Getting to Yes

Any method of negotiation should be 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
The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it

Arguing over positions is inefficient

Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship

When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse

“Being Nice” isn’t the answer either

The Straightforward, Principled, Negotiation Method

People: Separate the people from the problem

Negotiators are people first
Every negotiator has an interest in the result, and in the relationship
To work through people problems, think in terms of: Perception, Emotion, and Communication
Perception

The ability to see the situation from the other side is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess
Look for opportunities to surprise their perceptions, especially if those perceptions put you in a bad light
Give them a stake in the outcome by letting them participate in the process
Discuss each other’s perceptions
Don’t blame them for your problem
Make your proposal consistent with their values, and let them save face
Emotion

Recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours
Consider the role of identity, understand if their identity is threatened
Emotions are always legitimate
Allow them to let off steam if necessary
Don’t react to emotional outbursts
Use symbolic gestures (gift giving, etc.) to show empathy
Communication

Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said
Speak to be understood, talk to every side of the disagreement
Speak about yourself, not about them. Don’t superimpose your impressions on them
Speak for a purpose, don’t waste breath
Prevention is the best method

Build a strong working relationship, be friends outside of the negotiation
Face the problem, not the people. Don’t view the other side as adversaries
Interests: Focus on interests, not positions

For a wise solution, reconcile interests, not positions
Interests define what the problem is
Your positions are something you have decided upon, your interests are what caused you to decide
How do you identify interests?

Ask “Why?” put yourself in their shoes and try to figure out how they arrived at their positions
Ask “Why not?” what interests of theirs stand in the way of your decision? Why do they not want what you want?
Realize that both sides have multiple interests
Most powerful interests are basic human needs (Maslow’s Pyramid)
Talking about interests

If you want the other side to consider your interests, you must explain what those interests are
Acknowledge their interests and that you understand them
Put the problem before your answer, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later
Look forward, not back. Sometimes we argue for no reason, or purpose
Be hard on the problem, but soft on the people
By attacking the problem, and at the same time giving the person on the other side positive support, you create a cognitive dissonance for him. To overcome this dissonance, he will be tempted to dissociate himself from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it
Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do

In most negotiations, there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options:
Premature judgement
Searching for the single answer
The assumption of a fixed pie
Thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”
To invent creative options, then you will need to:

Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them
Before you brainstorm

Define your purpose: think about what you want to walk out of the meeting with
Choose a few participants
Change the environment
Design an informal atmosphere
Choose a facilitator: someone who can keep the meeting on track, make sure everyone can speak, enforce ground rules, and stimulate discussion
During brainstorming

Seat everyone side by side facing the problem
Clarify the ground rules, and outlaw criticism of any kind
Brainstorm
Record the ideas in full view
After brainstorming

Star the most promising idea: relax the no-criticism rule to begin winnowing out the most promising ideas
Invent improvements for promising ideas: make it as attractive as you can
Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide
Brainstorm with the other side too

Broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer

Search for mutual gains

Identify shared interests

Shared interests are latent in every negotiation
Shared interests are opportunities, not godsends. You have to make something out of them
Stressing your shared interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable
Dovetail differing interests

Different beliefs? Different values placed on time? Different forecasts? Differences in aversion to risk?
Look for items that are of low cost to you, and high benefit to them, and vice versa
Invent ways of making their decisions easy

It is usually easier to refrain from doing something not being done than to stop action already underway. It is easier to cease doing something than to undertake an entirely new course of action.
Few things facilitate a decision as much as precedent
Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

Deciding on the basis of Will is costly
Use objective criteria instead
Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and effectively
Developing objective criteria

Develop fair standards for evaluation
Use fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests
Negotiating with Objective Criteria

Frame each issue as a search for objective criteria
Ask for the theory behind positions “How did you arrive at that price?”
Agree on principles first
Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied
Never yield to pressure, only to principle
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
The cost of using a bottom line

It keeps you from being more inventive with solutions
It can sometimes prevent you from making an advantageous decision
Know your BATNA

If you can’t sell your house, will you rent it? Tear it down and sell the lot? Keep it on the market indefinitely?
Formulate a trip-wire to activate your BATNA

Develop your BATNA

Invent a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached
Improve some of the more promising ideas and convert them into practical alternatives
Select, tentatively, the one idea that seems best
Always consider the other side’s BATNA
Negotiation Jujitsu, for When They Won’t Play
How do you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? Don’t push back

Avoid pitting your strength against them directly; instead, use your skill to step aside and turn their strength to your ends
Do not attack their position, look behind it

Assume every position is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of both sides
Seek out and discuss the principles underlying their position
Discuss what would happen if one of their positions were accepted. Sometimes framing it in this way can show its weaknesses
Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice

Ask them what’s wrong with your idea
Ask for their advice, or what they would do in your situation
Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem

If they attack you personally, resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack back
Let them let off steam
Ask questions and pause

Use questions instead of statements
What if they use dirty tricks?
Deliberate deception

Phony facts

Make the negotiation proceed independent of trustVerify factual assertions as you go
Ambiguous authority

Ask just how much authority they have on this matter
Dubious Intentions

Pretending to be in support of one thing to convince you of another
Psychological Warfare

Stressful situations

If you find the situation prejudicial, say so, and try to change it
Personal attacks

If you’re being personally attacked, bring it up explicitly
Good guy/Bad guy routine

Threats

Good negotiators do not resort to threats
Warnings are much more legitimate, so long as they are backed by the reality of the situation
Positional pressure tactics

Refusal to negotiate

Recognize this as a possible ploy to get some concession from you
Talk about their refusal to negotiate. Why do they not want to?
Insist on using principles
Extreme demands

Ask for principled justification of that stance to show them how ridiculous it is
Escalating demands

Call it to their attention, and stop negotiations for a bit. Insist on principles to make it more serious
Lock-in tactic

One side entirely locks in their positionIgnore the lock in, talk about the principles, and let them back down and save face
“Take it or leave it”

Ignore it, and then draw attention to it as a problem
Don’t be a victim

Good