Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

From Evgeny Goldin

Jump to: navigation, search

Amazon


Contents

Don't Bargain Over Positions

  • 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
    • It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties

Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements

  • The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it.
  • Interest in "saving face".

Arguing over positions is inefficient

  • The process take a lot of time: bargaining over positions creates incentives that stall settlement.

Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship

  • A contest of will
  • Strains and sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties

When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse

  • It may take all to say yes, but only one to say no
  • Formation of coalitions
  • Once the group has painfully developed and agreed upon a position, it becomes much harder to change it

Being nice is no answer

  • Many people hope to avoid the high costs of hard positional bargaining
  • Any negotiation primarily concerned with the relationship runs the risk of producing a sloppy agreement
  • Makes one vulnerable to someone who plays a hard game of positional bargaining
  • A hard game dominates a soft one

There's an alternative

  • Negotiation addresses the substance and focuses, usually implicitly, on the procedure for dealing with the substance
  • People: separate the people from the problem
  • Interests: focus on interests, not positions
  • Options: generate a variety of options before deciding what to do
  • Criteria: insist that the result be based on some objective standard
  • Analysis, planning, discussion: go over all 4 elements


Separate the People from the Problem

Negotiators are people first

  • People get angry, depressed, fearful, hostile, frustrated, and offended
  • They have egos that are easily threatened
  • They see the world from their own personal vantage point
  • They frequently confuse perceptions with reality
  • "Am I paying enough attention to the people problem?"
  • Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship
  • Most negotiations take place in the context of an ongoing relationship where it is important to carry on each negotiation in a way that will help rather than hinder future relations and future negotiations
  • The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem
    • We are likely to treat people and problem as one
    • Anger over situation may lead to express anger toward some human being associated with it in one's mind
    • People draw from comments on substance unfounded inferences which they then treat as facts about person's intentions and attitudes toward them
  • Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict
  • Positional bargaining deals with a negotiator's interests both in substance and in good relationship by trading one off against the other
  • Separate the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem
  • Perception, emotion, communication


Perception

  • Conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people's heads
  • The reality, as each side sees it, constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution
  • Facts, even if established, may do nothing to solve the problem
  • Put yourself in their shoes
    • How you see the world depends on where you sit
    • People tend to see what they want to see
    • You need to understand emphatically the power of their point of view and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in it
    • You need to know what it feels like to be a beetle
    • Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it
  • Don't deduce their intentions from your fears
    • People tend to assume that whatever they fear, the other side intends to do
    • Suspicions interpretation often follows naturally from one's existing perceptions
    • It seems the "safe" thing to do
  • Don't blame them for your problem
    • It is tempting to hold the other side responsible for your problem
    • Separate the symptoms from the person with whom you are talking
  • Discuss each other perceptions
    • Do not treat as "unimportant" those concerns of the other side perceived as not standing in the way of an agreement
  • Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
  • Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process
    • Get them involved early
    • Ask their advice
    • Give credit generously for ideas wherever possible
  • Face-saving: make your proposals consistent with their values
    • Face-saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators
    • If the substance can be phrased or conceptualized differently so that it seems a fair outcome, they will then accept it


Emotion

  • Feeling may be more important than talk
  • The parties may be more ready for battle, they feel threatened, stakes are high
  • Emotions on one side will generate emotions on the other: fear may breed anger, and anger, fear
  • First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours
    • You may find it useful to write down what you feel - perhaps fearful, worried, angry - and then how you might like to feel - confident, relaxed. Do the same for them
    • Ask yourself what is producing the emotions
  • Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
    • Making your feeling or theirs an explicit focus of discussion will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem, it will also make the negotiations reactive and more "pro-active"
    • Freed from burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem
  • Allow the other side to let off steam
    • Listen quietly without responding to their attacks and occasionally ask the speaker to continue until he spoken his last word
    • Give the speaker every encouragement to speak himself out, leave little or no residue to fester
  • Don't react to emotional outbursts
  • Use symbolic gestures
    • Bringing a red rose goes a long way
    • A note of sympathy, statement of regret, shaking hands, eating together
    • An apology can defuse emotions effectively, it may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments


Communication

  • Communication is never an easy thing, even between people who have an enormous background of shared values and experience
  • Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different
  • Three big problems:
  1. Negotiators may not be talking to each other: each side has given up on the other and is no longer attempting any serious communication with it
  2. They may not be hearing you: people don't seem to pay enough attention to what you say (and vise-versa)
  3. Misunderstanding: what one says, the other may misinterpret
  • Listen actively and acknowledge what is being sad
    • "Did I understand correctly that you are saying that ... ?"
    • Make it your task while listening not to phrase a response, but to understand them as they see themselves
    • Unless you acknowledge what they're sating and demonstrate that you understand them, they may believe you have not heard them
    • "Let me see whether I follow what you are telling me. From your point of view, the situation look like this ... "
    • Phrase it positively from their point of view, making the strength of their case clear
    • Understanding is not agreeing - once can at the same time understand perfectly and disagree completely
  • Speak to be understood
    • It is useful to establish private and confidential means of communicating with the other side
    • Limit the size of the group meeting
    • No matter how many people are involved in a negotiation, important decisions are typically made when no more than two people are in the room
  • Speak about yourself, not about them
    • "I feel let down" instead of "You broke your word"
    • A statement about how you feel is difficult to challenge
    • You convey the same information without provoking a defensive reaction
  • Speak for a purpose
    • Sometimes the problem is not too little communication, but too much
    • Some thoughts are best left unsaid
    • Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve


Prevention works best

  • The best time for handling people problems is before they become people problems
  • Build a working relationship
    • Knowing the other side personally does help
    • The more quickly you can turn a stranger into someone you know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become
    • The time to develop such a relationship is before the negotiation begins - get to know them and find out their likes and dislikes
    • Find ways to meet them informally
    • Benjamin Franklin's favorite technique was to ask if he could borrow a certain book
  • Face the problem, not the people
    • Not adversaries but partners in a side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each
    • It helps to sit literally on the same side of a table and to have in front of you the contract or whatever else depicts the problem
  • Deal with people as human beings and with the problem on its merits


Focus on Interests, Not Positions

  • For a wise solutions reconcile interests, not positions
  • Interests define the problem
  • The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side needs, desires, concerns, and fears
  • Interests motivate people
  • Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused yo to so decide
  • For every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it
  • Behind opposed positions lie many more shared and compatible interests than conflicting ones
  • We tend to assume that because the other side's positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed
  • Agreement is often made possible precisely because interests differ
    • You and a shoe-seller may both like money and shoes
    • .. but his interest in the fifty dollar exceeds his interest in the shoes


How do you identify interests?

  • A position is likely to be concrete explicit; the interests underlying it may well be unexpressed, intangible, and perhaps inconsistent
  • Figuring out their interests will be at least as important as figuring out yours


Ask "Why?"

  • Put yourself in their shoes
  • Examine each position they take and ask yourself "Why?"
  • "What's your basic concern in wanting ... ?"


Ask "Why not?" - think about their choice

  • Identify the basic decision that those on the other side probably see you asking them for, and then ask yourself why they have not made that decision
  • What interests of theirs stand in the way?
  • Whose decision do I want to affect?
  • What decision people on the other side now see you asking them to make
  • If you have no idea what they think they are being called on to do, they may not - that alone may explain why they are not deciding as you would like
  • Analyze the consequences, as the other side would probably see them, of agreeing or refusing to make the decision you are asking for:
    • Impact on my interests: political support, criticism, praise
    • Impact on the groups interests: short-term, long-term, economic, political consequences, good or bad precedent, can we do something better, consistency with "core" values, can it be done later?


Realize that each side has multiple interests, not just one

  • You will be simultaneously pursuing both your independent and your shared interests
  • Not each person on the other side has the same interests
    • Every negotiator has a constituency to whose interests he is sensitive
    • To understand that negotiator's interests means to understand the variety of somewhat differing interests that he needs to take into account


The most powerful interests are basic human needs, which motivate all people:

  • Security
  • Economic well-being
  • A sense of belonging
  • Recognition
  • Control over one's life


  • We tend to think that the only interest involved is money
  • What is true for individuals remains equally true for groups and nations


Talking about interests

Make your interests come alive

  • Make a list - it helps to write down the various interests of each side
  • If you want the other side to take your interests into account, explain to them what those interests are
  • It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate your interests are
  • Be specific, concrete details makes description credible and add impact
  • Part of the task of impressing the other side with your interests lies in establishing the legitimacy of those interests, the problem you face legitimately demands attention
    • "How would you feel if ... ?"


Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem

  • We pay too little heed to the interests of others
  • People listen better if they feel that you have understood them
  • If you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs
  • "As I understand it, you interests are ... Have I understood it correctly? Do you have other important interests?"
  • It helps to acknowledge that their interests are part of the overall problem you're trying to solve
  • If interests are shared - "It would be terrible if ... "


Put the problem before you answer

  • If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later
  • Tell them first about the dangers, they will be listening carefully, if only to try to figure out where you will end up on this question
  • When you tell them, they will understand why


Look forward, not back

  • We often simply react to what someone else has said or done
  • Each is engaged in scoring points against the other, neither party is seeking agreement or is even trying to influence the other
  • If you ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will typically identify a cause, not a purpose
  • "Why?" - we can choose to look back, for a cause, or to look forward, for a purpose
  • You would satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from
  • Talk about what you want to have happen in the future
  • "Who should do what tomorrow?"


Be concrete but flexible

  • You want to know where you are going and yet be open to fresh ideas
  • You may have no other plan that to sit down with the other side and see what they offer or demand
  • To convert your interests into concrete options, ask yourself, "If tomorrow the other side agrees to go along with me, what do I now think I would like them to go along with ?"
  • Treat each option you formulate as simply illustrative, "illustrative specificity"
  • Much of what positional bargainers hope to achieve with an opening position can be accomplished equally well with an illustrative suggestion that generously takes care of your interest
  • An open mind is not an empty one


Be hard on the problem, soft on the people

  • It is wise to commit hardly to your interests, not to your position
  • Two negotiators, each pushing hard for their interests, will often stimulate each other's creativity in thinking up mutually advantageous solutions
  • Separate the people from the problem, attack the problem without blaming the people
  • Be personally supportive: listen with respect, show courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, etc
  • Give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem
    • Inconsistency helps make it work, people dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it
  • It is the combination of support and attack which works; either alone is likely to be insufficient
  • Successful negotiation requires being both firm and open, show yourself to be open to their suggestions while negotiating hard for your interests


Invent Options for Mutual Gain

  • There seems to be no way to split the pie that leaves both parties satisfied
  • Single dimension or choice that is markedly favorable to you or to the other side
  • You may see the choice as one between winning and loosing, neither side will agree to lose
  • Expand the pie before dividing it - skills at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have
  • People involved in negotiations rarely sense a need for many options, they usually believe they know the right answer
  • Generate many options before selecting among them
    • Better solutions
    • Learn problem space
    • Better understand you own interests, your "no-go"'s
    • See how other side cooperates


Four major obstacles


Premature judgment

  • Premature criticism
  • Not inventing options is the normal state of affairs
  • Nothing is so harmful to inventing as a critical sense waiting to pounce on the drawbacks of any new idea
  • Practical negotiation appears to call for practical thinking, not wild ideas
  • Creativity may be stifled by the presence of those on the other side
  • You may also fear that by inventing options you will disclose some piece of information that will jeopardize your bargaining position


Searching for the single answer

  • Premature closure
  • People see the job of negotiating as narrowing the gap between positions, not broadening the options available
  • "We're having a hard enough time agreeing as it is. The last thing we need is a bunch of different ideas"
  • Free-floating discussion will only delay and confuse the process of a single decision
  • Short-circuit a wiser decisions-making process


The assumption of a fixed pie

  • Each side sees the situation as essentially either/or - either I get what is in dispute or you do
  • Negotiation often appears as "fixed-sum" game - why bother to invent if all the options are obvious and I can satisfy you only at my own expense?


Thinking that "Solving their problem is their problem"

  • Each side is concerned with only its own immediate interests
  • For a negotiator to reach an agreement that meets his own self-interests he needs to develop a solution which also appeals to the self-interest of the other
  • "We've got enough problems of our own; they can look after theirs"
  • It seems disloyal to think up ways to satisfy them, a psychological reluctance to accord any legitimacy to the views of the other side


Separate Inventing from Deciding

  • Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them
  • Judgment hinders imagination - separate the creative act from the critical one
  • Invent first, decide later


Brainstorming

  • Designed to produce as many ideas as possible to solve the problem at hand
  • Postpone all criticism and evaluation of ideas
  • One idea should stimulate another
  • People need not fear looking foolish since wild ideas are explicitly encouraged
  • In the absence of the other side, negotiators need not worry about disclosing confidential information or having an idea taken as a serious commitment


Before Brainstorming

  • Define your purpose, what you would like to walk out of the meeting with
  • Choose a few participants, usually between five and eight people
  • Change the environment
    • The more different a brainstorming session seems from a normal meeting, the easier it is for participants to suspend judgment
  • Design an informal atmosphere
    • What does it take for you and others to relax?
  • Choose a facilitator
    • Someone at the meeting needs to keep the meeting on track, to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak, to enforce any ground rules, and to stimulate discussion by asking questions


During Brainstorming

  • Seat the participants side by side facing the problem
    • The physical reinforces the psychological
    • People facing each other tend to respond personally and engage in dialogue or argument
  • Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule
    • Outlaw negative criticism of any kind
    • If ideas are shot down unless they appeal to all participants, the implicit goal becomes to advance an idea that no one will shoot down
    • If wild ideas are encouraged, even impossible, the group may generate from these ideas other options that are possible and that no one would previously have considered
  • Brainstorm
    • Let your imagination go
    • Try to come up with a long list of ideas, approaching the question from every conceivable angle
  • Record the ideas in full view
    • Recording ideas gives the group a tangible sense of collective achievement; it reduces the tendency to repeat; it helps stimulating other ideas


After Brainstorming

  • Star the most promising ideas
    • Your are still not at the stage of deciding; you are merely nominating ideas worth developing further
  • Invent improvements for promising ideas
    • Take one promising idea and invent ways to make it better and more realistic, as well as ways to carry it out
    • Make the idea as attractive as possible
    • "What I like best about that ideas is ... Might it be better if ... ?"
  • Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide
    • Draw up a selective and improved list of ideas and set up a time for deciding which of these ideas to advance in your negotiation and how


Consider brainstorming with the other side

  • More difficult than brainstorming with your own side
    • You may say something that prejudices your interests despite the rules established
    • You may disclose confidential information inadvertently or lead the other side to mistake an option you devise for an offer
  • Takes into account the interests of all involved, creates a climate of joint problem-solving, educates each side about the concerns of the other
  • Distinguish the brainstorming session explicitly from a negotiating session where people state official views and speak on the record
  • People are so accustomed to meeting for the purpose of reaching agreement that any other purpose needs to be clearly stated
  • Make a habit of advancing at least two alternatives at the same time to reduce the risk of appearing committed to any given idea
    • You can also put on the table options with which you obviously disagree
    • Ideas are labeled as mere possibilities, not proposals
  • Time spent brainstorming together is surely among the best-spent time in negotiation
  • Always invent before you decide, even if not brainstorming
    • Discussing options differs radically from taking positions
    • The very language differs
    • "One option is .. What other options have you thought of?"
    • "What if we agreed to this?"
    • "How about doing it this way?"
    • "What would be wrong with that?"


Broaden your options

  • Participants in a brainstorming session are likely to operate on the assumption that they are really looking for the one best answer
  • You should not be looking for the right part; you are developing room within which to negotiate
  • Have a substantial number of markedly different ideas - ideas on which you and the other side can build later in the negotiation, and among which you can jointly choose
  • A vintner making a fine wine chooses his grapes from a number of varieties
  • The key lies in selecting from a great number and variety of options


Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general - The Circle Chart

  • Problem:
    • What is wrong?
    • What are symptoms?
    • What are dislike facts contracted with a preferred situation?
  • Diagnosis:
    • Sort symptoms into categories, suggest causes, observe what is lacking, note barriers
    • Descriptive analysis
    • Diagnose an existing situation in general terms
    • Sort problems into categories, tentatively suggest cuses
  • Approaches:
    • What are possible strategies or prescriptions?
    • What are some theoretical cures?
    • Generate broad ideas about what might be done
    • Given the diagnoses you look for prescriptions that theory may suggest
  • Action Ideas:
    • What might be done?
    • What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem?
    • Come up with some specific and feasible suggestions for actions
    • Who might do what tomorrow to put one of these general approaches into practice?


  • With one useful action idea before you, you can go back and try to identify the general approach of which the action idea is merely one application
  • You can then think up other action ideas that would apply the same general approach
  • Similarly, you can go back one step further: "What is the diagnosis behind this theoretical approach ?"
  • One good option on the table opens the door to asking about the theory that makes this option good and then using that theory to invent more options


  • Look through the eyes of different experts
    • An educator, a banker, a psychiatrist, a civil rights lawyer, a doctor, a feminist, a football coach ..
    • Combine the use of the Circle Chart
    • Consider in turn how each expert would diagnose the situation, what kind of approaches each might suggest, and what practical suggestions would follow from those approaches
  • Invent agreements of different strengths
    • Think of "weaker" versions you might want to have on hand
    • If you can not agree on substance, perhaps you can agree on procedure
    • Where a permanent agreement is not possible, perhaps a provisional agreement is
    • You can usually reach second-order agreement - that is, agree on where you disagree, so that you both know the issues in dispute
    • Stronger - Weaker
    • Substantive - Procedural
    • Permanent - Provisional
    • Comprehensive - Partial
    • Final - In principle
    • Unconditional - Contingent
    • Binding - Nonbinding
    • First-order - Second-order
  • Change the scope of a proposed agreement
    • Agree on process
    • "Fractionate" your problem into smaller and more manageable units
    • Agreements may be partial, involve fewer parties, cover only selected subject matters, apply only to a certain geographical area, or remain in effect for only a limited period of time
    • It is also provocative to ask how the subject matter might be enlarged so as to "sweeten the pot" and make agreement more attractive


Look for mutual gain

  • Assumption of a fixed pie: the less for you, the more for me
  • Both sides can always be worse off than they are now
  • There almost always exists the possibility of joint gain
  • Look for shared and differing interests to dovetail


    Identify shared interests
  • Inventing an idea which meets shared interests is good for you and good for them
  • The relationship between the sides, often taken for granted and overlooked, frequently outweighs in importance the outcome of any particular issue
  • As a negotiator, you will almost always want to look for solutions that will leave the other side satisfied as well
  • An outcome in which the other side gets absolutely nothing is worse for you than one which leaves them mollified
  • Shared interests lie latent in every negotiation
    • Do we have a shared interest in preserving our relationship?
    • What opportunities lie ahead for cooperation and mutual benefit?
    • What cost would we bear if negotiations broke off?
    • Are there common principles, like a fair price, that we both can respect?
  • Shared interests are opportunities, not godsends
    • To be of use you need to make something out of them
    • It helps to make a shared interest explicit and to formulate it as a shared goal
    • Make it concrete and future-oriented
  • Stressing your shared interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable


    Dovetail differing interests
  • Each child wanted the orange, failing to realize that one wanted only the fruit to eat and the other only the peel for baking
  • A satisfactory agreement is made possible because each side wants different things
  • Differences can lead to solution, agreement is often based on disagreement
  • If buyer and seller of stock agree that the stock would go up, the seller would probably not sell
  • The difference in belief provides the basis for a deal
  • Different interests?
    • Form - Substance
    • Economic - Political considerations
    • Internal - External considerations
    • Symbolic - Practical considerations
    • Immediate - More distant future
    • Ad hoc results - The relationship
    • Hardware - Ideology
    • Progress - Respect for tradition
    • Precedent - This case
    • Prestige, reputation - Results
    • Political points - Group welfare
  • Different beliefs?
    • Impartial arbitrator
  • Different values placed on time?
    • You may care about more about the present while the other side cares more about the future
    • You discount future value at different rates
  • Different forecasts?
  • Differences in aversion to risk?
    • Risk can be traded for revenue: low rates while risk is high, higher rates when the risk is low


    Ask for their preferences
  • One way to dovetail interests is to invent several options all equally acceptable to you and ask the other side which one they prefer
  • You want to know what is preferable, not necessarily what is acceptable
  • You can then take that option, work with it some more, and again present two or more variants, asking which one they prefer
  • You improve a plan until you can find no more joint gains
  • Look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vise versa
  • Vive la diff�rence!


Make their decision easy

  • Since success for you in a negotiation depends upon the other side's making a decision you want, you should do what you can to make that decision an easy one
  • You want to confront them with a choice that is as painless as possible
  • Without some option that appeals to them, there's is likely to be no agreement at all
  • You will want to put yourself in their shoes


Whose shoes?

  • You cannot negotiate successfully with an abstraction
  • It is wiser to focus your efforts on getting one concrete person to make a recommendation
  • However complex the other side's decisional process may seem, you will understand it better if you pick one person - probably the person with whom you are dealing - and see how the problem looks from his or her point of view
  • You are handling complexities by understanding how they impinge on the person with whom you are negotiating
  • Negotiating role can be strengthening that person's hand or giving her arguments that she will need to persuade others to go along
  • "Helping my opposite number get new instructions"


What decision?

  • You are trying to generate options that will so change their choice that they might then decide in a way satisfactory to you
  • Your task is to give them not a problem but an answer, to give them not a tough decision but an easy one
  • Focus your attention on the content of the decision itself
    • Requesting the other side to be "more forthcoming" will probably not produce a decision you want
    • Many negotiators are uncertain whether they're asking for words or performance
    • Do not add something for "negotiating room". If you want a horse to jump a fence, don't raise the fence
    • Most of the time you will want a promise - an agreement. Take a pencil and paper and try drafting a few possible agreements
  • It is easier to refrain from doing something not being done than to stop action already underway
  • It is easier to cease doing something that to undertake an entirely new course of action
  • The other side is more likely to accept a solution if it seems the right thing to do, if it appears legitimate in terms of being fair, legal, honorable
  • Search for precedent, it provides an objective standard for your request and makes it easier for them to go along
  • Thinking about what they have done or said will help you generate options acceptable to you that also take their point of view into account


Making threats is not enough

  • You will want to consider from their point of view the consequences of following your decision
  • If you were they, what results would you most fear?
  • We often try to influence others by threats and warnings of what will happen if they do not decide as we would like
  • 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
  • To evaluate an option from the other side's point of view, consider how they might be criticized if they adopted it
    • Write out a sentence or two illustrating what critics might say and a couple of sentences with which the other side might reply in defense
  • Write out an option in the form of a "yesable proposition", to which a single "yes" responding would be sufficient, realistic and operational


Insist on Using Objective Criteria

  • People are influenced by "reasoning", why it is done this way.
  • You will almost always face the harsh reality of interests that conflict, such differences cannot be swept under the rug.

Deciding on the basis of will is costly

  • Whether the situation becomes a contest over who can be the most stubborn or a contest over who can be the most generous, this negotiating process focuses on what each side is willing to agree to.
  • The outcome results from the interaction of two human wills, as if there were no history, no customs, and no moral standards.
  • No negotiation is likely to be efficient or amicable if you put your will against theirs, and either you have to back down or they do.
  • The solution is to negotiate on some basis independent of the will of either side - that is, on the basis of objective criteria.
  • Rather than horse-trade, you would insist on deciding the issue in terms of objective safety standards.

The case for using objective criteria

  • "Where do you suggest we look for standards to resolve this question?"
  • Why not insist that a negotiated price be based on some standards such as market value, replacement cost or competitive prices, instead of whatever the seller demands?
  • 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.

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.
  • The more you and the other side refer to precedent and community practice, the greater your chance of benefiting from past experience.
  • An agreement consistent with precedent is less vulnerable to attack.
  • A constant battle for dominance threatens a relationship; principled negotiation protects it.
  • People using objective criteria tend to use time more efficiently talking about possible standards and solutions, especially when more parties are involved.


Developing objective criteria

  • How do you develop objective criteria, and how do you use them in negotiating?
  • You will do better if you prepare in advance; develop some alternative standards beforehand and think through their application to your case.

Fair Standards

  • An agreement based upon:
    • Market value
    • Precedent
    • Scientific judgment
    • Professional standards
    • Efficiency
    • Costs
    • What a court would decide
    • Moral standards
    • Equal treatment
    • Tradition
    • Reciprocity
  • Objective criteria need to be independent of each side's will. Ideally, it should also be legitimate and practical.
  • Objective criteria should apply to both sides.
    • If a real estate agency selling you a house offers a standard form contract, you would be wise to ask if that is the same standard form they use when they buy a house.

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.
  • Divide a piece of cake between two children: "one cuts, the other chooses". Neither can complain about an unfair division.
  • Parties can negotiate what they think is a fair arrangement before they go on to decide their respective roles in it, e.g., custody of the children.
  • Other basic means of settling differences: taking turns, drawing lots, letting someone else decide.
    • Drawing lots, flipping a coin - inherent fairness. Results may be unequal but each side had an equal opportunity
    • Parties can agree to submit a particular question to an expert for advise or decision, they can ask mediator to help them reach a decision.


Negotiating with objective criteria

Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria

  • "Look, you want a high price and I want a low one. Let's figure out what a fair price would be. What objective standards might be most relevant?"
  • Two of you now have a shared goal: to determine a fair price.
  • "What your theory? How did you arrive at that figure"
  • Treat the problem as though the seller too is looking for a fair price based on objective criteria.
  • Agree first on principles. Before even considering possible terms, you may want to agree on the standard(s) to apply.
  • Each standard the other side proposes becomes a lever you can then use to persuade them. Your case will have more impact if it is presented in terms of their criteria.

Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied

  • You come to the table with an open mind.
  • Do not use precedent and other objective standards simply as arguments in support of a position, making people dig even deeper.
  • One standard of legitimacy does not preclude the existence of others.
  • You should be willing to to respond to reasons for applying another standard or for applying a standard differently.
  • Look for objective basis for deciding between different standards: which standard has been used by the parties in the past, which standard is more widely applied. The question of which standard applies should not be settled on the basis of will.
  • Two standards (both parties agree to) with different results: split the difference or compromise between the results.
  • Ask another person to decide which are the fairest or most appropriate criteria for your situation. Objective criteria are supposed to be legitimate which implies acceptance by a great many people.

Never yield to pressure, only to principle

  • "Trust is an entirely separate matter. The issue is how deep the foundations have to be to make the house safe."
  • Invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria you think apply, refuse to budge except on this basis.
  • In addition to your willpower, you also have the power of legitimacy and the persuasiveness of remaining open to reason.
  • A refusal to yield except in response to sound reasons is an easier position to defend than is a refusal to yield combined with a refusal to advance sound reasons.
  • One who insists that negotiation be based on the merits can bring others around to playing that game, since that becomes the only way to advance their substantive interests.
  • The other side will not budge and will not advance a basis for their position:
    • Take it or leave it.
    • Before leaving see if you have overlooked some objective standard that makes their offer a fair one.
    • Asses what you might gain by accepting their unjustified position rather than going to your best alternative.


What If They Are More Powerful?

  • What do you do if the other side is richer or better connected, or if they have a larger staff or more powerful weapons?
  • In any negotiations there exists realities that are hard to change
  • If the other side has big guns, you do not want to turn a negotiation into a gunfight
  • In response to power meet two objectives:
    • Protect you against making an agreement you should reject
    • 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


Protecting yourself

  • When you are trying to catch an airplane your goal may seem tremendously important; looking back on it, you see you could have caught the next plane
  • A major danger is that you will be too accommodating to the views of the other side - too quick to go along
  • "Let's all agree and put an end to this" siren song
  • You may end up with a deal you should have rejected

The cost of using a bottom line

  • Negotiators commonly try to protect themselves against such an outcome by establishing in advance the worst acceptable outcome - their "bottom line"
  • The highest price you would pay or the lowest amount you would accept
  • Having a bottom line makes it easier to resist pressure and temptation of the moment, it may save you from making a decision you would later regret
  • Jointly adopting a bottom line helps ensure that no one will indicate to the other side that you might settle for less
  • Adopting a bottom line involves high costs:
    • It limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation
    • It is a position that is not to be changed
    • You have shut your ears, deciding in advance that nothing the other party says could cause you to raise or lower the bottom line
    • Inhibits imagination, reduces the incentive to invent - almost every negotiation involves more than one variable
    • Likely to be set too high
    • One dimensional: time, money, etc.
  • 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

Know your BATNA

  • BATNA - Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
  • Which of alternatives is most attractive, all things considered?
  • How does that alternative compare with the best offer received?
  • The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating
  • BATNA is the only standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured
  • It has the advantage of being flexible enough to permit the exploration of imaginative solutions: you can compare a proposal with your BATNA to see whether it better satisfies your interests

The insecurity of an unknown BATNA

  • 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
  • You may be too optimistic and assume that you have many other choices
  • One frequent mistake is psychologically to see your alternatives in the aggregate: you could do X, or Y, or Z - but you can not have the sum, you will have to choose just one
  • The greater danger is that you are too committed to reaching agreement, you are unduly pessimistic about what would happen if negotiations broke off
  • Having at least a tentative answer to the question is absolutely essential if you are to conduct your negotiations wisely
  • Whether you should or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative

Formulate a trip wire

  • In order to give you early warning that the content of a possible agreement is beginning to run the risk of being too unattractive, it is useful to identify one far from perfect agreement that is better than your BATNA
  • Before accepting any agreement worse than this trip-wire package, you should take a break and reexamine the situation
  • A trip wire should provide you with some margin in reserve


Making the most of your assets

The better your BATNA, the greater your power

  • The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement
  • In order to convert the wealth into negotiating power, one would have to apply it to learn about the price at which he could buy an equally or more attractive product somewhere else
  • How would you feel walking into a job interview with no other job offers or with two other job offers? The difference is the power.
  • What is true for negotiation between individuals is equally true for negotiations between organizations: relative negotiating power is determined by each side's best alternative

Develop your BATNA

  • Vigorous exploration of what you will do if you do not reach agreement can greatly strengthen your hand
  • You usually have to develop attractive alternatives
  • Generating possible BATNAs requires:
    • Inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached
    • Improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives
    • Selecting, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best
  • The better your BATNA, the greater your ability to improve the terms of any negotiated agreement
  • It is easier to break off negotiations if you know where you're going
  • The desirability of disclosing your BATNA to the other side depends upon your assessment of the other side's thinking
  • If your best alternative to a negotiated agreement is worse than they think, disclosing it will weaken rather than strengthen your hand
  • Apply knowledge, time, money, people, connections, and wits into devising the best solution for you independent of the other side's assent
  • Developing your BATNA is perhaps the most effective course of action you can take in dealing with a seemingly more powerful negotiator

Consider the other side's BATNA

  • You should also think about the alternatives to a negotiated agreement available to the other side
  • They may be unduly optimistic about what they can do if no agreement is reached
  • Knowing their alternatives, you can realistically estimate what you can expect from the negotiation
  • 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
  • If both sides have attractive BATNA, the best outcome of the negotiation - for both parties - may well be not to reach agreement and look elsewhere


What If They Won't Play?

  • They may be attacking your proposals, concerned only with maximizing their own gains
  • They may attack you
  • There are three basic approaches for focusing their attention on the merits
    • What you can do: concentrate on the merits, rather than on positions; change the game simply by starting to play a new one
    • What they may do: negotiation jujitsu counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits
    • What a third party can do: consider adding, trained to focus the discussion on interests, options and criteria; one-text mediation procedure


Negotiation jujitsu

  • If they attack you, you may be tempted to defend yourself and counterattack; If they push you hard, you will tend to push back
  • Defending your proposals only locks you in
  • Defending yourself sidetracks the negotiation into a clash of personalities, you will waste a lot of time and energy in useless pushing and pulling
  • Do not push back, do not reject, do not defend, do not counterattack
  • Break the vicious cycle be refusing to react, sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem
  • Typically their attack will consist of three maneuvers:
    • Asserting their position forcefully
    • Attacking your ideas
    • Attacking you

Don't attack their position, look behind it

  • Treat their position as one possible option, look for interests behind it, seek out the principles which it reflects, and think about ways to improve it
  • Mine their position for the interests that lie below the surface: "Why do you feel a need to ... ?"
  • Treat their position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so
  • Seek out and discuss the principles underlying the other side's positions: "What is the theory ... ?"
  • Discuss with them hypothetically what would happen if one of their positions was accepted

Don't defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice

  • Rather than resisting the other side's criticism, invite it. Ask them what's wrong with an idea instead of asking them to accept or reject it
  • Examine their negative judgments to find out their underlying interests and to improve your ideas from their point of view
  • Rework your ideas in light of what you learn from them, turn criticism from an obstacle in the process of working toward agreement into an essential ingredient of that process
  • Turn the situation around and ask for their advise, what they would do if they were in your position

Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem

  • When the other side attacks your personally resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them
  • Sit back and allow them to let off steam
  • Listen to them, show you understand what they are saying, and when they have finished, recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem

Ask questions and pause

  • Use questions instead of statements
    • Statements generate resistance, questions generate answers
    • Questions pose challenges and can be used to lead the other side to confront the problem
    • Questions offer no target to strike at, no position to attack
  • 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
    • If you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient answer, just wait
    • People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence, particularly if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said
    • When you ask question, pause. Don't take them off the hook


Consider the one-text procedure

  • You will probably call in a third party only if your own efforts to shift the game from positional bargaining to principled negotiation have failed
  • 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
  • He 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-text procedure

  • Asking the parties for clarifications of their positions makes them even more emotionally attached to their particular solutions
  • Rather than ask about their positions ask about their interests: not how big, but why
  • He is not asking either side to give up a position, he is exploring the possibility that he might be able to make a recommendation to them
  • He develops a list of interests and needs of the two sides and asks each side in turn to criticize the list and suggest improvements on it
    • It is hard to make concessions, but it is easy to criticize
  • A few days later he returns with a rough plan, asking for criticism, a short time later comes back with a second sketch, asking for criticism again
  • As the plan takes shape, each side will tend to raise those issues most important to him, not trivial details
  • No one's ego is committed to any draft
  • Inventing the best possible reconciliation of interests is separated from making decisions and is free of the fear of making an overhasty commitment
  • And so it goes, through a third plan, a fourth, and a fifth
  • Finally, when he feels he can improve it no further: "This is the best I can do. Here it is. I recommend you accept this plan."
  • Each side now has only one decision to make: yes or no
  • The one-text procedure not only shifts the game away from positional bargaining, it greatly simplifies the process both of inventing options and of deciding jointly on one
  • In many negotiations the third party can be you, mediate your own dispute
  • You do not have to get anyone's consent to start using the one text procedure, simply prepare the plan and ask for criticism
  • You can change the game simply by starting to play the new one


What If They Use Dirty Tricks?

  • There are many tactics and tricks people can use to take advantage of you, they range from lies and psychological abuse to various forms of pressure tactics
  • Most people put up with it, hoping for the best, or respond in kind - in the end either one party yields or negotiation breaks off
  • Such tricky tactics are designed to be used y only one side; the other side is not supposed to know the tactics or is expected to tolerate them knowingly
  • To counter them, you will want to engage in principled negotiation about the negotiation process


How do you negotiate about the rules of the game?

  1. Recognize the tactic
  2. Raise the issue explicitly
  3. Question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability - negotiate over it
  • You have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it
  • Often just recognizing a tactic will neutralize it
  • Discussing the tactic not only makes it less effective, it also may cause the other side to worry about alienating you completely
  • The purpose of bringing the tactic up explicitly is to give you an opportunity to negotiate about the rules of the game, on procedure instead of substance
  • Separate the people from the problem
    • Don't attack people personally for using a tactic you consider illegitimate
    • If they get defensive it may be more difficult for them to give up the tactic
    • Question the tactic, not their personal integrity - it will be easier to reform the negotiation process than to reform those with whom you are dealing
    • Don't be diverted from the negotiation by the urge to teach them a lesson
  • Focus on interests, not positions
    • "Why are you ... ?"
    • "Are you trying .. ?"
  • Invent options for mutual gain
    • Suggest alternative games to play
    • "How about .. ?"
  • Insist on using objective criteria
    • "Is there a theory behind .. ?"
    • Frame the principle behind each tactic as a proposed "rule" for the game
    • "Shall we alternate splitting coffee on one another day by day?"
  • As a last resort turn to your BATNA and walk out
  • "It is my impression that you are not interested in negotiating in a way that we bot think will produce results. Here is my phone number. If I'm mistaken, I'm ready any time you are. Until then, we'll pursue the court option"


Some common tricky tactics

  • Phony facts
    • Unless you have good reason to trust somebody, don't
    • Negotiation process is independent of trust
    • A practice of verifying factual assertions reduces the incentive for deception, and your risk of being cheated
  • Ambiguous authority
    • Do not assume that the other side has full authority just because they are there negotiating with you
    • Before starting on any give-and-take, find out about the authority on the other side
    • "Just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?"
    • "We will treat it as a joint draft to which neither side is committed. You check with your boss and I'll sleep on it and see if I come up with any changes I want to suggest tomorrow."
  • Dubious intentions
    • It is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement itself
  • Less then full disclosure
    • Is not the same as deception
    • Good faith negotiation doesn't require total disclosure
    • "Perhaps we could disclose our thinking to some trustworthy third party, who can tell us whether there is a zone of potential agreement"
  • Stressful situations
    • Is is sometimes advantageous to accept an offer to meet on the other side's turf: it may put them at ease, making them more open to your suggestions; it will be easier for you to walk out
    • Ask yourself if you feel under stress, and if so, why
    • Your job is to identify the problem, be willing to raise it with the other side, and then negotiate better circumstances in an objective and principled fashion
  • Personal attacks
    • Recognizing the tactic will help nullify its effect
    • Bringing it up explicitly will probably prevent a recurrence
  • The good-guy/bad-guy routine
    • Ask good guy the same question you asked the bad guy
    • "I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, but I still want to know why .. ?"
  • Threats
    • Instead of making a decision easier for the other side, it often makes it more difficult
    • The question changes from "Should we make this decision?" to "Shall we cave in to outside pressure?"
    • If it seems appropriate to outline the consequences of the other side's action, suggest those that will occur independently of your will rather than those you could choose to bring about
    • Warnings are much more legitimate that threats and are not vulnerable to counterthreats
    • For threats to be effective the must be credibly communicated
      • You may be able to interrupt the communication
      • You can ignore or take them as unauthorized or irrelevant
      • You can also make it risky to communicate them
    • Threats can be turned to a political advantage: ".. such a weak case they are resorting to threats"
    • "I only negotiate on the merits. My reputation is built on not responding to threats."
  • Refusal to negotiate
    • A possible negotiating ploy: an attempt to use their entry into negotiation as a bargaining chip to obtain some concession on substance
    • Set preconditions for negotiations
    • Talk about their refusal to negotiate, communicate either directly or through third parties
    • Find out their interests in not negotiating
    • Suggest some options, such as negotiating through third parties or sending letters
    • Insist on using principles: is this the way they would want you to play? Do they want you to set preconditions as well? Will they want others to refuse to negotiate with them?
  • Extreme demands
    • Making an extreme demand that both you and they know will be abandoned undermines their credibility
    • Bring the tactic to their attention and ask for principled justification until it looks ridiculous even to them
  • Escalating demands
    • Call it to their attention
    • Take a break while you consider whether and on what basis you want to continue negotiations - this avoids an impulsive reaction while indicating the seriousness of their conduct
    • Insist on principle; when you come back, anyone interested in settlement will be more serious
  • Lock-in tactics
    • In response to a commitment tactic you may be able to interrupt the communication
    • You can so interpret the commitment as to weaken it
    • Avoid making the commitment a central question, deemphasize it so that the other side can more gracefully back down
  • A calculated delay
    • Waiting for the right time is a high-cost game
    • Consider creating a fading opportunity for the other side
    • Look for objective conditions that can be used to establish deadlines
  • "Take it or leave it"
    • This is an efficient method of conducting business, but it is not negotiation
    • Consider ignoring it at first
    • Keep talking as if you didn't hear it, or change the subject, perhaps by introducing other solutions
    • If you do bring up the tactic specifically, let them know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached and look for face-saving way, such as change in circumstances, for them to get out of the situation
  • "Look, I know this may be unusual, but I want to know the rules of the game we're going to play. Are we both trying to reach a wise agreement as quickly and with little effort is possible? Or we going to play 'hard bargaining' where the more stubborn fellow wins "


Ten Questions People Ask About "Getting To Yes"

Does positional bargaining ever make sense ?

  • Positional bargaining is easy, requires no preparation and is universally understood.
  • Looking for interests, inventing options and finding objective criteria takes hard work, emotional restraint and maturity.
  • In virtually every case, the outcome will be better for both sides with principled negotiation. The issue is whether it is worth the extra effort.

How important is it to avoid an arbitrary outcome?

  • One factor to consider in choosing a negotiating approach is how much you care about finding an answer to the problem that makes sense on the merits.
  • The stakes would be much higher if you were negotiating over the foundation for an office building than those for a tool shed.
  • They will also be higher if this transaction will set a precedent for future transactions.

How complex are the issues?

  • The more complex the subject matter, the more unwise it is to engage in positional bargaining.
  • Complexity calls for careful analysis of interests.

How important is it to maintain a good working relationship?

  • Maintaining your ongoing relationship may be more important to you than the outcome of any one deal.
  • Negotiating on the merits helps avoid a choice between giving in or angering the other side.
  • Consider the effect of this negotiation on your relationship with others.

What are the other side's expectations, and how hard would they be to change?

  • Each side sees the other as "the enemy" - it is not easy to establish joint problem-solving, yet it may be correspondingly more important.
  • Some parties locked into adversarial ruts seem unable to consider alternative approaches until they reach the brink of mutual annihilation.

Where are you in the negotiation?

  • Bargaining over positions tends to inhibit looking for joint gains.
  • It does the least harm if it comes after you have identified each other's interests, invented options, and discussed relevant standards of fairness.


What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?

  • People will advance different standards by which to judge what is fair.
  • An outcome informed even by conflicting standards of fairness and community practice is likely to be wiser than an arbitrary result.
  • Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another to the extent that it is more directly on point, more widely accepted, and more immediately relevant in terms of time, place, and circumstance.
  • Agreement on the "best" standard is not necessary.
  • Criteria are just one tool that may help the parties find an agreement better for both than no agreement.
  • Parties can explore tradeoffs or resort to fair procedures to settle the remaining differencees. They can flip a coin, use an arbitrator, or even split the difference.


Should I be fair if I don't have to be ?

  • Using independent standards to discuss the fairness of a proposal is an idea that can help you get what you deserve and protect you from getting taken.
  • The ideas in this book are meant to show you how to get what you are entitled to while still getting along with the other side.
  • Sometimes you may have an opportunity to get more than you think would be fair. Should you take it? Not without careful thought.
  • Presented with the opportunity to get more than you think is fair, you should weigh the possible benefits against the potential costs of accepting the windfall.

How much is the difference worth to you?

  • How important to you the excess above the standard?
  • Weigh this benefit against the risk of incurring some of the costs, and then consider whether there might not be better options.
  • Could the proposed transaction be structured so that the other side sees themselves as doing you a favor rather than getting ripped off?
  • Consider how certain you are of these potential benefits. Might you be overlooking something? Is the other side really so blind?

Will the unfair result be durable?

  • If the other side later concludes that an agreement is unfair, they may be unwilling to carry it out.
  • What would it cost to try to enforce the agreement or to replace it?
  • There is no value in a superfavorable tentative agreement if the other side wakes up and repudiates it before it becomes final.

What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationship?

  • How likely is it that you will find yourself negotiating with this same party again?
  • How about your reputation with other people, especially your reputation for fair dealing?
  • A well-established reputation for fair dealing can be an extraordinary asset. Such a reputation is much easier to destroy than to build.

Will your conscience bother you?

  • Are you likely latter to regret the agreement, believing that you took unfair advantage of someone?
  • Many people find that they care about more in life than money and "beating" the other side.


What do I do if the people are the problem?

  • People problem often require more attention than substantive ones.
  • The human propensity for defensive and reactive behavior is one reason so many negotiations fail when agreement would otherwise make sense.

Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement

  • The more seriously you disagree with someone, the more important it is that you be able to deal well with that disagreement.
  • Appeasement does not often work. Making an unjustified concession now is unlikely to make it easier to deal with future differences.
  • Nor should you try to coerce a substantive concession by threatening the relationship. It will tend to make it more difficult for the two sides to deal well with future differences.
  • Substantive issues need to be disentangled from relationship and process issues.
  • Substantive issues:
    • Terms
    • Conditions
    • Prices
    • dates
    • Numbers
    • Liabilities
  • Relationship issues:
    • Balance of emotion and reason
    • Ease of communication
    • Degree of trust and reliability
    • Attitude of acceptance (or rejection)
    • Relative emphasis on persuasion (or coercion)
    • Degree of mutual understanding
  • A good working relationship tends to make it easier to get good substantive outcomes (for both sides). Good substantive outcomes tend to make a good relationship even better.
  • Sometimes there may be good reasons to agree, even when you believe fairness would dictate otherwise. You should not give in for the purpose of trying to improve a relationship.

Negotiate the relationship

  • Raise your concern about the other side's behavior and discuss them them as you would a substantive difference.
  • Explain your perceptions and feelings and inquire into theirs.
  • Propose external standards or fair principles to determine how you should deal with each other and decline to give in to pressure tactics.
  • The other side may come to appreciate that your concerns are a shared problem only when they realize that your BATNA is not very good for them.

Distinguish how you treat them from how they treat you

  • There is no need to emulate unconstructive behavior. Responding in kind reinforces the behavior we dislike.
  • Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer and to avoid any reward for the behavior we dislike.

Deal rationally with apparent irrationality

  • Most behavior in the world is not very rational. We often act impulsively or react without careful thought, especially when we are angry, afraid, or frustrated.
  • While people often do not negotiate rationally, is is worth trying to yourself. In coping with the irrationality of other negotiators, you would like to be as purposive as possible.
  • Question your assumption that others are acting irrationally, perhaps they see situation differently. There may be a communication failure.
  • People are reacting rationally to the world as they see it. It is the perception that is skewed, not the response to that perception.
    • Inquire empathetically, take their feelings seriously and try to trace their reasoning to its roots.
    • Look for psychological interests behind their position to help them find a way to meet more of their interests more effectively.


Should I negotiate with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?

  • Unless you have a better BATNA, the question you face is not whether to negotiate, but how.

Negotiate with terrorists?

  • In the sense that you are trying to influence their decisions - and they are trying to influence yours - you are negotiating with them even if you are not talking with them.
  • The better the communication, the better your chance to exert influence.
  • If you have a good case, you are more likely to influence them than they are to influence you.
  • Through communication it may be possible to convince terrorists that they will not receive a ransom. It may also be possible to learn of some legitimate interests they have and to work out an arrangement in which neither side gives in.
  • Direct personal dialogue with criminals who are holding hostages frequently results in the hostages being released and the criminals being taken into custody.

Negotiate with someone like Hitler?

  • It depends on alternative. Some interests you have may be worth fighting and even dying for.
  • If you can achieve a substantial measure of your interests through nonviolent means, you should give that option serious consideration.
  • War offers no guarantee of results better than could be achieved by other means.
  • Even with someone like Hitler or Stalin, we should negotiate if negotiation holds the promise of achieving an outcome that meets our interests better than our BATNA.
  • When a war does occur, in many cases it is actually a move within a negotiation. The violence is intended to change the other side's BATNA, or their perception of it.

Negotiate where people are acting out of religious conviction?

  • Although people's religious convictions are unlikely to be changed through negotiation, the actions they take may be subject to influence.
  • Negotiation does not require compromising your principles. More often success is achieved by finding a solution that is arguably consistent with each side's principles.
  • Many situations only appear to e "religious" conflicts. Religions serves as a handy boundary line for dividing one group from another.
  • Negotiation between such groups is highly desirable, as it improves the chance that they will be able to reach pragmatic accommodations that are to their mutual interest.

When does it make sense not to negotiate?

  • Whether it makes sense to negotiate and how much effort to put into it depends on how satisfactory your BATNA and how likely you think it is that negotiation will produce better results.
  • If your BATANA is fine and negotiation looks unpromising, there's no reason to invest much time in negotiation.
  • To do this analysis, you need to have thought carefully about your BATNA and the other side's.
  • Can the objective be achieved solely through our own efforts, or will someone on the other side have to make a decision?
  • Whose decision will we have to influence, what decision do we want, and how, if at all, could military force help influence that decision?
  • Don't assume that you have a BATNA better than negotiating, or that you don't. Think it through.


How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on?

  • As negotiators, different people will have different interests and styles of communication.
  • Different things may be persuasive to them, and they may have different ways of making decisions.

Get in step

  • In any negotiation it is highly desirable to be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns, norms of behavior, and mood of those with whom you are dealing.
  • Adapt your behavior accordingly. The more successfully you can get in step with that person's way of thinking, the more likely you are to be able to work out an agreement.
  • Some common differences:
    • Pacing: fast or slow?
    • Formality: high or low?
    • Physical proximity while talking: close or distant?
    • Oral or written agreements: which are more binding and inclusive?
    • Bluntness of communication: direct or indirect?
    • Time frame: short-term or longer?
    • Scope of relationship: business-only or all-encompassing?
    • The expected place of doing business: private or public?
    • Who negotiates: equals in status or the most competent people for the task?
    • Rigidity of commitments: written in stone or meant to be flexible?

Adapt our general advice to the specific situation

  • Absent a compelling reason to do otherwise, craft your specific approach to every negotiation around book's basic propositions.
  • The best way to implement these general principles will depend on the specific context.

Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, but avoid stereotyping individuals

  • Different groups and places have different customs and beliefs. Know and respect them, but beware of making assumptions about individuals.
  • The attitudes, interests, and other characteristics of an individual are often quite different from those of a group to which they may belong.
  • Making assumptions about someone based on their group characteristics is insulting, as well as factually risky. It denies that person individuality.

Question your assumption; listen actively

  • Whatever assumption you make about others - whether you assume they are just like you or totally different - question it.
  • Be open to learning that they are quite unlike what you expected.


How do I decide things like "Where should we meet?" "Who should make the first offer?" and "How high should I start?"

  • Good tactical advise requires knowledge of specific circumstances.

Where should we meet?

  • What are we worried about?
  • If both parties tend to be extremely busy and subject to constant interruptions, seclusion may be the most important consideration.
  • If the other person tends to feel insecure or in need of staff support, perhaps he would be more comfortable meeting in his office.
  • You may also want to meet in the other party's office if you would like to feel free to walk away.

Who should make the first offer?

  • It would be a mistake assume that making an offer is always the best way to put a figure on the table.
  • Usually, you will want to explore interests, options, and criteria for a while before making an offer. Making an offer too soon can make the other side feel railroaded.
  • Whether or not you make an offer, you may want to to "anchor" the discussion early around an approach or standard favorable to you.
  • It is extremely risky to measure the value of an item by the other side's first proposal or figure.
  • The better prepared both parties are in negotiation over price, the less difference it makes who makes the first offer.
  • Rather than learning rules about who should make the first offer, it would be better to learn the rule of being well prepared with external measures of value.

How high should I start?

  • Many people tend to measure success by how far the other party has moved.
  • Many times buyers do not check the market and do not know what their best alternative would be. They derive satisfaction from paying less than the first "asking price".
  • If you are selling, you would ordinary start with the highest figure that you could justify without embarrassment.
  • Another way is to start with the highest figure that you would try to persuade a neutral third party was fair.
  • You would first explain the reasoning and then give the number - if they hear a number they don't like, they may not listen to the reasoning.
  • An opening figure need not be advanced as a firm position. The firmer you suggest early figures to be, the greater you damage your credibility as you move off them.

Strategy depends on preparation

  • Strategy is a function of preparation. If you are well prepared (standards, interests, BATNA), a strategy will suggest itself.
  • A clever strategy cannot make up for lack of preparation. Because you can never be sure what their strategy will be, it is far better to know the terrain than to plan on taking one particular path through the woods.


Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?

  • How do you reach closure on issues ?

Think about closure from the beginning

  • Before you even begin to negotiate, it makes sense to envision what a successful agreement might look like.
  • What it might be like to implement an agreement? What issues would need to be resolved?
  • How the other side might successfully explain and justify an agreement to their constituents? What it will take for you to do the same?
  • What kind of agreement would allow you both to say such things?
  • What it might take to persuade the other side - and you - to accept a proposed agreement, rather than continuing to negotiate?

Consider crafting a framework agreement

  • It is usually a good idea to sketch the outlines of what an agreement might look like as part of your preparation.
  • "Framework agreement" - a document in the form of an agreement, but with blank spaces for each term to be resolved by negotiation.
  • It makes sense to draft possible terms of an agreement as you go. Helps to keep discussion focused, tends to surface important issues, gives a sense of progress, provides a record of discussions.

Move toward commitment gradually

  • As the negotiation proceeds and you discuss options and standards for each issue, you should be seeking a consensus proposal that reflects all the points made and meet each side's interests on that issue as well as possible.
  • If you are as yet unable to reach consensus on a single option, try at least to narrow the range of options under consideration and then go on to another issue.
  • Agree explicitly that all commitments are tentative. "Tentative Draft - No Commitments."
  • The process of moving toward agreement is seldom linear.
  • Difficult issues may be revisited frequently or set aside until the end, depending on whether incremental progress seems possible.
  • Avoid demands or locking in, offer options and ask for criticism.

Be persistent in pursuing your interests but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution

  • One way to be firm without being positional is to separate your interests from ways to meet them.
  • When a proposal is challenged, don't defend the proposal, explain your underlying interests. Ask if the other side can think of better way to meet those interests, if there's any reason why one side's interests should have priority over the other's.
  • When and if you are persuaded, modify your thinking accordingly, presenting the logic first.
  • The goal is to avoid useless quarreling. Where disagreement persists, seek second-order agreement - agreement on where you disagree.
  • Conflicting interests => external standards, creative options.
  • Conflicting standards => criteria for evaluating which is more appropriate, creative trade-offs.

Make an offer

  • At some point clarifying interests, inventing options, and analyzing standards produce diminishing returns.
  • An early offer might be limited to the pairing of a couple of key issues. Later, such partial offers can be combined into a more comprehensive proposal.
  • An offer should not come as a surprise. It should be a natural outgrowth of the discussion so far.
  • Most agreements are made in one-on-one meetings between the top negotiators for each side.
  • Splitting the difference between figures that are each backed by legitimate and persuasive independent standards is one way to find a fair result.

Be generous at the end

  • When you sense you are finally close to an agreement, consider giving the other side something you know to be of value to them and still consistent with the basic logic of your proposal.
  • Make clear this is a final gesture.
  • You want the other side to leave the negotiation feeling satisfied and fairly treated.


How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?

  • What can you do to try out these ideas without taking too much risk ?

Start small

  • Experiment in negotiations where the stakes are small, where you have a good BATNA, where favorable objective standards are available and seem relevant, and where the other side is likely to be amenable to this approach.

Make an investment

  • Getting better often means making an investment in new approaches.
  • The new techniques offer more long-term potential.

Review your performance

  • What worked?
  • What did not?
  • What might you have done differently?

Prepare!

  • There is no risk in being well prepared. It simply takes time.
  1. Plan how to build and maintain a good working relationship with the other side.
  2. Write out a list of your interests and the other side's.
  3. Invent a list of options that might satisfy as many of these interests as possible.
  4. Look for a variety of external benchmarks or criteria.
  5. Ask yourself what arguments you would like to be able to make, see if you can't find the facts and information you would need to make them.
  6. Consider what benchmarks your counterpart might find persuasive in justifying an agreement to his or her constituents.
  7. Consider what commitment you would like each side to make. Sketch out a possible framework agreement.
  • Ask a friend to help you role-play an upcoming negotiation, play both roles.
  • Seek coaching from friends, more experienced negotiators, or professional negotiation consultants.


Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? How do I enhance my negotiation power?

  • How you negotiate (and how you prepare to negotiate) can make an enormous difference, whatever the relative strengths of each party.

Some things you can't get

  • No matter how skilled you are, there are limits to what you can get through negotiation.
  • You should not expect success in negotiation unless you are able to make the other side an offer they find more attractive than their BATNA.
  • Concentrate on improving your BATNA and perhaps changing theirs.

How you negotiate makes a big difference

  • In a situation where there is a chance for agreement, the way you negotiate can make the difference between coming to terms and not, or between an outcome that you find favorable and one that is merely acceptable.
  • How you negotiate may determine whether the pie is expanded or merely divided, and whether you have a good relationship with the other side or a strained one.

"Resources" are not the same as "negotiation power"

  • Negotiation power is the ability to persuade someone to do something.
  • Whether your resources give you negotiating power will depend on the context - on whom you are trying to persuade and what you want them to do.

Don't ask "Who's more powerful?"

  • Trying to estimate whether you or your counterparts are more "powerful" is risky. Whatever you conclude will not help you figure out how best to proceed.
  • There are almost always resources and potential allies that a skilled and persistent negotiator can exploit, at least to move the fulcrum, if not ultimately to tip the balance of power the other way.
  • You won't find out what's possible unless you try.
  • Feeling powerless and believing that there is nothing one can do to affect a situation helps avoid feeling responsible, avoids costs of trying to change the situation.
  • The more you try for, the more you are likely to get. Within reason, it pays to think positively.

There are many sources of negotiating power

  • Having a good BATNA. It is persuasive to tell the other side that you have a better alternative.
  • People, interests, options, and objective criteria - if the other side is strong in one area, you can try to develop strength in another.

There is power in developing a good working relationship between the people negotiating.

  • Negotiation power is not a zero-sum phenomenon. More negotiation power for the other side does not necessarily mean less for you.
  • The better your working relationship, the better able each of you is to influence the other.
  • Two people with well-deserved reputations for being trustworthy are each better able to influence the other than are two people with reputations for dishonesty.
  • Good communication: crafting your message with punch, listening to the other side, showing that you have heard.
  • Helping the other side understand your thinking can reduce their fears, clear up misperceptions, and promote joint problem-solving.
  • Good listening can increase your negotiation power by increasing the information you have about the other side's interests or about possible options.
  • Showing that you have heard the other side also increases your ability to persuade them. When the other side feels heard by you, thy are more apt to listen to you.
  • Make sure you understand their view; and make sure they know you understand.

There is power in understanding interests.

  • The more clearly you understand the other side's concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy them at minimum cost to yourself.
  • Look for intangible or hidden interests that may be important.
  • "For what will the money be used?"

There is power in inventing an elegant option.

  • Successful brainstorming increases your ability to influence others.
  • Once you understand the interests of each side, it is often possible to invent a clever way of having those interests dovetail.

There is power in using external standards of legitimacy

  • You can use standards of legitimacy both as a sword to persuade others, and as a shield to help you resist pressure to give in arbitrarily.
  • A negotiator can enhance his negotiation power by finding precedents, principles, and other external criteria of fairness and by thinking of ways to present them forcefully and tellingly.
  • Convincing the other side that you are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments you can make.

There is power in developing a good BATNA.

  • A fundamental way to increase your negotiation power is by improving your walk-away alternative.
  • An attractive BATNA is a strong argument with which to persuade the other side of the need to offer more.
  • "Micro-BATNA" - if no agreement is reached at this meeting, what is the best outcome?
  • Sometimes it is possible to worsen the other side's BATNA.
  • Efforts to improve one's own alternatives and to lower the other side's estimate of theirs are critical ways to enhance our negotiating power.

There's power in making a carefully crafted commitment.

  • You can use a commitment to enhance your negotiating power in three ways:
  1. Commit to what you will do by making a firm offer.
  2. Make a negative commitment as to what you will not do.
  3. Clarify precisely what commitments you would like the other side to make.

Clarify what you will do.

  • When you make a firm offer, you provide one option that you will' accept, making it clear at the same time that you are not foreclosing discussion of other options.
  • By making an offer you gain by simplifying the other side's choice and making it easier for them to commit. To reach agreement, all they have to say is "yes".
  • Without a clear offer, even a painful situation may seem preferable to accepting "a pig in a poke".
  • The more concrete the offer, the more persuasive. A written offer may be more credible than an oral one.
  • You may also want to make your offer a "fading opportunity" by indicating when and how it will expire.
  • You may also want to clarify what you will do if the other side does not accept your proposal. They may not realize the consequences of your BATNA for them.

Consider committing to what you will not do.

  • Sometimes you can persuade the other side to accept an offer better than their BATNA by convincing them that you cannot or will not offer more.
  • You not only make an offer; you tie your hands against changing it.
  • There is less risk in locking in after you have come to understand the other side's interests and have explored options for joint games.
  • It will do less damage to your relationship with the other side of there are credible reasons independent of your will to explain and justify your rigidity.

Clarify what you want them to do.

  • It pays to think through the precise terms of the commitment you want the other side to make.
  • You want to avoid a sloppy commitment that is overbroad, fails to bind the other side, leaves out crucial information, or is not operational.
  • Especially when you want the other side to dosomething, it makes sense to tell them exactly what it is you want them to do.

Make the most of your potential power.

  • If you are going to communicate your BATNA, it would be better to do so in ways that:
    • Respect the relationship
    • Leave open the possibility of two-ways communication
    • Underscore the legitimacy of your last offer
    • Suggest how that offer meets the other side interests
  • The total power of such negotiation power as you have will be greater if each element is used in ways that reinforce the others.
  • You are likely to maximize your negotiation power if you believe what you say and say what you believe.


Additional Materials

Retrieved from "http://evgeny-goldin.com/wiki/Getting_to_Yes:_Negotiating_Agreement_Without_Giving_In"
Personal tools