Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Analysis & Reflection Paper + PPT | Economics Write
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Do not start working on it please since I am not sure about the requirement yet.
In the attached files, “Getting to Yes” is the text book, “Analysis and Reflection Paper #3 Guidelines” is the requirements. Please also read the other files as examples and rubrics to have a better idea how to ace the assignment.
Please contact me before start writing.
Analysis and Reflection Paper #3 Negotiation Requirements

A Case Study in Negotiation. Using the text, Getting to Yes, you OR you and a partner will analyze a negotiation one of you have personally experienced in the last 12-18 months. You each will bring a real-life negotiation to your initial meeting and together you will decide which one to use. Together you will co-write your own Case Study Paper and corresponding PPT and submit both jointly. This assignment can be done individually or with a partner.

Include the following in your submission:

Step 1: TITLE: Create an engaging title for this Case Study.

Step 2: KEY QUESTION/ CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME: You will create a key question that this case study will attempt to answer. It may be a negotiation challenge to overcome, a specific aspect of this negotiation that needs further analysis. It may connect to the complexity of negotiation or how the keys to principled negotiation are the solution to becoming more successful at negotiation. Whatever your question is (and it can be 1-3 sentences), make sure that it gets answered by the end of your case study.

Step 3: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND: Briefly explain the details of this negotiation (who was involved, when, what the negotiation was about, what exactly was said or done in the negotiation). Provide important details that will help the reader fully understand the nature of the events surrounding the negotiation.

STEP 4: ANALYZE & PROVIDE SOULTIONS: Analyze the negotiation using the framework of the 4 keys of principled negotiation (as outlined in the textbook), discuss the following questions in your paper:
· how could you separate people from the problem?
· what are the keys interests v. positions for each party in this negotiation?
· what options for mutual gain are available?
· are there any objective criteria that could be used in this negotiation?
· what might a win-win-solution look like for all parties involved in this negotiation?

Step 5: CONCLUSION: Make sure your conclusion summarizes and answers the key question/ challenge to overcome that you posed at the beginning of this case study. Also include the key 1-2 things might you would recommend the reader do in future negotiations to achieve a win-win successful outcome.

Please see detailed guidelines & rubric posted in the Moodle for each of these assignments.

IIRP Tips on Writing Reflection Papers

A reflection paper is not a summary of the course readings or a stream of
conscious mind dump on paper.

Main themes
Readings

Integrate

Effects on:
Thinking
Practice

Classroom
Experience

1. As the diagram suggests, a reflection paper is your identification of the main
themes of the readings integrated with your classroom experience and how both
affect your thinking and practice.

2. A reflection paper is your chance to add your thoughts and analysis to what
you have read and experienced.

3. A reflection paper is meant to illustrate your understanding of the material and
how it affects your ideas and possible practice in future.

4. Begin by jotting down some of the reading material and class experiences that
stand out in your mind. Decide why they stand out to you.

5. It may be helpful to use the restorative questions to generate some of your
thoughts and feelings about the course experience.

6. Using the first person singular (“I”), relate the readings and classes to your
previous knowledge and experience.

7. Consider if and how what you have read and learned changes your thinking
and might affect your practice in both personal and professional situations.

8. Review the readings and class notes to be sure you’ve included all the
relevant information you can and made all the connections you can.

9. Give your reflection paper structure with an opening paragraph, main body,
and conclusion.

10. It may be helpful to write the body of the paper first by using Steps 4-7, and
then decide what your opening paragraph should say. The opening paragraph
may be brief, only a sentence or two, but it should offer some overall statement
of your perspective based on what you’ve learned (e.g., Before I read the articles
for YC/ED 501, I had never considered that I was an authoritative supervisor, that
is, someone who gives my staff firm direction but little support.). Then you could
go on to describe which readings or class experiences affected your thinking and
why. You could disagree with some of the readings or ideas. The conclusion of

IIRP/4/6/10MM/BR/SO

your reflection may also be brief (e.g., I realize that I must learn how to be more
supportive to get the best from my staff.). Or it could be uncertain (e.g., I don’t
agree with everything I learned but I am going to consider using some of the
practices in future to see if they change my office environment.).

11. Include in-text references and a reference page for any materials you cite
using APA citation formatting.

Running head: CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 1

Crucial Accountability Analysis & Reflection Paper

STUDENT NAME

LDRS 400 Managing Conflict

Professor Brenda-Lee Sasaki

Trinity Western University

DATE

CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 2

Crucial Accountability Analysis & Reflection Paper

“It may seem obvious, but accountability is probably the single most important element

fueling truly successful organization” (Gleeson, 2016). As the leadership speaker said in his

Forbes article, he indicates that how important the accountability would be in leadership. I think

this might be the reason why accountability becomes one of the significant contents in leadership

class. At the beginning of this unit, I thought that accountability might be a complex thing, then

after the past few weeks’ studying, I confirmed my thought. As I learned from this course,

accountability could be defined as “holding another person accountable or responsible, face to

face, for broken promises, violated expectations or bad behavior because there is a gap between

what is expected and what the person is doing” (Sasaki, 2019). As my understanding, it has lots

of similar traits with conflict, and they are also connecting with each other. In another word,

accountability problem could lead to raise a conflict and some kinds of conflicts’ sources are

from the accountability problems. Both of them happen in everyone’s life, either privately or at

work place. The difference might be that accountability problem might not happen frequently

compare with the conflict, but if people could not handle it well, the consequence is more serious

than the one conflict caused in general. Learning how to deal with the accountability problem

would help people avoid the serious consequence and be close to the success at workplace.

Combining the textbook contents and the materials which learned from class, I started to know

how to deal with the crucial accountability problem, and I also realized that it really need time to

become proficiency on handle this kind of problems.

The textbook divides the problem-solving process into three part: “work on me first”,

“create safety” and “move to action” (Patterson, 2013, p.11). And Professor Sasaki uses another

way to summarize the model as “before the accountability crucial conversation”, “during the

accountability crucial conversation” and “after the accountability crucial conversation” (2019)

CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 3

which is clearer and more direct to understand. After taking the self-assessment from the

textbook, I found out my top two areas out of the seven which have the most “yes” responses are

“choose what and if” and “master my stories” where half of the total “yes” came from. The

interesting thing is that both areas belong to the same section which is “work on me first”. In

other words, it means that I am struggling with those two areas and need to pay more attention

on them when face the crucial accountability problem.

The first area is “choose what and if”, at the beginning, I thought there might be

something wrong with the result, but when I saw the example from the textbook about the desk

clerk always being late for work, I tried to put myself into the situation of the owner, and I used

almost the same response that the owner did to tell her I don’t like my employee to be late for

work (Patterson, 2013, p.34). But the result showed that she did not change a lot and after a few

days she came late again, this situation was not what the owner wanted to see, what the owner

really wants to see is she could keep her commitment and come to work on time every day. From

this example, I find that I too could not discover the real problem to deal with. If I want to her to

keep her commitments, I need to discover the real problem. The textbook does not give any

information about the real problem in this case, but as my understanding, I think the right thing I

could do is paying more care towards her, asking if she has anything wrong in her life which

may lead her to be late for work, etc. This might make her feel more open towards the owner and

that in showing respect for her, even she is late for work, she may be more willing to take the

time and explain what is really going on.

Therefore, discovering the real problem in the first step. The next step is about thinking

rational manner to express before speaking it out. And this is also the second part I struggle with.

This part reminds of a famous Chinese saying, “think carefully before you act”, which some

people also translate it in English as “look before you leap”. The meaning is straightforward, it

CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 4

reminds people to think carefully and completely before speaking and acting. The textbook says

that “anyone who has ever held others accountable realizes that a person’s behavior during the

first few seconds of the interaction sets the tone for everything that follows” (Patterson, 2013,

p.52). I agree. I can see how important the first few seconds are for a conversation, it influences a

lot for the person’s judgment. Most of the time, our emotions play a determining factor which

dominates the attitude for having the solution.

The textbook also presents the path people almost always use, “we see what that person

did and then tell ourselves a story about why he or she did it, which leads to a feeling, which

leads to our own actions” (Patterson, 2013, p.54). In this chapter, the textbook is focusing on the

idea of “story”. People sometimes tell “ugly stories” for many reasons, such as a bad emotion,

they are biased, have been hurt before or they are reacting out of fear. These “ugly stories” can

often lead to silence or violence, both of them are not a positive outcome. Silence would make

the problem hide and never get solved, violence would not solve the problem and it might make

the problem become worse. The right attitude is essential for holding others accountability. If

one person discusses the accountability problem in a rude mood, his or her impolite attitude

shows no respect for others, so why would the other person want to return such harsh behavior or

listen to them? To motivate people to keep their accountability comitments, “don’t rely on

power, perks or charisma to motivate – they won’t work” (Sasaki, 2019).

Daniel Pink, author of books on business and behavior, speaks about extrinsic and

intrinsic motivators, all those outside powers could be seen as extrinsic which do not motivate

people (Pink, 2009). He suggests that the best way to motivate people is from inside, letting them

feel that they really want to do it. For those reasons, I think the right way is being respect, open

and honesty to others, it would build a safety environment which could make others feel relax

and they are more willing to keep accountability and the problem might be solved at this point.

CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 5

Previously in this course we studied and took the Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI)

assessment. My results showed that I am a GREEN MVS (Autonomizing-Analytical) person

with B-G-R conflict sequence. To be a GREEN person means I am autonomous person who is

good at analyzing things, and I like to consider concern a lot before taking action (Scudder,

2011). But it seems like a little inconsistent with the self-assessment that I mentioned above.

This assessment’s result shows that I need to do some improvement on “before the accountability

crucial conversation”. I think this differential might be caused by my B-G-R conflict sequence, if

there is an accountability problem coming to me, the first thing I would do is thinking about the

person who causes the accountability problem, he might face something he could not avoid

which lead him to cause the problem. Therefore, most of the time, I would keep silent or just

mention it lightly without any personal emotion. Even though I know that might not be a good

way to hold others accountability. But a typical GREEN MVS person should be good at keeping

others accountable, because of their cautious attitudes for doing anything and their clear logic.

Beside MVS, I also think my personality would influence me a lot on my behavior for holding

others accountable. As my personality tells me that I need to show my respect and trust for

others, if not, I do not have qualification to suppose others to hold the accountability. What I

wish is that they could feel my honesty because I pay attention to the relationship with them. If

they have the same thinking as mine, they would correct their mistakes which could cause the

accountability problem. But it also has another affect in which they might not correct the

mistakes and keep making the problem, in my sight, I would consider that they are not showing

any respect for me, and I would not show any respect for them which I think they are not

deserving my respect.

From my analysis and reflection of my crucial accountability struggle areas and MVS, I

think I have increased my understanding of how I could improve my skills to deal with

CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 6

accountability problem in my life. First thing I would improve would be my attitude, as I

mentioned before, my B-G-R conflict sequence impels me to the silence responding when I face

the accountability problem. This kind of response always hides the problem and sometimes it

might indulge the person on his or her bad behaviors. I need to be more open to say what I really

want to say and come up with the real problem need to deal with to discuss with them.

The second thing I would pay more attention is my emotion, even I did not talk about

anything about my emotion and I can control my emotion in most of the time. No man is perfect,

and sometimes I also put my anger on others when I face the accountability problems. I know

that the emotion would not help in deal with accountability problems, so I need to control my

emotion better when I am dealing with accountability problems.

The last thing I find that I might improve is keeping myself accountability to others

which I do not want to let others down because of my mistakes on accountability problems, I

think I could do better.

In conclusion, learning the theory and skills of how to deal with crucial accountability

problems has significant benefit for all types of people because many of us, especially leadership

students, face this problem regularly. In the future, leaders will face these kinds of situations

regularly. And if people want to be better leaders, accountability problem solving skills are

necessary skills to master. It would take time to become an “expert” on solving the

accountability problems but on the road to success, while there might be some setbacks, do not

give up, believe in ourselves that we can master these skills and behaviors well.

CRUCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ANAYLSIS & REFLECTION PAPER 7

References

Gleeson, B. (Dec 8, 2016). Why Accountability Is Critical For Achieving Winning Results.

Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2016/12/08/why-

accountability-is-critical-for-achieving-winning-results/#2c639ee845e1

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., MaxField, D., McMillon, R., & Switzler, A. (2013). Crucial

accountability. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation. TED. Retrieved from

Sasaki, B. (2019). Week#5 Lecture #5 Slide 3 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

https://learn.twu.ca/course/view.php?id=6924&section=6

Sasaki, B. (2019). Week #5 Lecture #5 Slide 6 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

https://learn.twu.ca/course/view.php?id=6924&section=6

Sasaki, B. (2019). Week #6 Lecture #6 Slide 17 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

https://learn.twu.ca/course/view.php?id=6924&section=7

Scudder, T., Patterson, M., & Mitchell, K. (2011). Have a nice conflict: How to find success and

satisfaction in the most unlikely places. John Wiley & Sons.

PROFESSOR CAVANAUGH
SPRING 2021

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

1

LDRS 400 IN & N2
Interpersonal Leadership: Managing Conflict

Three (3) Analysis & Reflection Papers
15+15+20 = 50% of Final Grade

Each student will be writing three (3) 7-8 page analysis and reflection papers based on each
of the three (3) frameworks we will be studying throughout the course and applied to three
(3) personal conflicts individually experienced by the student in the last 12 -18 months. Each
of the frameworks provide theoretical and practical tools to manage oneself when faced
with challenging conflicts, both personally and professionally.

Each paper will adhere to APA 6th edition style including 12pt font, Times New Roman,
double-spaced, 1-inch margins, page numbers.

Each paper will include a title page (1 page), a reference page (1 page) and 4-6 pages of
analysis and reflection = 7-8 page paper. APA formatted sub-headings in a paper are an
excellent way to organize your ideas and let the reader know where your ideas are moving
next (HINT!)

Each paper will have 6-8 in-text citations:

• a minimum of 3 from the original textbook, and
• a minimum of 3 from other course material or approved academic resources.

o Outside academic sources may be used to support your work, however blogs,
social media outlets, Wikipedia, Buzzfeed, Dictionaries, etc. are NOT
acceptable sources for these 6-8 references (so you can use other quotes,
blogs, etc. but they do not count towards this requirement).

Each paper will reflect an actual conflict, accountability conversation and negotiation
that each student has personally experienced in their own life, preferably in the last 12-
18 months. If you are having a challenge with this, please talk to the professor well in
advance of the deadlines to discuss your options. Please note, Assignment #2 has a
required appendix and Assignment #3 has the option of two students working together to
create a combined submission (case study paper + PPT)

Plagiarism, ghost-writing and sloppy APA adherence are simply unacceptable for a 4th year
University course. If you are struggling with your assignments or do not understand the
requirements, it is your responsibility to get clarity and assistance before the assignment is
due.

PROFESSOR CAVANAUGH
SPRING 2021

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

2

ANALYSIS & REFLECTION PAPER #1: Conflict
DUE: Sunday, February 7th, 2021 by 11:55pm

Using the text, Have a Nice Conflict (2012), analyze a personal conflict you have
experienced in the last 12-18 months. Include the following in your analysis:

1. Step 1: EXPLAIN: Briefly EXPLAIN the conflict (who was involved, when, what the
issue was, what exactly was said or done to create the conflict.

2. Step 2: ANALYZE & EVALUATE: ANALYZE the conflict using the core principles of
anticipate, prevent, identify, manage and resolve (as outlined in the textbook).
Including the following observations as you think about and analyze the conflict:

3. SDI & Motivational Values
Ø Discuss your MVS, how does your unique colour show up in this conflict?

Where do your strengths or weaknesses show up in the conflict?
Ø What about the other person/party – what might their motivational value

system be? Please give an example.
Ø What do you think were the intentions of the other person/party? Why does

this matter? What were your primary motivations or intentions in this
conflict? Please give an example. What motivational value systems were you
operating with?

Ø Was the conflict resolved?
If YES—explain the resolution and evaluate the result
If NO—discuss what you could do to resolve it or even if it can be
resolved. Provide examples to support your ideas.

4. Step 3: RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on what you have learned in the book, online
lectures, activities and your own SDI Assessments, answer the following in your
recommendations:

• What can you do now to resolve this conflict (if it is has not already
been resolved)

• What key 1-2 things might you do differently in future conflicts?

ANALYSIS & REFLECTION PAPER #2: Crucial Accountability
DUE: Sunday, March 7th, 2021 by 11:55pm

Using the text, Crucial Accountability, you will be making some key discoveries about areas
that you both succeed and struggle with in keeping yourself and others accountable:

1. Step 1: READ THE TEXT & TAKE THE ASSESSMENT: After reading the textbook, take
the self-assessment test (Appendix A, pp. 247-251) and review your results. The
survey is divided in the seven chapters of the book that cover the crucial
accountability skills (five questions each). You will need to read each chapter in order
to understand your results and the process of holding healthy accountability
conversations.

PROFESSOR CAVANAUGH
SPRING 2021

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

3

2. Step 2: ANALYZE & EVALUATE: Choose TWO of the seven areas where you scored the
most “yes” answers and observe, analyze and reflect on those specific areas.
• What does this score mean to your ability to hold yourself or others accountable?
• Does it accurately reflect some areas of weakness in your accountability?
• Consider how your MVS shows up in the area of accountability. Include any

insights you may have about SDI results and your Crucial Accountability Survey
results. Discuss and explain your answer with examples.

• For each of these 2 accountability areas you wrote about, make 2
recommendations how you can improve your accountability to yourself and
others as you navigate bad behavior and broken promises in your
work/home/school/ life relationships. For example, if you are evaluating,
“Describing the Gap”, what two recommendations can you make for yourself in
this specific area to improve your ability to describe the gap when holding an
accountability conversation. Do this for both of the sections you are analyzing.

3. Step 3: RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on what you learned from the textbook, online
lectures and activities, answer this question: Why do you think accountability is an
important leadership skill – personally and organizationally? Provide support,
citations and an example or two to support your thinking from all course material to
date and other outside sources as applicable.

ANALYSIS & REFLECTION PAPER #3: Negotiation
DUE: Sunday, April 4, 2021 by 11:55pm

3. A Case Study in Negotiation. Using the text, Getting to Yes, you OR you and a partner
will analyze a negotiation one of you have personally experienced in the last 12-18
months. You each will bring a real-life negotiation to your initial meeting and together
you will decide which one to use. Together you will co-write your own Case Study
Paper and corresponding PPT and submit both jointly. This assignment can be done
individually or with a partner.

Include the following in your submission:

Step 1: TITLE: Create an engaging title for this Case Study.

Step 2: KEY QUESTION/ CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME: You will create a key question
that this case study will attempt to answer. It may be a negotiation challenge to
overcome, a specific aspect of this negotiation that needs further analysis. It may
connect to the complexity of negotiation or how the keys to principled negotiation
are the solution to becoming more successful at negotiation. Whatever your question
is (and it can be 1-3 sentences), make sure that it gets answered by the end of your
case study.

Step 3: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND: Briefly explain the details of this
negotiation (who was involved, when, what the negotiation was about, what exactly
was said or done in the negotiation). Provide important details that will help the
reader fully understand the nature of the events surrounding the negotiation.

PROFESSOR CAVANAUGH
SPRING 2021

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

4

STEP 4: ANALYZE & PROVIDE SOULTIONS: Analyze the negotiation using the
framework of the 4 keys of principled negotiation (as outlined in the textbook),
discuss the following questions in your paper:

o how could you separate people from the problem?
o what are the keys interests v. positions for each party in this negotiation?
o what options for mutual gain are available?
o are there any objective criteria that could be used in this negotiation?
o what might a win-win-solution look like for all parties involved in this

negotiation?

Step 5: CONCLUSION: Make sure your conclusion summarizes and answers the key
question/ challenge to overcome that you posed at the beginning of this case study.
Also include the key 1-2 things might you would recommend the reader do in future
negotiations to achieve a win-win successful outcome.

GRADING RUBRIC FOR EACH PAPER 15+15+20 = 50% of final grade

Grading Rubric for Critical Thinking, Reflection & Application (10pts):

Emerging (0-3 pts) Developing (4-8pts) Mastering (9-10pts)
Student responds to question(s)
with a basic understanding of the
question(s), little to no critical
thinking, little to any application
of ideas, little to any use of
supporting evidence.

Student demonstrates some
understanding of the questions(s),
some critical thinking, application
of basic ideas, and use of evidence
(citations and/ or personal
examples).

Student demonstrates exemplary
understanding of the question (s)
advanced use of critical thinking,
application of ideas and use of
evidence (citations and/ or
personal examples, examples
from the movie and from course
material to date).

Grading Rubric for Composition and Style (3 pts):

Emerging (0-1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Mastering (3 pts)
Sequence of ideas is difficult to
follow, no clear point, poor word
choice, no or poorly used source
text (doesn’t use “they say/ I say”
pattern)

Logical sequence of ideas that is
fairly easy to follow; clear points’
fairly good word choice; fairly well
used source text (makes some use
of the “they say/ I say” pattern).

Exemplary organization of ideas
that is very easy to follow; strong
points, well-chosen words, very
thoughtful use of the source text
(uses they say/ I say” pattern).

Grading Rubric for Grammar and APA Details (2 pts):

Emerging (0 pts) Developing (1 pt) Mastering (2 pts)
Language or APA flaws in three or
more areas.

Language or APA flaws in no more
than two areas.

No significant or notable language
or APA flaws.

PRAISE FOR
Getting to
YES

“Getting to YES has an unrivaled place in the literature of dispute resolution. No other book in the field comes close to its impact on
the way practitioners, teachers, researchers, and the public approach negotiation.”

— NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUM

“Getting to YES is a highly readable and practical primer on the fundamentals of negotiation. All of us, as negotiators dealing with
personal, community, and business problems, need to improve our skills in conflict resolution and agreement making. This concise
volume is the best place to begin.”

—JOHN T. DUNLOP

“This splendid book will help turn adversarial battling into hardheaded problem solving.”
—AVERELL HARRIMAN

“Getting to YES is a highly readable, uncomplicated guide to resolving conflicts of every imaginable dimension. It teaches you how to
win without compromising friendships. I wish I had written it!”

—ANN LANDERS

“Getting to YES is powerful, incisive, persuasive. Not a bag of tricks but an overall approach. Perhaps the most useful book you will
ever read!”

—ELLIOT RICHARDSON

“Simple but powerful ideas that have already made a contribution at the international level are here made available to all. Excellent
advice on how to approach a negotiating problem.”

—CYRUS VANCE

PENGUIN BOOKS

Getting to

YES
The authors of this book have been working together since 1977.

ROGER FISHER is Williston Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School, Founder and Director Emeritus of the Harvard Negotiation
Project, and the Founding Chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Raised in Illinois, he served in World War II with the
U.S. Army Air Force, in Paris with the Marshall Plan, and in Washington, D.C., with the Department of Justice. He has also practiced law in
Washington and served as a consultant to the Department of Defense. He was the originator and executive editor of the award-winning
television series The Advocates. He has consulted widely with governments, corporations, and individuals. He is the author or coauthor of
numerous prize-winning scholarly and popular books, including his most recent: Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate.

WILLIAM URY is cofounder of Harvard’s Program on Negotiation and Distinguished Fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project. Raised in
California and Switzerland, he is a graduate of Yale and Harvard, with a doctorate in social anthropology. Ury has served as a mediator and
advisor in negotiations ranging from wildcat strikes to ethnic wars around the world. He was a consultant to the White House on establishing
nuclear risk reduction centers in Washington and Moscow. His most recent project is Abraham’s Path, a route of cross-cultural travel in the
Middle East that retraces the footsteps of Abraham, the progenitor of many cultures and faiths. Ury’s most recent book is The Power of a
Positive No: Save the Deal, Save the Relationship, and Still Say No.

BRUCE PATTON is Cofounder and Distinguished Fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project, cofounder of the Program on Negotiation at
Harvard Law School, and a founder and partner of Vantage Partners, LLC, a consulting firm that helps Global 2000 companies negotiate and
manage their most critical relationships. As a mediator, he helped structure the settlement of the U.S.–Iranian hostage conflict, worked with
Nobel Peace Prize winner Óscar Arias to ensure the success of the Arias Peace Plan for Central America, and worked with all parties in
South Africa helping to create the constitutional process that ended apartheid. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, he is
also coauthor of the New York Times bestseller Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most.

BOOKS BY ROGER FISHER

Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate
(with Dan Shapiro, 2005)

Lateral Leadership: Getting Things Done When You’re NOT the Boss
(with Alan Sharp, 1998)

Coping with International Conflict: A Systematic Approach to Influence in International Negotiation (with Andrea Kupfer Schneider,
Elizabeth Borgwardt, and Brian Ganson, 1996)

Beyond Machiavelli
(with Elizabeth Kopelman and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, 1994)

Getting Together: Building Relationships As We Negotiate
(with Scott Brown, 1988)

Improving Compliance with International Law (1981)

International Mediation: A Working Guide; Ideas for the Practitioner
(with William Ury, 1978)

International Crises and the Role of Law: Points of Choice (1978)

Dear Israelis, Dear Arabs: A Working Approach to Peace (1972)

International Conflict for Beginners (1969)

International Conflict and Behavioral Science: The Craigville Papers
(editor and coauthor, 1964)

BOOKS BY WILLIAM URY

The Power of a Positive No:
Save the Deal, Save the Relationship, and Still Say No (2007)

Must We Fight? (editor and coauthor, 2001)

The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop (2000)

Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations (1991, revised edition 1993)

Windows of Opportunity: From Cold War to Peaceful Competition in U.S.–Soviet Relations
(edited with Graham T. Allison and Bruce J. Allyn, 1989)

Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict
(with Jeanne M. Brett and Stephen B. Goldberg, 1988)

Beyond the Hotline: How Crisis Control Can Prevent Nuclear War (1985)

BOOKS BY BRUCE PATTON

Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most
(with Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen, 1999, 2nd Edition 2010)

Getting to
YES

NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
WITHOUT GIVING IN

by ROGER FISHER

and WILLIAM URY

with BRUCE PATTON, EDITOR

• REVISED EDITIONS BY •
FISHER, URY, AND PATTON

PENGUIN BOOKS

PENGUIN BOOKS
Published by the Penguin Group

Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, U.S.A.
Penguin Group (Canada), 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M4P 2Y3 (a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.)

Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, England
Penguin Ireland, 25 St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Ireland (a division of Penguin Books Ltd)

Penguin Group (Australia), 250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell,
Victoria 3124, Australia (a division of Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd)

Penguin Books India Pvt Ltd, 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi – 110 017, India
Penguin Group (NZ), 67 Apollo Drive, Rosedale, Auckland 0632,

New Zealand (a division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd)
Penguin Books (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, 24 Sturdee Avenue,

Rosebank, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa
Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices:
80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, England

First published in the United States of America by Houghton Mifflin Company 1981
Published in Penguin Books 1983
Second edition published 1991
This third edition published 2011

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Copyright © Roger Fisher and William Ury, 1981, 1991

Copyright © Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, 2011
All rights reserved

Research at Harvard University is undertaken with the expectation of publication. In such publication the authors alone are responsible for
statements of fact, opinions, recommendations, and conclusions expressed. Publication in no way implies approval or endorsement by Harvard

University, any of its faculties, or by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Fisher, Roger, 1922–
Getting to yes : negotiating agreement without giving in / by Roger Fisher, William Ury,

and Bruce Patton. — 3rd ed.
p. cm.

ISBN 9781101539545
1. Negotiation. I. Ury, William. II. Patton, Bruce. III. Title.

BF637.N4F57 2011
158′.5—dc22 2011006319

Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold,
hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published

and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal

and punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions, and do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of
copyrighted materials. Your support of the author’s rights is appreciated.

To our fathers,
WALTER T. FISHER, MELVIN C. URY,

and WILLIAM E. PATTON,
who by example taught us the power of principle.

Preface to the Third Edition

Thirty years have now passed since the initial publication of Getting to YES. We are delighted and
humbled that so many people from so many places around the world continue to find it helpful in
transforming their conflicts and negotiating mutually satisfying agreements. Little did we know at the time
of its publication that this slender book would become a reference point in a quiet revolution that has over
the course of three decades changed the way we make decisions within our families, organizations, and
societies.

The negotiation revolution
A generation ago, the prevailing view of decision-making in most places was hierarchical. The people at
the top of the pyramids of power—at work, in the family, in politics—were supposed to make the
decisions and the people at the bottom of the pyramids to follow the orders. Of course, the reality was
always more complicated.

In today’s world, characterized by flatter organizations, faster innovation, and the explosion of the
Internet, it is clearer than ever that to accomplish our work and meet our needs, we often have to rely on
dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals and organizations over whom we exercise no direct
control. We simply cannot rely on giving orders—even when we are dealing with employees or children.
To get what we want, we are compelled to negotiate. More slowly in some places, more rapidly in others,
the pyramids of power are shifting into networks of negotiation. This quiet revolution, which accompanies
the better-known knowledge revolution, could well be called the “negotiation revolution.”

We began the first edition of Getting to YES with the sentence: “Like it or not, you are a negotiator.”
Back then, for many readers, that was an eye opener. Now it has become an acknowledged reality. Back
then, the term “negotiation” was more likely to be associated with specialized activities such as labor
talks, closing a sale, or perhaps international diplomacy. Now almost all of us recognize that we negotiate
in an informal sense with just about everyone we meet from morning to night.

A generation ago, the term “negotiation” also had an adversarial connotation. In contemplating a
negotiation, the common question in people’s minds was, “Who is going to win and who is going to
lose?” To reach an agreement, someone had to “give in.” It was not a pleasant prospect. The idea that
both sides could benefit, that both could “win,” was foreign to many of us. Now it is increasingly
recognized that there are cooperative ways of negotiating our differences and that even if a “win-win”
solution cannot be found, a wise agreement can still often be reached that is better for both sides than the
alternative.

When we were writing Getting to YES, very few courses taught negotiation. Now learning to negotiate
well is accepted as a core competence with many courses offered in law schools, business schools,

schools of government, and even in quite a few primary, elementary, and high schools.
In short, the “negotiation revolution” is now in full sway around the world, and we take heart that the

commonsense tenets of principled negotiation have spread far and wide to good effect.

The work ahead
Still, while progress has been considerable, the work is far from done. Indeed, at no time in the last three
decades can we recall a greater need for negotiation based on a joint search for mutual gains and
legitimate standards.

A quick survey of the news on almost any day reveals the compelling need for a better way to deal
with differences. How many people, organizations, and nations are stubbornly bargaining over positions?
How much destructive escalation results in bitter family feuds, endless lawsuits, and wars without end?
For lack of a good process, how many opportunities are being lost to find solutions that are better for both
sides?

Conflict remains, as we have noted, a growth industry. Indeed, the advent of the negotiation revolution
has brought more conflict, not less. Hierarchies tend to bottle up conflict, which comes out into the open
as hierarchies give way to networks. Democracies surface rather than suppress conflict, which is why
democracies often seem so quarrelsome and turbulent when compared with more authoritarian societies.

The goal cannot and should not be to eliminate conflict. Conflict is an inevitable—and useful—part of
life. It often leads to change and generates insight. Few injustices are addressed without serious conflict.
In the form of business competition, conflict helps create prosperity. And it lies at the heart of the
democratic process, where the best decisions result not from a superficial consensus but from exploring
different points of view and searching for creative solutions. Strange as it may seem, the world needs
more conflict, not less.

The challenge is not to eliminate conflict but to transform it. It is to change the way we deal with our
differences—from destructive, adversarial battling to hard-headed, side-by-side problem-solving. We
should not underestimate the difficulty of this task, yet no task is more urgent in the world today.

We are living in an age that future anthropologists might look back on and call the first human family
reunion. For the first time, the entire human family is in touch, thanks to the communications revolution.
All fifteen thousand or so “tribes” or language communities on this planet are aware of one another
around the globe. And as with many family reunions, it is not all peace and harmony, but marked by deep
dissension and resentment of inequities and injustices.

More than ever, faced with the challenges of living together in a nuclear age on an increasingly
crowded planet, for our own sake and the sake of future generations, we need to learn how to change the
basic game of conflict.

In short, the hard work of getting to “yes” has just begun.

This edition
We have often heard from readers that Getting to YES continues to serve as an accessible guide to
collaborative negotiation in a wide variety of fields. At the same time, we realize a younger audience is
sometimes puzzled by stories and examples that were common knowledge thirty years ago, and many
readers are curious about contemporary cases. So in this edition we have undertaken a careful revision
and updating of examples and added some new ones where appropriate.

We have added to our toolbox considerably in thirty years, as captured in such books as Getting Past

No, Difficult Conversations, Beyond Reason, and The Power of a Positive No, each of which explores
important challenges in dealing collaboratively and effectively with serious differences. We’ve made no
attempt to summarize all of that material here, since one of the virtues of Getting to YES is that it is short
and clear. Instead, in this revision we have added a few relevant ideas where they help clarify our intent,
and in other places made slight revisions to update our thinking. For example, we have made our answer
to the final question in the book about negotiation power fully consistent with the “seven elements of
negotiation” framework we teach at Harvard Law School.

One adjustment we considered, but ultimately rejected, was to change the word “separate” to
“disentangle” in “separate the people from the problem,” the powerful first step in the method of
principled negotiation. Some readers have taken this phrase to mean leave aside the personal dimension
of negotiation and just focus on the substantive problem, or to ignore emotional issues and “be rational.”
That is not our intent. Negotiators should make dealing with people issues a priority from the beginning to
the end of a negotiation. As the text states at the start, “Negotiators are people first.”

Our belief is that by disentangling the people from the problem you can be “soft on the people” while
remaining “hard on the problem.” So long as you remain respectful and attentive to people issues, you
should be able to strengthen a relationship even as you disagree about substance.

Finally, we have added a bit of material on the impact of the means of communication in negotiation.
The growth of email and texting and the creation of global “virtual” organizations has made this an
important variable, especially in light of research showing its impact on negotiation dynamics and results.

Our human future
We are each participants in a pioneering generation of negotiators. While negotiation as a decision-
making process has been around since the beginning of the human story, never has it been so central to
human life and the survival of our species.

As the negotiation revolution unfolds, our aspiration is that the principles in this book continue to help
people—individually and collectively—negotiate the myriad dilemmas in their lives. In the words of the
poet Wallace Stevens: “After the final no there comes a yes and on that yes the future world depends.”

We wish you much success in getting to that yes!
Roger Fisher
William Ury
Bruce Patton

Preface to the Second Edition

During the last ten years negotiation as a field for academic and professional concern has grown
dramatically. New theoretical works have been published, case studies have been produced, and
empirical research has been undertaken. Ten years ago very few professional schools offered courses on
negotiation; now they are all but universal. Universities are beginning to appoint faculty who specialize in
negotiation. Consulting firms now do the same in the corporate world.

Against this changing intellectual landscape, the ideas in Getting to YES have stood up well. They
have gained considerable attention and acceptance from a broad audience and are frequently cited as
starting points for other work. Happily, they remain persuasive to the authors as well. Most questions and
comments have focused on areas in which the book has proven ambiguous, or where readers have wanted
more specific advice. We have tried to address the most important of these topics in this revision.

Rather than tampering with the text (and asking readers who know it to search for changes), we have
chosen to add new material in a separate section at the end of the second edition. The main text remains
complete and unchanged from the original, except for updating the figures in examples to keep pace with
inflation and rephrasing in a few places to clarify meaning and eliminate sexist language. We hope that our
answers to “Ten Questions People Ask About Getting to YES” prove helpful and meet some of the
interests readers have expressed.

We address questions about (1) the meaning and limits of “principled” negotiation (it represents
practical, not moral, advice); (2) dealing with someone who seems to be irrational or who has a different
value system, outlook, or negotiating style; (3) questions about tactics, such as where to meet, who should
make the first offer, and how to move from inventing options to making commitments; and (4) the role of
power in negotiation.

More extensive treatment of some topics will have to await other books. Readers interested in more
detail about handling “people issues” in negotiation in ways that tend to establish an effective working
relationship might enjoy Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate, by Roger Fisher and
Scott Brown, also available from Penguin Books. If dealing with difficult people and situations is more
your concern, look for Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations, by William Ury, published
by Bantam Books. No doubt other books will follow. There is certainly much more to say about power,
multilateral negotiations, cross-cultural transactions, personal styles, and many other topics.

Once again we thank Marty Linsky, this time for taking a careful eye and a sharp pencil to our new
material. Our special thanks to Doug Stone for his discerning critique, editing, and occasional rewriting
of successive drafts of that material. He has an uncanny knack for catching us in an unclear thought or
paragraph.

Roger Fisher
William Ury

Bruce Patton

For more than a dozen years, Bruce Patton has worked with us in formulating and explaining all of the
ideas in this book. This past year he has pulled the laboring oar in converting our joint thinking into an
agreed text. It is a pleasure to welcome Bruce, editor of the first edition, as a full coauthor of this second
edition.

R.F.
W.U.

Acknowledgments

This book began as a question: What is the best way for people to deal with their differences? For
example, what is the best advice one could give a husband and wife getting divorced who want to know
how to reach a fair and mutually satisfactory agreement without ending up in a bitter fight? Perhaps more
difficult, what advice would you give one of them who wanted to do the same thing? Every day, families,
neighbors, couples, employees, bosses, businesses, consumers, salesmen, lawyers, and nations face this
same dilemma of how to get to yes without going to war. Drawing on our respective backgrounds in
international law and anthropology and an extensive collaboration over the years with practitioners,
colleagues, and students, we have evolved a practical method for negotiating agreement amicably without
giving in.

We have tried out ideas on lawyers, businessmen, government officials, judges, prison wardens,
diplomats, insurance representatives, military officers, coal miners, and oil executives. We gratefully
acknowledge those who responded with criticism and with suggestions distilled from their experience.
We benefited immensely.

In truth, so many people have contributed so extensively to our learning over the years that it is no
longer possible to say precisely to whom we are indebted for which ideas in what form. Those who
contributed the most understand that footnotes were omitted not because we think every idea original, but
rather to keep the text readable when we owe so much to so many.

We could not fail to mention, however, our debt to Howard Raiffa. His kind but forthright criticism
has repeatedly improved the approach, and his notions on seeking joint gains by exploiting differences
and using imaginative procedures for settling difficult issues have inspired sections on these subjects.
Louis Sohn, deviser and negotiator extraordinaire, was always encouraging, always creative, always
looking forward. Among our many debts to him, we owe our introduction to the idea of using a single
negotiating text, which we call the One-Text Procedure. And we would like to thank Michael Doyle and
David Straus for their creative ideas on running brainstorming sessions.

Good anecdotes and examples are hard to find. We are greatly indebted to Jim Sebenius for his
accounts of the Law of the Sea Conference (as well as for his thoughtful criticism of the method), to Tom
Griffith for an account of his negotiation with an insurance adjuster, and to Mary Parker Follett for the
story of two men quarreling in a library.

We want especially to thank all those who read this book in various drafts and gave us the benefit of
their criticism, including our students in the January Negotiation Workshops of 1980 and 1981 at Harvard
Law School, and Frank Sander, John Cooper, and William Lincoln, who taught those workshops with us.
In particular, we want to thank those members of Harvard’s Negotiation Seminar whom we have not
already mentioned; they listened to us patiently these last two years and offered many helpful suggestions:
John Dunlop, James Healy, David Kuechle, Thomas Schelling, and Lawrence Susskind. To all of our

friends and associates we owe more than we can say, but the final responsibility for the content of this
book lies with the authors; if the result is not yet perfect, it is not for lack of our colleagues’ efforts.

Without family and friends, writing would be intolerable. For constructive criticism and moral support
we thank Caroline Fisher, David Lax, Frances Turnbull, and Janice Ury. Without Francis Fisher this book
would never have been written. He had the felicity of introducing the two of us some four years ago.

Finer secretarial help we could not have had. Thanks to Deborah Reimel for her unfailing competence,
moral support, and firm but gracious reminders, and to Denise Trybula, who never wavered in her
diligence and cheerfulness. And special thanks to the people at Word Processing, led by Cynthia Smith,
who met the test of an endless series of drafts and near impossible deadlines.

Then there are our editors. By reorganizing and cutting this book in half, Marty Linsky made it far
more readable. To spare our readers, he had the good sense not to spare our feelings. Thanks also to Peter
Kinder, June Kinoshita, and Bob Ross. June struggled to make the language less sexist. Where we have
not succeeded, we apologize to those who may be offended. We also want to thank Andrea Williams, our
adviser; Julian Bach, our agent; and Dick McAdoo and his associates at Houghton Mifflin, who made the
production of this book both possible and pleasurable.

Finally, we want to thank Bruce Patton, our friend and colleague, editor and mediator. No one has
contributed more to this book. From the very beginning he helped brainstorm and organize the syllogism
of the book. He has reorganized almost every chapter and edited every word. If books were movies, this
would be known as a Patton Production.

Roger Fisher
William Ury

For the second edition of this book we would like to thank Jane von Mehren, our long-time editor at
Penguin Books, for her support, encouragement, and enthusiasm in making the second edition happen.
With the third edition, Rick Kot has admirably filled that role and we are grateful for his patience, good
sense, and fine editorial hand. Without Rick, this update might not have seen the light of day.

We also thank Mark Gordon, Arthur Martirosyan, and our friends at Mercy Corps for the account of
Iraqi farmers negotiating with the national oil company.

R.F.
W.U.
B.P.

Contents

Preface to the Third Edition
Preface to the Second Edition
Acknowledgments
Introduction

I THE PROBLEM
1 Don’t Bargain Over Positions

II THE METHOD
2 Separate the People from the Problem
3 Focus on Interests, Not Positions
4 Invent Options for Mutual Gain
5 Insist on Using Objective Criteria

III YES, BUT …
6 What If They Are More Powerful?

(DEVELOP YOUR BATNA—BEST ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT)
7 What If They Won’t Play?

(USE NEGOTIATION JUJITSU)
8 What If They Use Dirty Tricks?

(TAMING THE HARD BARGAINER)

IV IN CONCLUSION

V TEN QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK ABOUT GETTING TO YES
QUESTIONS ABOUT FAIRNESS AND “PRINCIPLED” NEGOTIATION
QUESTIONS ABOUT DEALING WITH PEOPLE
QUESTIONS ABOUT TACTICS
QUESTIONS ABOUT POWER

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

A NOTE ON THE HARVARD NEGOTIATION PROJECT

Introduction

Like it or not, you are a negotiator. Negotiation is a fact of life. You discuss a raise with your boss. You
try to agree with a stranger on a price for his house. Two lawyers try to settle a lawsuit arising from a car
accident. A group of oil companies plan a joint venture exploring for offshore oil. A city official meets
with union leaders to avert a transit strike. The United States Secretary of State sits down with his
Russian counterpart to seek an agreement limiting nuclear arms. All these are negotiations.

Everyone negotiates something every day. Like Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain, who was delighted to
learn that he had been speaking prose all his life, people negotiate even when they don’t think of
themselves as doing so. You negotiate with your spouse about where to go for dinner and with your child
about when the lights go out. 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).

More and more occasions require negotiation; conflict is a growth industry. Everyone wants to
participate in decisions that affect them; fewer and fewer people will accept decisions dictated by
someone else. People differ, and they use negotiation to handle their differences. Whether in business,
government, or the family, people reach most decisions through negotiation. Even when they go to court,
they almost always negotiate a settlement before trial.

Although negotiation takes place every day, it is not easy to do well. Standard strategies for
negotiation often leave people dissatisfied, worn out, or alienated—and frequently all three.

error: Content is protected !!