching for the Book 3 Yin Yang which is all about power, politics, and social influence. Therefore Getting to Yes was in my To-Read list for quite sometime now. But as I am preparing for an important upcoming negotiation, I decided to read it urgently and finished in 5 days. (which was not difficult considering it's one of the most interesting books I have read this year)

It's a must-read, and I mean MUST-READ book for any person who is dealing with any kind of negotiation-- which means- a must read for EVERYONE because as a human we negotiate everyday. Just few seconds back, I negotiated with my 4 years old that she will let me work (She said, she would if I will let her watch Ramayana, animation movie-- she negotiated her way)-- so, see negotiation is part of our day to day lives. There is no point in being an ostrich and say, "In my work, I don't have to deal with negotiation, why should I read this book." Because, let me break the news-- YOU DO NEGOTIATE-- so might as well do it better.

Must.Read.Book.

I give this book a 4 stars for its applicability rather than for being a fun read. I found this book thoughtfully layout facts about negotiation that we often struggle to put into words. It includes solid advice for navigating negotiation in professional or personal situations and I have already used a few of the bullets in my own life! I found this book to be very relevant for anyone’s everyday life. Some parts are a little dry with certain references, and it definitely was a more academic read, but I will be using notes from this book in many situations to come!

This is one of the well recognised Western books about Negotiation, it was written jointly by Roger Fisher & William Ury, and published for the first time in 1981 under the title of "Getting to yes". There were various revisions and following published versions of the book, including the one I read (2012 edition) that includes an additional section, consisting of 10 questions and its answers.

The Authors through this book were trying to establish a new negotiation approach and methodology as an alternative to the traditional bargaining and comprising "the trenches warfare", they refer to it as the "Principled Negotiation", that aims to "enlarge the pie", exploit differences and maximise the gained value for the two (or more parties) whom assumably are tackling this problem jointly by dealing with facts, adopting valid standards, entangled the personal aspect from the substance while maintaining a good relationship.

This approach is suppose -theoretically if applied- to lead to wise agreement, amicable completion and values not left on the table (efficent solution/agreement).

To emphasise on the validity and viability of their proposal the authors did refer to various real and hypothetical examples where (or if) principled negotiation was applied and where it was not (or if not) applied and the impact of the approach on the outcome (according to the authors interpretations), in addition they supported their negotiation methodology/model with wide illustrations of the principled negotiation's tools and techniques, and when/how to apply it.

Moreover, number of situational scenarios where included to confirm the effectiveness of the adopted logic/approach on real life situations.

The book, in my opinion, is useful to a certain extent, yet there are two problematic points which proofs that the methodology presented did not reflect on the authors. One of which when the authors refered to the examples of the Arabs and Isreali's struggle, despite the fact the Harvard - where both of the authors do work in - is a pro Israel (zionist) organisation, yet the authors were expected to apply thier logic of (fair standards, looking to facts, have an open mind ...etc), to their interpretation to the situation, nevertheless they were all adopting the Zionists narratives that had nothing to do with facts and all to do with misleading information. Moreover there depiction of the USSR/Stalin as the "pure evil" (in the last chapter) while refering to the Westren Countries led by USA, with all their colonial criminal history, Starting two full scale distructive wars WW1 and WW2 and dropping to nuclear atomic bombs on civilians, just to mention few, as the "force of good", is just ridiculous and delusional if not delebrate efforts to misleading and promoting lies as facts.

Secondly, when they were asked about the importance/obligation of "being fair" in the negotiation, the Authors answer did mention clearly that they are not promoting for ethics and moral values, their arguments was "being fair is good because it will leverage the fact that will will gain material/ Tangible benefits if you do. Which implied that if there were not physical nor Tangible (monetary) gains expected as return to being fair, then there is no need to be!

Overall, in my opinion, critical to like the idea/concept to the person to measure its and his/her credibility and authenticity and that I failed to sense in this book.

As I mentioned there are some useful information and tools in the book, it's worth reading.

Quotes:

"Like it or not, you are a negotiator." *introduced 1st page

"Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others. It is back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed (as well as some that may simply be different)." *introduced 1st page

"The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won't do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness." *introduced 2nd page

"Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties." Page 4

"A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account." Page 4

"As illustrated in these examples, the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underly ing concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely." Page 6

"At the Harvard Negotiation Project we have been developing an alternative to positional bargaining: a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. This method, called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits, can be boiled down to four basic points.
-People: Separate the people from the problem.
-Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.
-Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.
-Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard." Page 11

"The four propositions of principled negotiation are relevant from the time you begin to think about negotiating until the time either an agreement is reached or you decide to break off the effort. That period can be divided into three stages: analysis, planning, and discussion." Page 14

"Positional bargaining deals with a negotiator's interests both in substance and in a good relationship by trading one off against the other." Page 23

"Base the relationship on mutually understood perceptions, clear two-way communication, expressing emotions without blame, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook." Page 23

"To find your way through the jungle of people problems, it is useful to think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication. The various people problems all fall into one of these three baskets." Page 24

"Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people's heads. Truth is simply one more argument - perhaps a good one, perhaps not - for dealing with the difference. The difference itself exists because it exists in their thinking." Page 24

"Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process." Page 29

"Apart from the substantive merits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the single most important factor in determining whether a negotiator accepts a proposal. In a sense, the process is the product." Page 30

"Face-saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators. Its importance should not be underestimated." Page 31

"Pay attention to "core concerns." Many emotions in negotiation are driven by a core set of five interests: autonomy, the desire to make your own choices and control your own fate; appreciation, the desire to be recognized and valued; affiliation, the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer group; role, the desire to have a meaningful purpose; and status, the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged. Trampling on these interests tends to generate strong negative emotions. Attending to them can build rapport and a positive climate for problem-solving negotiation." Page 32

"Negotiation is a process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision." Page 35

"Face the problem, not the people." Page 40

"Intrests define the problem." Page 42

"Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide." Page 43

"Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones." Page 44

"If you ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will typically identify a cause, not a purpose." Page 54

"Think in terms of more than one option that meets your interests. "Illustrative specificity" is the key concept." Page 55

" Be hard on the problem, soft on the people." Page 55

"Psychologically, it is; the inconsistency helps make it work. A well-known theory of psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance, holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it. By attacking a problem, such as speeding trucks on a neighborhood street, and at the same time giving the company representative, Mr. Jenkins, positive support, you create cognitive dissonance for him." Page 56

"In most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options: (1) premature judgment; (2) searching for the single answer; (3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and (4) thinking that "solving their problem is their problem."." Page 59

"Judgment hinders imagination." Page 60

"People see their job as narrowing the gap between positions, not broadening the options available." Page 60

"To invent creative options, then, you will need to (1) separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; (2) broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; (3) search for mutual gains; and (4) invent ways of making their decisions easy." Page 62

"Time spent brainstorming together is surely among the best-spent time in negotiation." Page 67

"One good option on the table thus opens the door to asking about the theory that makes this option good and then using that theory to invent more options." Page 70 *Circle Chart - inventing options.

"Agreement is often based on disagreement."
Page 75

"Many creative agreements reflect this principle of reaching agreement through differences. Differences in interests and belief make it possible for an item to be of high benefit to you, yet low cost to the other side." Page 75

"The kinds of differences that best lend themselves to dovetailing are differences in interests, in beliefs, in the value placed on time, in forecasts, and in aversion to risk." Page 75

"If dovetailing had to be summed up in one sentence, it would be: Look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa." Page 77

"One effective way to develop solutions easy for the other side to accept is to shape them so that they will appear legitimate. The other side is more likely to accept a solution if it seems the right thing to do - right in terms of being fair, legal, honorable, and so forth." Page 80

"Concentrate both on making them aware of the consequences they can expect if they do decide as you wish and on improving those consequences from their point of view." Page 80

"A final test of an option is to write it out in the form of a "yesable proposition"." Page 81

"In a complex situation, creative inventing is an absolute necessity. In any negotiation it may open doors and produce a range of potential agreements satisfactory to each side. Therefore, generate many options before selecting among them. Invent first; decide later. Look for shared interests and differing interests to dovetail. And seek to make their decision easy." Page 81

"the approach is to commit yourself to reaching a solution based on principle, not pressure. Concentrate on the merits of the problem, not the mettle of the parties. Be open to reason, but closed to threats." Page 84

"Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently. The more you bring standards of fairness, efficiency, or scientific merit to bear on your particular problem, the more likely you are to produce a final package that is wise and fair." Page 84

"A constant battle for dominance threatens a relationship; principled negotiation protects it." Page 84

"objective criteria should be not only independent of will but also both legitimate and practical" page 86

"Fair procedures. To produce an outcome independent of will, you can use either fair standards for the substantive question or fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests." Page 87

"There are three basic points to remember:
1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.
2. Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied.
3. Never yield to pressure, only to principle." Page 89 *Negotiating with objective criteria

"you can usually shift the process from positional bargaining to a search for objective criteria. In this sense principled negotiation is a dominant strategy over positional bargaining." Page 92

"In response to power, the most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives: first, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible." Page 99

"By definition, a bottom line is a position that is not to be changed." Page 100

"while adopting a bottom line may protect you from accepting a very bad agreement, it may keep you both from inventing and from agreeing to a solution it would be wise to accept." Pagev101

"The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating " Page 102

"If you have not thought carefully about what you will do if you fail to reach an agreement, you are negotiating with your eyes closed." Page 102

"Whether you should or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative." Page 103

"The better your BATNA, the greater your power." Page 104

"In fact, the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement." Page 104

"Generating possible BATNAS requires three distinct operations: (1) inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached; (2) improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives; and (3) selecting, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best." Page 105

"It is easier to break off negotiations if you know where you're going. The greater your willingness to break off negotiations, the more forcefully you can present your interests and the basis on which you believe an agreement should be reached." Page 106

"if their BATNA is so good they don't see any need to negotiate on the merits, consider what you can do to change it." Page 107

"To the extent that they have muscle and you have principle, the larger a role you can establish for principle the better off you are." Page 107

"In effect, you can change the game simply by starting to play a new one." Page 109

"You can resort to a second strategy that focuses on what they may do. It counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. This strategy we call negotiation jujitsu." Page 109

"Do not push back. When they assert their positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don't defend them. When they attack you, don't counterattack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Instead of pushing back, sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem." Page 110 *Negotiation Jujitsu

"Ask questions and pause. Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use two key tools. The first is to use questions instead of statements. Statements generate resistance, whereas questions generate answers. Questions allow the other side to get their points across and let you understand them. They pose challenges and can be used to lead the other side to confront the problem. Questions offer them no target to strike at, no position to attack. Questions do not criticize, they educate." Page 113

"Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word." Page 114

"If you cannot change the process to one of seeking a solution on the merits, perhaps a third party can. More easily than one of those directly involved, a mediator can separate the people from the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. Further, he or she can often suggest some impartial basis for resolving differences. A third party can also separate inventing from decision-making, reduce the number of decisions required to reach agreement, and help the parties know what they will get when they do decide. One process designed to enable a third party to do all this is known as the one-text procedure." Page 115

"The one-text procedure not only shifts the game way from positional bargaining, it greatly simplifies the process both of inventing options and of deciding jointly on one." Page 117

"Multiple parties need some way to simplify the process of decision-making without diminishing the quality of the outcome. The one-text procedure serves that purpose." Page 118

"Making yourself open to correction and persuasion is a pillar in the strategy of principled negotiation. You can convince the other side to be open to the principles and objective standards you suggest only if you show yourself open to the ones they suggest." Page 120 *"Please correct me if I am wrong."

"We appreciate what you've done for us." Page 121

"Our concern is fairness" Page 121

"Earlier we argued that an effective counter to a one-sided substantive proposal is to examine the legitimacy of the principle that the proposal reflects. Tricky bargaining tactics are in effect one-sided proposals about negotiating procedure, about the negotiating game that the parties are going to play. To counter them, you will want to engage in principled negotiation about the negotiating process." Page 132

"There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game where the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic: recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability-negotiate over it." Page 132

"The most important purpose of bringing the tactic up explicitly, however, is to give you an opportunity to negotiate about the rules of the game." Page 133

"It will be easier to reform the negotiating process than to reform those with whom you are dealing." Page 133

"Tricky tactics can be divided into three categories: deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure tactics." Page 134

"Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation." Page 142 *Lock-in tactics

"It is easier to defend principle than an illegitimate tactic. Don't be a victim." Page 145

"This book is about how to "win" that important game - how to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences." Page 150

"From time to time you may want to remind yourself that the first thing you are try- ing to win is a better way to negotiate-a way that avoids your having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what you deserve and of being decent. You can have both." Page 150

(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)

С книгами по переговорам мне всегда было трудно, т.к. с одной стороны, мы постоянно участвуем в переговорах (в магазине, на работе и пр.), но с другой, когда авторы приводят истории связанные с переговорами с террористами или международные какие-нибудь переговоры (да даже переговоры, связанные с большим контрактом), всё это кажется тебе чем-то таким далёким, что зачастую приходится заставлять себя продолжать читать книгу. Т.е. мне трудно оценить ценность книги, т.к. тема профессиональных переговоров (т.е. переговоры как ежедневная работа), это совершенно не моя область. Я не могу ни подтвердить слова автора, ни опровергнуть их.
Книгу я читал дважды и в обоих случаях у меня возникали одни и те же ощущения от прочитанного.
Во-первых, я не знаю какую оценку поставить, т.к. первая половина книги была интересная, а вот на второй половине я спал. Это, учитывая, что сама по себе книга не очень большая.
Во-вторых, как и в первый раз, мне понравилась (да и запомнилась) только одна тема. Авторы пишет, что важно докопаться до основных причин, из-за которых идёт спор. Авторы приводят ситуацию в библиотеке, когда один посетитель хочет, чтобы окно было закрыто, т.к. сквозняк, а второй посетитель хочет, чтобы окно было открыто, т.к. ему душно. По существу, не разрешимая ситуация. Но, пишут авторы, нужно задаться вопросом, «А почему один против, а другой - за?». И тогда можно прийти к вышеназванным ответам. Решением же может быть открытие окна в другой комнате, а в этой достаточно будет открыть дверь. В итоге мы получим, что и не душно и ни на кого не дует. Ещё один пример, авторы приводят, когда описывают неразрешимый с виду конфликт Израиля и Египта, когда Израилю важна была гарантия, что никаких военных не будет у его границы (с помощью буфера), а Египту было важно не потерять земли, которыми он владел ещё со времён Фараона. Неразрешимый с виду конфликт, был разрешён запретом присутствия каких-либо войск в зоне этого самого буфера, т.е. вблизи израильских границ. За что Израиль возвращал захваченные земли. Вот этот совет, единственное, что в книге я нашёл ценное и единственное, что я помнил на протяжении многих лет с тех пор как прочёл книгу. Всё остальное было либо само собой разумеющееся, либо просто скучное (лично для меня), а, следовательно, быстро выветривающееся из памяти. Но, возможно, это только по тому, что сам я никакого отношения к переговорам не имею. В любом случаи, дальше авторы пишут о такой довольно распространённой идеи как мозговой шторм, что присутствует в каждой книге по менеджменту. Плюс, такой совет как, поставить людей за скобками и рассматривать только ситуацию.
В общем, эта книга является сборником советов по переговорам, а не каким-то академическим учебником 800 страниц по переговорам со всеми теориями, кейсами и пр. Наверно, для тех, кто занимается переговорами профессионально, книгу стоит прочитать, а вот что касается остальных, то тут у меня есть сомнения, т.к. зачастую все переговоры простых людей протекают и заканчиваются совсем не так как говориться в книге. И что самое главное, мы порой забываем «включить» тот или иной способ ведения переговоров, т.е. воспользоваться советами. Тут, скорее, в ход идут эмоции и/или попытка их сдержать и мыслить трезво. На выбор тактик часто времени и внимания не остаётся.

It has always been difficult for me to read books on negotiations because, on the one hand, we are constantly participating in negotiations (in a shop, at work, etc.), but on the other hand, when authors give stories related to negotiations with terrorists or international negotiations, all this seems so far away to me that I often have to force myself to continue reading a book. I mean, it's hard for me to appreciate the value of the book because the subject of professional negotiations (i.e. negotiations as a daily job) is not my field at all. I can neither confirm the author's words nor refute them.
I have read the book twice and in both cases felt the same way about the book.
First, I don't know what rating to give to the book, because the first half of the book was interesting, but the second half was incredibly boring.
Secondly, like the first time, I liked (and remember) only one topic. The authors write that it is important to find out the main reasons for the dispute. The authors cite the situation in the library where one visitor wants the window to be closed because it's too windy, while the second visitor wants the window to be open because the room is stuffy. It's not a solvable situation. But, the authors write, we have to ask ourselves the question, "Why is one against and the other for?" The solution could be to open a window in another room, but in this room, it would be enough to open the door. In the end, we get what's not stuffy and doesn't blow on anyone. Another example, the authors cite when describing the seemingly insoluble conflict between Israel and Egypt, when it was important for Israel to be assured that there would be no military at its frontier (using a buffer), and for Egypt not to lose the land which it had possessed since Pharaoh's time. The seemingly insurmountable conflict was resolved by banning any troops from being present in the area of the buffer, i.e. near the Israeli borders. For which Israel was returning the land it had seized. This advice, the only thing I found valuable and the only thing I have remembered for years since I read the book. Everything else was either a matter of course, or simply boring (for me), and therefore rapidly eroding from my memory. But perhaps this is only because I have nothing to do with negotiations. In any case, the authors further write about such a rather common idea as brainstorming, which is present in every book on management. Plus, some advice like, leave people behind the brackets and consider only the situation.
In general, this book is a collection of negotiation tips, not an academic textbook of 800 pages on negotiation with all the theories, cases, and so on. Probably, for those who are engaged in negotiations professionally, the book is worth reading, but as for the others, I have my doubts, because often all negotiations of ordinary people go on and end quite differently from what is said in the book. And most importantly, we sometimes forget to "turn on" one or another way of negotiating, i.e., use the advice. Here, rather, emotions and/or an attempt to contain them and think soberly go into play. There is often no time or attention left for tactics to be chosen.

The books okay I guess but a lot of the strategies are so intuitive and the writing wasn't the greatest. Again it's the same thing with all these business books where if you've read one the rest usually don't add anything new but if you haven't read any it could be insightful. These books are usually just useful for helping organize ones thoughts and realize things they couldn't other wise but you can achieve that with some quite thinking time also.

Excellent. Truly excellent. If the bombardment of post-it notes sticking out of the sides of my book wasn't enough, my pages of notes, and my already in-practice skillset indicate how applicable, insightful, and understandable Fisher has made these negotiation concepts. Everything from the ideal way of reaching agreement, to back up plans if a negotiation goes south, to dirty strategies to look out for with aggressive negotiators. And what I thought would be a convoluted book about some unnecessary social tactic turned into a book I'm already re-reading.

The thing about Getting to Yes is it's not a "trick" or tactic. It's honestly just training on how to look at a negotiation objectively (removing your subjective "stick in the mud" perspective) and strive toward reaching a newfound agreement that both people benefit equally from (in contradiction to "compromise," which inherently requires each party to sacrifice in order to reach agreement).

And YES, this stuff applies to everyone, not just the hostage negotiator or the multi-million dollar trade agreements. We deal with negotiations far more often than we may think. I, for one, have been very surprised. Even "Who cleans the bathroom today?" and "What should we have for dinner?" and "Who will be responsible for creating the sales chart?" are mini negotiations. I've already put this to use with family holidays, new marketing ideas, client requests, our rental tenants, discussions about raising our farm animals, and a lot with my husband. It's allowed me to sidestep what could be arguments, and simply turn them into level-headed results, which in turn directly improve relationships.

While Getting to Yes may appear to be a strictly work-related self-help book (that's what I thought when it was recommended to me), it actually is one I would really encourage anyone to pick up! This world needs muuuuch better communicators, and this is a fantastic, easy read about how you, too, can make a difference.

While this book is not without its critics, I love the idea of trying out principled negotiation in hopes of achieving an end-agreement that is not only satisfactory but also beneficial to both or all parties involved. I hope the method in this book works as well as the authors state, although they do seem to have a very optimistic view of humankind. In any case, a very nice read and hopefully a helpful toolbox for the future!