In our daily lives, we all negotiate with others for things we want, whether the context is business or personal. For instance, at work we may negotiate a contract with a supplier, while at home we may negotiate with siblings over the division of family heirlooms or with a spouse over where to go on vacation.
In Getting to Yes, authors Roger Fisher and William Ury point out that the number of situations requiring negotiation is increasing. Organizational structures are less hierarchical than they used to be and people expect to have a say in decisions that affect them rather than being dictated to by a boss. This requires negotiation.
Despite the prevalence of negotiation, however, we don’t do it very well. Most people haven’t been taught negotiation skills, but a bigger problem is the inadequacy of the age-old adversarial method we use, which the authors call positional bargaining.
In positional bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and bargains to reach a compromise. An example is when you bargain with a seller over the price of something.
People tend to take one of two approaches: aggressive or friendly (hard or soft). Hard negotiators strive to win by taking the toughest positions and holding out the longest. They may use posturing, threats, and other strong-arm tactics. Those who take a friendlier approach try to avoid conflict and reach an amicable agreement. Neither approach is ideal. Positional bargaining often produces unfair, less-than-optimal outcomes, and it’s inefficient and damages relationships.
The authors offer an alternative approach, principled negotiation, which is designed to generate fair agreements efficiently and civilly. Negotiators decide issues on the objective merits (facts and evidence), rather than on what’s acceptable or unacceptable to each side, and they look for mutual gains. Where interests conflict, results are based on fair, objective standards. Principled negotiators avoid deceptive tactics, posturing, and threats.
Anyone can use principled negotiation in almost any circumstances. There are four elements:
1. People: Separate personalities and emotions from the issue being negotiated. Because the relationship involves people and their emotions, it gets intertwined with the substance of the negotiations. For example, you may think you’re simply pointing out a problem (“The warehouse is a mess”), but someone on the other side may take it as a personal attack or blaming. Handling people sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for successful negotiation and for a constructive ongoing relationship.
This is important because most negotiations involve a long-term relationship that’s important to maintain. For instance, union members and bosses must be able to work together for a strong company bottom line and job stability.
2. Interests: Focus on the underlying interests of each side, not on positions. Interests involve people’s needs, desires, fears, and concerns — they’re the reasons behind the positions people take.
An example illustrates the difference. Two men get into an argument at a library because one wants to keep a window open while the other wants to close it; neither is willing to go halfway. The librarian asks each man for his reasons. One wants the window open to get fresh air; the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. So, the librarian opens a window in an adjoining room to provide air flow and avoid creating a draft. She resolved the conflict by focusing on the men’s underlying interests, rather than their positions on opening or closing a particular window.
3. Options: Come up with multiple options based on mutual interests. A common challenge in negotiations arises when there doesn’t seem to be a way to split the pie that serves both sides. The choice seems to be having a winner and a loser, and neither side wants to lose. But the dilemma opens up the opportunity for creative options that expand the pie before dividing it. A creative solution can break an impasse and result in a better agreement.
For example, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty reached at Camp David in 1978 succeeded in part because negotiators considered the interests behind the two countries’ positions on the issue of what to do with the Sinai Peninsula, which Egypt had occupied since 1967. Each side wanted control over it and neither would compromise. Egypt’s interest was in sovereignty over land of historical importance to them. Israel’s interest was security — they didn’t want Egyptian tanks positioned on their border. The solution addressing both interests was to give Egypt sovereignty but create large demilitarized zones.
4. Criteria: Base the agreement on objective (fair and independent) standards. Standard negotiations are a battle of wills. For instance, with a labor contract, the prevailing side determines the level of pay increases and benefits, based on their view of what’s appropriate. But you can avoid arbitrary agreements by demanding the results meet objective standards independent of either side — for instance, market values, legal standards, average salaries, expert opinions or data, or customary practices. Instead of arguing about what either side is willing to accept, agree to objective standards that will serve as the rationale for the specifics in the agreement. That way, neither party is imposing their say-so for what’s fair on the other.
The book guides you through the process of principled negotiation with steps, techniques, and examples. Besides the method of principled negotiation, key skills include:
To sum up, in contrast to adversarial bargaining, practicing principled negotiation allows you to treat people with empathy, work toward a wise agreement that’s fair for both parties, negotiate efficiently without deliberate delays, and end the process on a positive note that bodes well for your future relationship.
We’re all negotiators — negotiation is how we get what we want from others in business and personal life. We negotiate with our bosses, clients, sellers, real estate agents, family members, and others. In fact, we reach most decisions in our lives through negotiation, often without realizing it.
In Getting to Yes, authors Roger Fisher and William Ury note that the number of situations requiring negotiation keeps increasing, which makes it essential to learn negotiation skills. Twenty or more years ago, command-and-control structures with a chain of bosses ordering our actions were common. Today, however, organizational structures are less hierarchical, more companies emphasize teamwork, and people expect a say in decisions that affect them rather than being dictated to. This requires negotiation.
Getting to Yes, a 30-year-old classic updated in 2011, presents an alternative to adversarial bargaining — principled negotiation, a process focusing on finding creative options that serve mutual interests (some have referred to it as win-win negotiation). Their method continues to be taught in many U.S. law schools.
Negotiation is defined as a give-and-take effort by two or more parties to reach agreement on a matter in which some of their interests conflict, some are shared, and some differ.
Although we negotiate all the time, most of us don't do it very well. People tend to approach negotiation from one of two extremes: overly aggressive or overly friendly (hard or soft).
Whichever method people use, there’s a tension between getting along with people and getting what you want.
By contrast, principled negotiation combines elements of these approaches — there are times to be tough and times be lenient. In addition, the method aims to decide issues on their merits (facts and evidence), rather than on what’s acceptable/unacceptable to each side, and to look for mutual gains. Where interests conflict, results are based on fair, objective standards.
Principled negotiators avoid games. Each side’s goal is to get only what they’re entitled to while being civil and to be fair but avoid being taken advantage of. The process is transparent rather than dependent on hiding your real goal or strategy from the other side.
Part one of the book discusses problems created by the standard method of bargaining — positional bargaining. The next four parts describe the four key elements of the alternative method of principled bargaining. The remaining parts describe procedures and tactics and how to deal with challenges, including a power imbalance between the sides.
Anyone can use principled negotiation and it can be applied to any issue.
We’re always negotiating in our personal and work lives. In the traditional method of adversarial bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and haggles to reach a compromise.
Think of a situation where you negotiated with someone over something, for instance a used car, a job offer, or how to divide the housework. What did you want? What did the other person want? How did it turn out?
Did you both get what you wanted or could the outcome have been better for one or both of you? How?
How did the negotiation affect your relationship in the short and long terms?
The authors identify three criteria for successful negotiation that apply to any method:
Positional bargaining falls short on all three counts.
In positional bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and bargains to reach a compromise. A classic example is when you haggle with a seller over the price of something.
Positional bargaining involves each side offering a series of positions and concessions, which takes considerable time. Each can clearly see what the other wants and the process usually leads to an agreement that both sides accept. But the agreement it produces doesn’t meet the three criteria (wise, efficient, and friendly).
Specifically, arguing over positions is problematic because:
1) Positional bargaining produces bad outcomes: Negotiators become rigid in their positions. The harder you try to convince the other side of the rightness of your position, and the more you defend it against attack, the more strongly committed to it you become. You feel compelled to maintain consistency with your past positions and to save face by not giving in.
For example, the 1961 U.S.-Soviet negotiations over a proposed nuclear test ban failed because of rigid positions on each side. Talks were bogged down over how many on-site inspections would be done annually — the Soviets wanted three and the U.S. ten. They got stuck there without having even defined the inspection procedure (for instance, how many inspectors could be sent into the other’s territory and for how long). An agreement on the inspection process might have addressed both sides’ desire for minimal intrusion and the U.S. interest in verification, while avoiding the arms race that ensued.
The greater the emphasis on positions, the less attention is paid to what each side really wants (the interests underlying their positions) and the less likely they are to reach a good agreement. Instead, the agreement will reflect a splitting of differences rather than addressing the valid interests of the parties. Both sides may end up dissatisfied and will have missed the opportunity for a good agreement.
2) Positional bargaining is inefficient: The give-and-take of standard negotiations, even when the parties aren’t hostile, is time-consuming. The process has built-in features that slow things down, such as starting with an unreasonable position and making incremental concessions. These common tactics work against a prompt settlement. Negotiation requires multiple individual decisions on offers, rejections, and concessions, each of which is an opportunity to stall. On top of that, negotiators can use deliberate delaying tactics and tricks such as threatening to walk out.
3) Positional bargaining undermines the ongoing relationship between the parties: When negotiations become a struggle of wills with each side trying to force its position on the other, anger and resentment build. The bad feelings can linger, hindering implementation and the ability of the two sides to work together in the future.
It works especially poorly for multilateral negotiations: When you have multiple sides in a negotiation, the inefficiency of the positional bargaining method is magnified.
For example, in United Nations talks where as many as 150 countries may be negotiating, all of them have to say “yes” for talks to proceed, but just one can stop the process by saying “no.” It’s hard to come up with a common position and even harder to change a position. Coalitions (East-West, North-South) tend to form around symbolic rather than substantive interests. Also, the various sides have to keep checking with higher authorities.
Sometimes negotiators try to mitigate the confrontational aspect of standard bargaining by being “nice,” that is, making overly lenient offers and concessions that don’t serve their interests in order to avoid conflict. They achieve an agreement, but not necessarily a good one. Being nice — prioritizing the relationship — is the approach most often used by family or friends. It’s especially risky if the other side plays hardball, in which case the nonaggressive bargainer is likely to lose his shirt.
You don’t have to choose either aggressive or soft bargaining along with their attendant problems. In contrast to the traditional adversarial approach, principled negotiation (which can also be called negotiating on the merits) is designed to generate fair agreements efficiently and civilly.
It can be used in almost any circumstances and it’s straightforward: the two sides work toward agreed-upon mutual interests rather than having hidden agendas. In short, it’s a different game.
There are four components (more details follow below, and each element will be addressed in an individual chapter):
People get emotional, they have trouble communicating clearly, and their perceptions vary. How they feel gets mixed with what they think about the merits (facts) of an issue. They hold stubbornly to positions due to ego. When the other side makes concessions, it can reward this behavior.
Before negotiators can make headway on addressing the issues, they need to address people’s mindset and behavior. Both sides must see themselves as working together alongside each other, attacking a problem rather than each other.
You can overcome the flaws of positional bargaining when you focus on the underlying interests (what you both really want) that led to taking the positions. Because the negotiating positions that are taken often obscure these interests, compromising doesn’t generate an agreement that addresses the reasons people take the positions that they do.
When negotiating under pressure, it’s hard to come up with great solutions serving both sides. It’s better for each side to set up a separate time to brainstorm creative solutions that address each side’s interests while accommodating differences. Another approach is for both sides to brainstorm together.
You can avoid arbitrary agreements by demanding that the results meet objective standards independent of either side — for instance, market values, legal standards, average salaries, expert opinions or data, or customary practices. Instead of arguing about what either side is willing to accept, agree to objective standards that will serve as the rationale for the specifics in the agreement. That way, neither party is imposing their say-so for what’s fair on the other.
Principled negotiation has three broad stages, and you deal with the four elements (people, interests, options, criteria) in each stage: analysis, planning, and discussion.
To sum up, in contrast to adversarial bargaining, practicing principled negotiation allows you to treat people with empathy, work toward a wise agreement that’s fair for both parties, negotiate efficiently without deliberate delays, and end the process on a positive note that bodes well for your future relationship.
The authors identify three criteria for successful negotiation: 1) the agreement must be wise, meaning that it meets the interests of each side and it’s fair; 2) the process must be efficient; and 3) the process must strengthen the relationship.
Think of a recent negotiation you were involved in. How did it compare to the above criteria?
If you had applied one or more of the criteria, how would it have changed the negotiation process or the agreement?
In a negotiation, you may be dealing with an institution, company, or organization, but besides the entity, you’re dealing with human beings who have different backgrounds, values, biases, emotions, and communication styles.
The human aspect can be both a plus and a minus in negotiations. People misunderstand and misinterpret things, which can reinforce the other side’s misgivings or spark negative reactions. On the other hand, a good working relationship can help negotiations go smoothly. Also, people’s desire to be liked and respected may make them more considerate.
In any case, handling people sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for successful negotiation. Continually ask yourself whether you’re giving enough consideration to human issues.
Negotiators are always dealing with two issues: the substance of the negotiations and the relationship between the two sides. Both issues are important. For instance, a store owner wants to make a profit on a sale (substance), but also create a return customer by sending her away happy the first time (relationship). If he overcharges, he may make a profit, but he’ll damage his relationship with the customer and she may not return.
Obviously, people and their emotions are driving factors in the relationship issue.
Most negotiations involve a long-term relationship that’s important to maintain. For instance, union members and bosses must be able to work together for a strong company bottom line and job stability. In some instances, the relationship may be more important than the immediate negotiated results.
Because the relationship involves people and their emotions, it gets intertwined with the substance of the negotiations. For example, you may think you’re simply pointing out a problem (“The warehouse is a mess”), but someone on the other side may take it as a personal attack or blaming. Or, when people hear comments on substance, they may infer something negative about the speaker’s attitude toward them. We often conflate problems and people without realizing we’re doing it.
Positional bargaining tends to pit people against each other — someone’s tough position can be taken to mean she doesn’t care about the relationship or the other person.
However, dealing with differences of substance needn’t conflict with having a good relationship if the parties are committed to treating substance and relationship separately, each on its merits. For instance, deal with hurt feelings or anger directly rather than trying to appease the aggrieved person by making a concession on substance. Use psychological techniques, such as testing assumptions, educating, giving people an opportunity to vent, and improving communications.
In the context of negotiation, human problems generally fall into three categories: perception, emotion, and communication.
When people or nations are in conflict, they usually focus on something concrete: an object (a disputed possession, for instance) or an event (like a car accident). They focus on getting more information about the item or occurrence, but the facts aren’t the problem — it’s the parties’ beliefs or perceptions about the facts. For instance, if one person lost a watch and another found it, they may agree on the facts or circumstances, but not on who should get it.
Differing perceptions of an issue present a problem in negotiations initially, but also an opportunity for a solution if people can understand each other’s perceptions and even revise their own. Here are a few tips for understanding another’s perceptions:
See the issue through the other person’s eyes: How you see things depends on your vantage point. People see what they want to see, selecting facts that support their preconceived notions, and discarding contrary facts. The ability to see things from the other side’s perspective is a key negotiating skill.
To be able to influence them, you must understand their view, not just in the abstract but empathetically. Make yourself withhold judgment while putting yourself in their shoes. You don’t need to agree with their view, just to understand it. If you do end up revising your own view as a result, that’s a plus because you’ve reduced the scope of your dispute.
Don’t make assumptions about the other side’s intentions. We often make assumptions about what other people intend based on our own biases and fears. For instance, consider the assumptions you’d make in this scenario: A man at a bar offers a woman a ride home, but he takes an unfamiliar route, which he says is a shortcut. Your likely assumption (based on your fears) is that he intends to harm her, but he could indeed be taking a shortcut that gets her home earlier than expected. When we interpret whatever the other side says or does negatively based on our existing perceptions, we overlook new ideas or changes the other side is making in their position.
Don’t blame the other person for a problem. Even if justified, blaming the other side is counterproductive. It provokes a counterattack or defensive response. It also means you’ve both stopped listening. To talk about a problem, describe the symptoms rather than assigning personal blame.
For example, if you’re having problems with a generator breaking down repeatedly, don’t say: “Your company makes shoddy equipment,” or “Your service people don’t know what they’re doing.” Instead, point out: “This is the third time this month that it’s broken down, and disrupted our business. What can we do to improve its reliability? Should we contact another company for a second opinion?”
Discuss each other’s perceptions: Explicitly discuss each other’s differing perceptions without blaming. If you know what issues the other side takes seriously, you know what issues you should also take seriously if you want to negotiate effectively. When a topic isn’t important to you, you typically brush it aside, but if it’s more important to the other side than you realize, it can impede an agreement. On the other hand, understanding and incorporating it into the discussion can facilitate agreement even if it’s not a central point.
For example, in negotiations with developing countries over ocean drilling rights, the U.S. treated the developing nations’ desire for access to new technology, which was critical for them, as unimportant. The U.S. agreed with transferring the technology, but felt the details could easily be worked out later and so, they set the topic aside. However, by prioritizing this interest, the U.S. could have built goodwill for the final agreement or gotten something else in return.
Prove their perceptions wrong. You can change people’s negative perceptions of you or your side by acting differently from the way they expect you to act.
For example, in 1977 Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, flew to Israel’s disputed but symbolic capital, Jerusalem, to discuss peace initiatives. By acting as a potential partner rather than as an enemy (who would never make such a gesture), Sadat convinced Israel that he sincerely wanted to achieve peace. This helped open the way for a treaty two years later.
Involve the other side in the process so they have ownership of the outcome. A feeling of having participated in the process is a key factor in whether a negotiator accepts a proposal.
We all want to participate in decisions that affect us, but when trying to solve a thorny problem we often try to work out the details first, then present it to the other person. It’s a way of putting off the hard part and (we think) avoiding a long, messy debate.
Predictably, however, the other side is likely to reject our findings, even when acceptance would be in their interest, just because they were left out of the process. In negotiations, each time a side’s input is incorporated into a proposal, it increases their feeling of ownership.
Ensure they save face. The idea of face-saving has negative connotations, suggesting a pretense to make someone feel better. But in negotiations, face-saving means something different and more important. It means making an agreement consistent with the principles and past words and actions of the two sides.
People may hold out, although a proposal is acceptable to them, because they don’t want to appear to have backed down. But if the proposal can be reframed so it’s consistent with their principles or so that it seems fairer, they’ll accept it.
Here’s an example of reframing to save face: a mayor balked at accepting the terms of a negotiated agreement between the city and the Hispanic community over access to city jobs. The two sides agreed to drop the agreement, instead allowing the mayor to present the identical terms as his own program, thus fulfilling a campaign promise. The agreement itself hadn’t changed terms, but the different presentation allowed the mayor to save face and avoid looking like to constituents like he passively accepted a deal.
People come to negotiations with strong feelings: they know that much is at stake and they may already feel defensive or threatened. One side’s emotions will generate a response from the other side. Emotions can create an impasse or end negotiations. Here are some ways to keep this from happening:
Of course, you can’t have negotiations without communication. An unavoidable aspect of communication is misunderstanding, no matter how well you know someone. In negotiations, it’s a given that something you say is likely to be heard or interpreted in a way you didn’t intend.
There are three problems of communication:
To address these problems:
A better approach than addressing communication problems after the fact is to prevent communication missteps from happening in the first place. Take two key preventative steps:
In standard negotiations, the focus is on coming up with a compromise on conflicting positions, for instance splitting the difference between a union’s pay request and a company’s smaller offer. Such negotiations over firm positions often reach an impasse.
But underlying each side’s position are interests — the reasons for the positions. Addressing interests rather than positions often opens the way to an agreement.
An example illustrates the difference. Two men get into an argument at a library because one wants to keep a window open while the other wants to close it; neither is willing to go halfway. The librarian asks each man for his reasons. One wants the window open to get fresh air; the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. So, the librarian opens a window in an adjoining room to provide air flow and avoid creating a draft. She resolved the conflict by focusing on the men’s underlying interests rather than their positions on opening or closing a particular window.
In negotiations, you can’t come to an agreement without understanding both sides’ interests. Interests involve people’s needs, desires, fears, and concerns — they drive people to take the positions they take.
For example, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty reached at Camp David in 1978 succeeded in part because negotiators considered the interests behind the two countries’ positions on the issue of what to do with the Sinai Peninsula, which Egypt had occupied since 1967. Each side wanted control over it and neither would compromise. Egypt’s interest was in sovereignty over land of historical importance to them. Israel’s interest was security — they didn’t want Egyptian tanks positioned on their border. The solution addressing both interests was to give Egypt sovereignty but create large demilitarized zones.
Reconciling interests works better than trying to compromise on positions because:
You may neglect to look for shared interests because you assume that because the other side opposes your position, your interests and theirs are in opposition too. In reality, some underlying interests may be shared among all parties.
For example, if you have an interest in holding the line on your rent, you might think your landlord wants to raise it. However, the landlord may have a different, higher-priority interest, which you share: having a well-maintained property. A compromise might lie in keeping the rent down in exchange for the tenant making improvements to the apartment. A shared, complementary interest is the basis for an agreement.
Identifying interests isn’t as clear-cut as presenting or understanding a position. While positions tend to be concrete, interests, whether yours or the other side’s, may not be obvious. It may take some effort to uncover them.
Here are some steps you can take:
In negotiations, both sides need to be able to communicate their interests constructively in order to have them served. Here are some steps to take:
In negotiations, both sides need to understand each others’ interests. Interests involve people’s needs, desires, and concerns — they drive people to take the positions they take.
Think of something that you and a friend or partner are always debating, such as what to do on the weekend. What is your partner’s usual position? What is yours?
What interests do you think prompted each of your positions?
What option might serve an interest of each of yours?
A common challenge in negotiations arises when there doesn’t seem to be a way to split the pie that serves both sides. The choice seems to be having a winner and a loser, and neither side wants to lose. But the dilemma opens up the opportunity for creative options that expand the pie before dividing it. A creative solution can break an impasse and result in a better agreement.
But standard negotiation methods don’t often produce many options. The people on both sides don’t see a need for them. They believe they have the right answer, that their position is reasonable, and that it should be accepted. A suggestion to split the difference is as creative as they get. The resulting agreement doesn’t serve either party as well as it should.
Here are some additional obstacles to generating multiple options during negotiations:
To invent creative options, separate the act of inventing from judging, broaden the options beyond a single answer, search for mutual gains, and make decisions easy.
Since judgment gets in the way of imagination, set up a brainstorming session for your side to come up with creative ideas that can be winnowed and refined later.
Brainstorming with people from the other side can also be valuable. Benefits include producing ideas that encompass all interests, creating a problem-solving climate, and increasing each side’s understanding of the other’s concerns. It’s important, however, to distinguish brainstorming from a negotiation session: Discuss options rather than take positions; ask questions rather than making assertions.
When you create a large number and variety of options, you develop room in which to negotiate. Creating options involves four steps, including both general and specific thinking:
You can start with general thinking and move to specifics or go backward. When you have a promising idea, go back and try to identify the general (theoretical) approach behind it. This could generate more ideas along the same line.
Here are some additional ideas for generating options:
A third obstacle to creative problem-solving is the assumption that the pie is fixed, that “if you get less, I get more.” Usually, this isn’t the case. There’s almost always a way both sides can gain through a creative solution that addresses shared interests.
Sometimes shared interests aren’t obvious, but making the effort to find them is in your interest. The alternative, in which the other side gets nothing, is also bad for you. For example, if your customer goes away feeling cheated, you’ll lose both the customer and your reputation. Also, you want the other side to be satisfied enough to comply with the agreement.
Additional points about mutual gain to keep in mind are:
You succeed in negotiations when the other side agrees to give you what you want. You should make this decision as easy for them as possible. That means taking care of their interests. To broaden your thinking beyond your immediate interests, put yourself in their shoes:
Standard negotiations are a battle of wills. For instance, with a labor contract, the prevailing side determines the level of pay increases and benefits, based on their view of what’s appropriate. The agreement won’t be efficiently arrived at and it won’t be civil because one side has to back down. It’s also unlikely to be a wise agreement (encompassing the interests of both sides).
A better alternative is to negotiate an agreement measured against objective standards, independent of the will of either side.
When you use objective standards, such as market value or average salaries, you’re basing the agreement on principle instead of succumbing to pressure tactics or threats to use an arbitrary standard chosen by the other side.
Principled negotiation using objective criteria is more likely to produce a fair and balanced agreement efficiently and civilly. Objectives standards support the three criteria for a successful negotiation:
When a large number of parties is involved, having independent standards is especially important because positional bargaining by many sides gets extremely complicated.
Before negotiations begin, start thinking about possible independent standards to use, and how you would apply them (fair standards and fair procedures). Often there are multiple objective standards for your situation. Possible standards include: professional standards, precedent, tradition, moral standards, market value, scientific studies and data, depreciation tables, average salaries, cost of living, and comparable contracts.
Objective standards are:
Besides having fair standards, you must use fair procedures in applying them. The old childhood rule for dividing a cake (one cuts, the other chooses) is one example. A modified version would be for the parties to negotiate what they think is a fair agreement before deciding who will get what.
Other fair procedures include: taking turns, drawing straws, flipping a coin, or letting someone else decide. The point is that each side has equal opportunity under the procedure. For instance, heirs could take turns selecting items they want from a family estate.
In many disputes it’s common to turn to a third party for help: you could submit the dispute to binding arbitration, hire a mediator, or submit a question to an expert.
When using objective standards, you should be firm but reasonable. Follow these guidelines:
The authors argue that agreements should be based on objective standards independent of either side, such as market values. Use these questions to determine the objective standards in your own negotiations.
Think of a situation where you negotiated with someone over the price of something. What was the rationale behind the price you ended up with? Was it fair?
What objective standards could you use in the following negotiations: your salary or work compensation, splitting chores among your household, and the use of the family car.
What is an existing conflict that you haven’t resolved yet? In this case, what would be an objective standard for settling the conflict?
(Shortform note: In the final two parts of the book, the authors answer questions about principled negotiation. Because some answers introduce new material or are repetitive, we’ve reorganized the information into sections on Practical Application (Procedures, Tactics), and Challenges to make it easier to grasp.)
Informal negotiations with family and friends about such things as where to eat or spend a vacation tend to be impromptu. However, formal negotiations between companies and employees, or involving governments, and other entities require planning. Here are some logistics and procedural considerations.
Deciding where to meet for negotiations will depend on both needs and circumstances. Think about where the parties would be most comfortable and productive.
Challenging conversations, especially those involving emotions or relationship issues, typically are best handled face to face. Electronic communication, which has become integral in our personal and work lives, can be useful as an adjunct in negotiations. But it has potential drawbacks as well as positives such as convenience. Carefully consider the pluses and minuses of various methods, including phone, email, text messages, and video chat applications.
Among the potential advantages:
However, beware of the potential drawbacks of non face-to-face communication:
To prevent problems with non face-to-face communication:
There are numerous considerations involving protocol and strategy. People often ask, Who should make the first offer, and how high should it be?
Wait to give the first offer: Making an offer too soon can make the other side feel rushed or pressured. It’s better to start by examining interests, options, and standards first. Once both sides have a handle on the problem, an offer that accommodates all interests will come across as constructive. In any case, in the early stages, you could try to introduce an objective or standard favorable to you. Ultimately, if both sides are well prepared for negotiation, it doesn’t make much difference who makes the first offer.
Deciding how high to start: In cases involving a buyer and seller, people are used to judging success by how far the other person retreats from their original position. The buyer’s goal is paying less than the original asking price. In traditional bargaining, if you’re selling, you start with the highest number you can ask for without looking unreasonable. In a principled negotiation, however, start with the highest figure that a neutral person would see as fair. And before making the offer, explain your rationale. You don’t want to be too firm initially because if you move later you may lose credibility. Alternatively, you could point out what people are paying for comparable items, thereby suggesting a standard without committing to that number.
Thinking about the first offer at the outset gets the cart before the horse. Preparation is the initial step. Your strategy will grow naturally from your preparation. Since you won’t know what the other side’s strategy is going to be, it’s best to focus on preparation initially and decide your direction later.
Here’s how to prepare and move through the negotiation process (rather than simply starting off by considering how high an offer to make):
To begin practicing principled negotiation:
Sometimes, despite your best efforts to practice principled negotiation, the other side insists on the traditional adversarial method of bargaining from position. There are three ways you can try to shift their focus to merits (facts and evidence):
When the other side takes a firm position, it’s tempting to criticize and reject it. When they attack your proposal, you’ll want to forcefully defend it. But if you get into a mode of pushing back and forth, you’ll waste time and won’t get anywhere.
Instead, when they push, don’t push back. Don’t reject their position, defend yours, or counterattack. Refuse to act and you’ll interrupt the dynamic. Play conversational jujitsu by avoiding a direct response and channeling their energy toward the interests, options, and criteria.
Launching an offensive in positional bargaining often has three aspects: aggressively arguing their position, attacking your proposals, and attacking you personally. Here’s how to respond indirectly:
When you’re deadlocked and unable to shift negotiations from positional to principled, it may be time to bring in a mediator. Mediators often use an approach called the ‘one-text’ process to come up with a fair agreement acceptable to both sides. Here’s how it works:
The ‘one-text’ approach breaks impasses by bypassing positional bargaining.
It also speeds up and simplifies the negotiation process by narrowing the options to one. You can use the method without a mediator: Just prepare a draft and ask the other side to critique it. It works well in two-party negotiations, and is even more useful in multilateral talks as a way of streamlining a complex process.
The one-text approach was the basis for the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1978. In the role of mediator, the U.S. prepared a draft, asked for critiques, and continued to improve it. After 23 revised drafts, President Jimmy Carter presented a recommendation and both sides accepted it.
There’s an array of strong-arm tactics that hard bargainers may use in an effort to get you to succumb to their position, including lies, pressure tactics, and psychological tricks. They’re designed to be used by only one side, without the other side knowing they’re being manipulated.
The targets of these tactics typically:
The only effective way to counter these tactics is to use the techniques of principled negotiation to establish how you’re going to negotiate (the rules of the game). Let’s look at some strategies.
Follow these steps: recognize the tactic, call attention to it, and question its validity as a tactic. Use the tactic as the basis for discussing how to negotiate constructively.
Often just calling attention to the tactic will blunt its effectiveness and cause the other side to worry that they overplayed their hand and alienated you. As a result, they may drop it. But the important thing is that you can now negotiate the process. Setting aside substance temporarily, shift your aim to getting a fair agreement on procedure.
The method remains the same:
Underhanded tactics fall into three categories: deception, psychological abuse, and pressure for concessions. Let’s look at specific ways to deal with each.
Deception involves misrepresenting facts, authority or intentions. Examples include:
Psychological abuse is aimed at making you uncomfortable so you want to end as soon as possible. Examples include: creating stressful situations, personal attacks, threats, and a good cop/bad cop routine. In response, you can ignore these tactics or call them out. In the case of threats, you could point out potential consequences, or call them out and ask for agreement to use more constructive behavior.
Positional pressure tactics are intended to force you into making concessions. Examples include:
Hardball negotiators use an array of strong-arm tactics to get you to accept their position, including lies, pressure tactics, and psychological tricks.
Think of some pressure tactics someone used in a negotiation with you, for instance threats or refusing to budge. How did they affect the negotiation?
How did you respond to the threats?
How could you respond differently if it something similar happens in the future?
Two types of challenges that can stymie principled negotiation are:
People’s defensive or reactionary behavior is often a reason that negotiations fail. Dealing with the human element of how you’re treating the other side and how the people are reacting is critical to success. Whether you’re focusing on a specific human issue, or people are just one concern of negotiation, follow these guidelines:
Human problems in negotiation can crop up around issues of personality, gender, or culture. While people share certain basic needs, such as being loved and respected, we differ on many other levels. Here are some guidelines for recognizing and adjusting to differences.
For most of us, negotiations involve typical things like jobs, real estate, divorces and other civil matters, or labor contracts. Principled negotiation works well in these circumstances, as well as in higher-level matters between countries. But what happens when the other side is decidedly unprincipled, for instance a Hitler or group of terrorists? Principled negotiation can still work, but involves somewhat different considerations.
However nasty the other side, unless you have a better alternative than negotiating, it makes sense to negotiate. The key question is how.
In the case of terrorists, even if you’re not talking to them, you’re negotiating with them — by words and actions, even from a distance, you’re trying to influence their decisions and they’re trying to influence yours. The question is whether to negotiate indirectly from a distance or more directly. You’ll have greater influence if your communication is strong.
Negotiation doesn’t mean giving in. It may allow you to convince the other side they won’t get a ransom. You also may learn of some legitimate interest they have that you can use in a deal where neither side gives in. For example, in the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis in 1981, the interests of both sides were served and neither side gave more than the other side was entitled to: Iran released the hostages and paid its debts, and upon payment, the U.S. returned the funds it had seized.
Countries often refuse to negotiate with terrorists on the theory that it rewards them with attention and status. However, you can avoid giving terrorists public attention by taking a lower-profile approach using low-level officials or professionals as negotiators. Also, professionals can be highly successful. Police negotiators often succeed in getting hostages released and taking criminals into custody.
Whether to negotiate with someone like Hitler depends on the alternative. Sometimes war — fighting and dying — is better or more honorable than negotiation. On the other hand, war has huge costs and offers no guarantee of good results. If you can substantially meet your interests through negotiation, it deserves consideration.
From a Western point of view, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin was as bad as Hitler, employing aggression, genocide, and a similar ideology. But war, with the availability of the hydrogen bomb, wasn’t a viable option for getting rid of him or his ideology. Nor were there principles involved that justified war. Instead, the West opposed Soviet communism by applying other kinds of pressure and it eventually collapsed on its own.
Even with a Hitler or Stalin, negotiating may have the potential to produce results that serve our interests better than the alternative of war.
When the other side is acting out of religious conviction, they still may be influenceable through negotiation. While they’re not going to change their religious ideology, they may have interests that can be served by an agreement that doesn’t compromise either side’s principles.
Governments often mistakenly overvalue their alternatives to negotiation. They may imply that if other means fail, they always have a military option. But sometimes, military options aren’t viable. For instance, raids to rescue hostages have a high risk of failure. The question is what decision you want the other side to make, and how military force could influence them to make it.
Sometimes there’s a significant power imbalance between your side and the other side in a negotiation. They may be richer, have more physical and human resources, have connections with people in power, or have power (social, political, or economic) themselves. But even though it seems like they have all the leverage, you still have options. The biggest risk you face is being too quick to agree in order to end the process.
When facing a power imbalance, you should strive to meet two objectives:
To avoid being too accommodating, negotiators often determine a bottom line, or worst acceptable outcome, in advance.
For instance, a couple asking for $300,000 for their house might agree to accept no less than $250,000. With a bottom line, you can more easily resist pressure. It also limits the authority of someone acting on your behalf, such as a broker or lawyer.
There are downsides, however. Because your bottom line can’t be changed, you can’t benefit from information you get during negotiation. Bottom lines tend to be too high or too low. Having a bottom line inhibits coming up with a creative option that’s better. And it focuses on only one measure of success, although there are likely multiple measures that should be considered.
So while having a bottom line can protect you from a bad agreement, it can also stand in the way of a better agreement. There’s an alternative to a bottom line, however — knowing your BATNA, or best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
Typically when you’re deciding your minimum price for selling a house, you’re thinking of what you should be able to get. However, a more important question is what you’ll do if you’re not able to sell it by your deadline. The answer is your BATNA — the most attractive alternative to negotiation if negotiation falls apart.
You may have an alternative that’s better than selling it for $250,000 — for instance, if the market is trending upward, you may get a better price by waiting and selling it later. On the other hand, selling it for $240,000 may be better than paying the costs of holding onto it indefinitely.
The purpose of negotiating is to get better results than you’d get without negotiating. So when negotiating to sell your house, you need to know your best alternative to negotiation in order to know whether to accept an agreement.
Any proposed agreement should be measured against your best alternative or BATNA. It will protect you from accepting a bad agreement, as well as from rejecting a good agreement. Unlike a bottom line, it’s flexible enough to allow you to explore additional options. Instead of rejecting a proposal that doesn’t meet the bottom line, you can compare it with your BATNA to see if it better satisfies your interests.
If you haven’t thought seriously about what you’ll do if you don’t reach an agreement, you’re negotiating blindly. For instance, you may reject an agreement because, in the abstract, you think you have many other choices without fully appreciating their downsides. However, the greater danger is that you’ll be overly committed to reaching an agreement because you’re afraid of what might happen if you don’t.
Another test you can use in addition to a BATNA is a trip wire — a less-than-perfect agreement that’s still better than your BATNA. Before accepting anything worse than your trip wire agreement, you should step back from negotiation and reexamine the situation. You should have wiggle room between your trip wire and BATNA.
Besides protecting you from accepting a bad agreement, your BATNA will help you make the most of your assets to reach a good agreement. The stronger your BATNA, the greater your power.
While wealth and connections enhance negotiating power, the power of each side also depends on the strength of their alternative. If you have a stronger alternative — for instance, the ability to get a better price elsewhere — you can walk away from an agreement, which gives you leverage.
Here’s an example of how a small town with a strong BATNA overcame a power imbalance in negotiation with a large company. The town was negotiating with a corporation that had a factory outside the town limits to increase its goodwill payment to the town from $300,000 to $3.2 million. The town’s BATNA was that if it couldn’t reach an agreement with the company for more money, it would expand the town limits to include the factory and tax it for even more than it was requesting as a goodwill payment. Because of its stronger BATNA, the town had the greater leverage in negotiations.
Generating a solid BATNA involves:
Measure every offer against your BATNA. If it’s strong, you can negotiate more confidently.
It may or may not make sense to disclose your BATNA in negotiations. For example, it could be to your advantage to do so if you have another customer waiting in the next room, or if the other side thinks you don’t have a good alternative to accepting an agreement. But don’t disclose your BATNA if it’s worse than other side thinks.
It’s also to your benefit to think about the other side’s alternatives or BATNA. The more you know about their options, the better you can prepare for negotiation and the more accurate you can be about what to expect.
If they seem to be overestimating it, you may want to help them rethink their expectations. If their BATNA is actually better than negotiating on the merits, consider what you can do to change it. If both sides have strong BATNAs, the best outcome may not be agreement.
When the other side is more powerful, many factors, especially specific negotiation skills, can strengthen your hand. For example:
You’ll make the most of your potential power if you combine all of the elements and skills of principled negotiation so they reinforce each other. For instance, don’t depend on one skill, such as developing a BATNA, alone. They’re designed to work together.