Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury
Notes by Keith Grossman, Attorney & Mediator
OVERVIEW
Negotiations don't have to be hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft. The Harvard Negotiation Project developed an alternative to positional bargaining called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits. This is a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. The goal is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible.
You should look for ways to make all of your negotiations a principled negotiation or a negotiation on the merits. This book offer wonderful strategies and techniques for doing so.
Negotiations don't have to be hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft. The Harvard Negotiation Project developed an alternative to positional bargaining called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits. This is a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. The goal is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible.
You should look for ways to make all of your negotiations a principled negotiation or a negotiation on the merits. This book offer wonderful strategies and techniques for doing so.
THE CONCEPTS
Principled negotiation is superior to positional bargaining.
Problems that arise in using the standard strategies of positional bargaining (arguing over positions)
Principled Negotiation
Principled Negotiation is based on four basic points:
What if they have all the power?
If they have all the leverage, the most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives:
What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game where the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic:
How do you reach closure on issues?
Here are some general principles worth considering:
Principled negotiation is superior to positional bargaining.
Problems that arise in using the standard strategies of positional bargaining (arguing over positions)
- Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties.
- Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes. The more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties.
- Arguing over positions is inefficient. The more extreme the opening positions and the smaller the concessions, the more time and effort it will take to discover whether or not agreement is possible.
- Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship. Anger and resentment often result as one side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go unaddressed.
- Positional bargaining trades substance and a good relationship against each other. You either let the matter drop (substance) or you sacrifice the relationship to satisfy your position.
Principled Negotiation
Principled Negotiation is based on four basic points:
- Separate the people from the problem
- Focus on interests, not positions
- Invent options for mutual gain
- Insist on using objective criteria
What if they have all the power?
If they have all the leverage, the most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives:
- to protect you against making an agreement you should reject, and
- to 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.
What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game where the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic:
- recognize the tactic,
- raise the issue explicitly, and
- question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability— negotiate over it.
How do you reach closure on issues?
Here are some general principles worth considering:
- Before you even begin to negotiate, it makes sense to envision what a successful agreement might look like.
- It is usually a good idea to sketch the outlines of what an agreement might look like as part of your preparation.
- 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. Perhaps a better option or a trade- off possibility will occur later.
- 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; rather explain again your underlying interests.
- Once an issue or group of issues is well explored, you should be prepared to make an offer.
- 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 that this is a final gesture; you do not want to raise expectations of further concessions.
INSPIRING QUOTES FROM THE BOOK
The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating.
The best rule of thumb is to be optimistic— to let your reach exceed your grasp. Without wasting a lot of resources on hopeless causes, recognize that many things are worth trying for even if you may not succeed. The more you try for, the more you are likely to get. Studies of negotiation consistently show a strong correlation between aspiration and result. Within reason, it pays to think positively.
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. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.
Your reputation for honesty and fair- dealing may be your single most important asset as a negotiator.
Whatever else you are doing at any point during a negotiation, from preparation to follow- up, it is worth asking yourself, “Am I paying enough attention to the people problem?”. This means their humanistic frailties and your own.
Dealing with a substantive problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits.
Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears.
The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess.
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process.
Face- saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self- image of the negotiators. Its importance should not be underestimated.
Be personally supportive of the other person. Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize your concern with meeting their basic needs, and so on. Show them that you are attacking the problem, not them.
When they state positions, figure out what interests they are trying to meet. Seek out the principles the position reflects, and try to improve upon it.
Look forward, not back. Don't talk about causes; talk about solutions. You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from.
An open mind is not an empty one.
Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Often the wisest solutions, those that produce the maximum gain for you at the minimum cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests. Successful negotiation requires being both firm and open minded.
Question your assumptions and listen actively.
Generate many options before selecting among them. Invent first; decide later.
Insisting that an agreement be based on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based solely on the criterion you advance. One standard of legitimacy does not preclude the existence of others.
It is the combination of openness to reason with insistence on a solution based on objective criteria that makes principled negotiation so persuasive and so effective at getting the other side to play.
Too often we worry about getting a deal done instead of walking away because of what we've invested into the negotiation. We wind up being too accommodating and accept a deal we should have rejected.
Whether you should or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative.
Good negotiators rarely resort to threats. They do not need to; there are other ways to communicate the same information.
There is no need to emulate unconstructive behavior. Doing so may indeed “teach them a lesson,” though often not the lesson we would like. In most cases responding in kind reinforces the behavior we dislike. It encourages the other side to feel that everyone behaves that way and that it is the only way to protect themselves. Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer and to avoid any reward for the behavior we dislike, both without compromising our substantive interests.
The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating.
The best rule of thumb is to be optimistic— to let your reach exceed your grasp. Without wasting a lot of resources on hopeless causes, recognize that many things are worth trying for even if you may not succeed. The more you try for, the more you are likely to get. Studies of negotiation consistently show a strong correlation between aspiration and result. Within reason, it pays to think positively.
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. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.
Your reputation for honesty and fair- dealing may be your single most important asset as a negotiator.
Whatever else you are doing at any point during a negotiation, from preparation to follow- up, it is worth asking yourself, “Am I paying enough attention to the people problem?”. This means their humanistic frailties and your own.
Dealing with a substantive problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits.
Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears.
The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess.
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process.
Face- saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self- image of the negotiators. Its importance should not be underestimated.
Be personally supportive of the other person. Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize your concern with meeting their basic needs, and so on. Show them that you are attacking the problem, not them.
When they state positions, figure out what interests they are trying to meet. Seek out the principles the position reflects, and try to improve upon it.
Look forward, not back. Don't talk about causes; talk about solutions. You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from.
An open mind is not an empty one.
Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Often the wisest solutions, those that produce the maximum gain for you at the minimum cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests. Successful negotiation requires being both firm and open minded.
Question your assumptions and listen actively.
Generate many options before selecting among them. Invent first; decide later.
Insisting that an agreement be based on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based solely on the criterion you advance. One standard of legitimacy does not preclude the existence of others.
It is the combination of openness to reason with insistence on a solution based on objective criteria that makes principled negotiation so persuasive and so effective at getting the other side to play.
Too often we worry about getting a deal done instead of walking away because of what we've invested into the negotiation. We wind up being too accommodating and accept a deal we should have rejected.
Whether you should or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative.
Good negotiators rarely resort to threats. They do not need to; there are other ways to communicate the same information.
There is no need to emulate unconstructive behavior. Doing so may indeed “teach them a lesson,” though often not the lesson we would like. In most cases responding in kind reinforces the behavior we dislike. It encourages the other side to feel that everyone behaves that way and that it is the only way to protect themselves. Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer and to avoid any reward for the behavior we dislike, both without compromising our substantive interests.