NAME: CHUKI PATRICK
REG NO: AKS21B11/115
COURSE UNIT: CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION
YEAR: LLB3
LECTURER: MS. Irene Natamba
TUTOR: MS. Lilian Nabiry
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM.
Don’t bargain over positions
CHAPTER 2: THE METHOD
Focus on interests, not position
Invent options for mutual gain
Insist on using objective criteria
CHAPTER 3: YES, BUT
What if they are more powerful?
What if they won’t play?
What is they use Dirty tricks?
The authors of Getting to yes, Fisher and William Ury in writing the book sought to bring
lasting solutions to the challenges surrounding negotiation among different parties
The first principle presented by Fisher and Ury in getting to yes is that of the separation of
Persons and disputes, People should always look at or focus on the problem so that they can
have a successful negotiation rather than focusing on the people whereby they may end up
protecting their positions instead and as to this when it comes to the Ugandan context, most
people do put their interest fast instead of looking for a way of coming up with a solution to a
problem. So, according to Fisher and William Ury, their principles are better because they
focus at looking at solutions and bringing the parties together.
The principle to focus on interests, not positions. It is important to differentiate interests
from positions. It is the interests that define the problem since the problem in the negotiation
lays on the desires of the parties just as it was well explained by the authors. If am to take this
principle to the Ugandan context, most people always put forward the position and this was
well seen in the role play when the other party went on to focus on interest and decided to
ignore position. So my critic on this principle is that the authors were very right because at
most times, it’s better to focus on interests rather than positions.
The principle which focusse on inventing options for mutual gain, in any negotiation, it is
important that the interests of both parties are met or catered for. The authors elaborate four
major challenges that hinder success of a negotiation like premature judgements, solving
the problem is their problem , Assumption of a fixed pies and when it comes to the
Ugandan context, most people go on to also focuses on mutual gains rather than inventing
options, and the authors go on to elaborate and putting the hindrance of such a principle
which when well used, the results are better for parties.
Insisting on the objective criteria is anther [Link], deciding based on will is
quite costly and this is evident as negotiators always try to resolve conflicts by positional
bargaining. The solution, is negotiating based on the objective criteria. This seeks to produce
an agreement that is based on principle rather than pressure and when we draw this to our
day today lives, we see many people go on to start arguments which are less agree mental but
rather pressured resulting into conflicts of which it was not the aim of the author .so its key
for us to focus on objective criteria to get best solutions.
The other principle is that what if they are more powerful, they advise that you develop
your Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. BATNA, the best that any method of
negotiation can accord are two things, it can protect you against making an agreement you
must have rejected and secondly to help you make the best use of any agreement to meet your
interests. And this is among the best principles, and in Uganda it’s better for most of us to
always be claim and down to earth, and I support the above principle since it helps the weak
party to get a better solution to handle the powerful party.
What if they won’t play is where one of the negotiators does not come up to play. There are
three basic approaches for focusing their attention on merits. If it doesn’t work out then you
devise to the second strategy which focuses on what they do. The third strategy focuses on
what a third party can do. And this principle has no main criticism as to my part because it is
mostly used by many Ugandans but the best of all, we have its solution just as the author
provided in the same chapter and if well focused on, the results are positive.
The use of dirty tricks, there are many tricks that a negotiator may use, these may range
from lies and psychological abuse. If they realise that a tricky tactic has been used against
them, most people respond in two ways like putting them up with It and respond in [Link] as to
this, sometimes it makes one look a fool if you actually follow what the authors outlined above which
sometimes if followed, may led to a disappointment of the other party which is not using dirty tricks.
In conclusion, The authors of Getting to yes, Fisher and William Ury in writing the book
sought to bring lasting solutions to the challenges surrounding negotiation in different ways
and among different people and if this context of the author could be applied well in Uganda
with different people, the results shall always be positive just as it is well explained above
and also in the role play.