shawn wang y.x.

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

By Swyx on June 12th, 2010

2nd edition by Roger Fisher and William Ury with Bruce Patton

1. The Problem: Don’t Bargain Over Positions
   • Any method of negotiation must be judged by 3 criteria: 1) it should produce a wise agreement if possible, 2) it should be efficient, and 3) it should improve or not damage the relationship between the parties.
   • A wise agreement = meeting legitimate interests of each side as far as possible, resolving conflicting interests fairly, is durable, takes community interests into account.
   • Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements – people are locking themselves into those positions. It is inefficient, and it endangers ongoing relationships. Being nice is also no answer – your interests need to be  addressed.
   • Negotiations usually have two levels – one addressing the substance, i.e. your salary, the other addressing the procedure for dealing with the substance i.e. what are the rules of the game.
   • Harvard’s method avoids playing Hard OR soft negotiation tactics – it uses “principled” negotiation covering People, Interests, Options, and Criteria.
   • Three stages of negotiation – analysis (gathering info and organizing), planning (generating ideas/deciding what to do), discussion (parties communicating back and forth
2. The Method: Separate the People from the Problem
   • Negotiators are people first.
   • Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship. The relationship tends to become entangled in the problem. Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict.
   • Separate the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem.
   • Techniques for dealing with people problems: 1) perception (put yourself in their shoes, don’t deduce their intentions from your fears, don’t blame them for your problem, discuss each other’s perceptions, look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions, give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process, face saving: make your proposals consistent with their values), 2) emotion (recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours, make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate, allow the other side to let off steam, don’t react to emotional outbursts, use symbolic gestures), 3) communication (listen actively and acknowledge what is being said, speak to be understood, speak about yourself, not about them, speak for a purpose – before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate/find out)
   • Prevention works best – build a working relationship and face the problem, not the people
3. The Method: Focus on Interests, not Positions
   • For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions – interests define the problem. Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.
   • How do you identify interests – put yourself in their shoes and ask why, and why not do what they are doing
   • Realize that each side has multiple interests. The most powerful interests are basic human needs – security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one’s life.
   • How do you discuss interests constructively without getting locked into rigid positions? 1) Make our interests come alive – be specific, 2) acknowledge their interests as part of the problem, 3) put the problem before your answer, 4) look forward and not back, 5) be concrete but flexible, 6) be hard on the problem, soft on the people.
4. The Method: Invent Options for Mutual Gain
   • Too many people leave money on the table. The only “creative thinking” is to suggest splitting the difference.
   • Obstacles inhibiting invention of options: 1) premature judgement (instant criticism of new ideas), 2) searching for the single answer, 3) the assumption of a fixed pie, 4) thinking that solving their problem is their problem
   • To invent creative options, you need to: 1) separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them, 2) broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer, 3) search for mutual gains, 4) invent ways of making their decisions easy.
   • Before brainstorming: 1) define your purpose, 2) choose a few participants between 5-8 people, 3) change the environment, 4) design an informal atmosphere, 5) choose a facilitator – keep meeting on track , make sure everyone gets a chance to speak, stimulate discussion by asking questions.
   • During brainstorming: 1) seat participants side by side facing the problem. 2) clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule. 3) brainstorm. 4) record the ideas in full view.
   • After brainstorming: 1) star the most promising ideas. 2) invent improvements for promising ideas. 3) Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide.
   • Consider brainstorming with the other side.
   • Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general: the Circle Chart – on one axis: what is wrong vs what might be done. on the other axis, in theory vs in the real world – go from Problem (wrong in real world) to Analysis (wrong in theory) to Approaches (done in theory) to Action Ideas (done in real world)
   • The task of inventing options involves four types of thinking: 1) the factual situation you are facing, 2) descriptive analysis – diagnosing situation in general terms, cateogorizing problems, suggesting causes, 3) thinking what ought to be done – general answers from theory, 4) coming up with specific and feasible suggestions for action.
   • Invent “weaker” agreements – instead of substantive agreements, procedural ones, instead of final agreement, in principle agreement, instead of binding/unconditional agreement, try nonbinding/contingent.
   • Identify shared interests, dovetail differing interests (satisfactory agreement possible because each side wants different things)
   • Typical differences in interests: Form v Substance, Economic v Political, Internal v External, Symbolic v Practical, Immediate future vs distant future, ad hoc results vs relationship, hardware vs ideology, progress vs respect for tradition, precedent vs just solving this case, prestige/reputation vs results, political points vs group welfare.
   • Differences in time value, beliefs, aversion to risk, forecasts
   • Make their decision easy – Search for a precedent.
   • Making threats is not enough – offers are usually more effective. Try to drat a proposal to which their responding with the single word yes would be sufficient, realistic, and operational.
5. The Method: Insist on Using Objective Criteria
   • Deciding on the basis of will is costly.
   • Fair standards can be based on – Market value, What a Court Would Decide, Precedent, Moral Standards, Scientific judgement, Equal treatment, Professional Standards, Tradition, Efficiency, Reciprocity, Costs, etc.
   • “One cuts, the other chooses”
   • How to discuss objective criteria: 1) frame each issue as a joint search 2) reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate 3) never yield to pressure, only to principle. Demand reasons for things like “its company policy”
6. Yes, But… What If they are more Powerful? (Develop Your BATNA)
   • Bottom lines inhibit imagination and limits your ability to benefit from what you learn in a negotiation. it is also likely to be set too high.
   • Alternatives to bottom line: Know your BATNA, use a trip-wire just above BATNA
   • Consider the other side’s BATNA – if they appear to overestimate their BATNA, you may want to lower their expectations.
7. Yes, But… What if they won’t Play? (Use Negotiation Jujitsu)
   • Focus on what you can do
   • Focus on what they may do – negotiation jujitsu – counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct attention to merits
   • What a third party may do
   • Negotiation jujitsu – when they assert their positions – do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don’t defend them. When they attack you, don’t counterattack.
   • Look behind their position – assume every position they take is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side – ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand.
   • Dont defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice – what concerns of yours would this proposal fail to take into account – improve your ideas from their point of view. Rework your ideas in light of what you learn from them
   • When they attack personally, show you understand what they are saying, and recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem.
   • Ask questions instead of making statements
   • Silence is one of your best weapons against an unjustified attack – silence creates impression of a stalemate
   • The one-text procedure – using a third party to boil everything down to one thing that the third party says is the best possible agreement. Take it or leave it.
8. Yes, But… What if they use Dirty Tricks (Taming the Hard Bargainer)
   • Standard response – put up with it (giving benefit of doubt) or respond in kind (fight fire with fire))
   • Tricky bargaining tactics are one-sided proposals about negotiating procedure – the negotiating game that parties are going to play. To counter, engage in principled negotiation about the negotiating process.
   • Three steps for negotiating 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.
   • Question the tactic, not their personal integrity
   • Common tricky tactics have three categories – deliberate deception (phony facts, ambiguous authority, dubious intentions), psychological warfare (stressful situations, personal attacks, good guy/bad guy routine, threats), and positional pressure tactics (refusal to negotiate, extreme demands, escalating demands, lock-in tactics, hardhearted partner, a calculated delay, “take it or leave it”).
9. Conclusion
   • you knew it all the time
   • learn from doing
   • this book is about how to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences.
10. Ten questions: Does positional bargaining ever make sense?
    • Consider – how important is it to avoid an arbitrary outcome? how complex are the issues? how important is it to maintain a good working relationship? what are the other side’s expectations, and how hard would they be to change? and Where are you in the negotiation – bargaining over positions does the least harm if it comes after you have identified each other’s interests.
11. Ten questions: What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
    • Agreement on the “best” standard is not necessary – you can flip a coin, use an arbitrator, or even split the difference.
12. Ten questions: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?
    • You may have an opportunity to get more than you think would be fair. Should you take it? Not without careful thought.
    • Will the unfair result be durable?
    • What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationships?
13. Ten questions: What do I do if the people ARE the problem?
    • Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement.
    • Substantive issues (terms, conditions, prices, dates, numbers, liabilities) and relationship (balance of emotion and reason, ease of communication, degree of trust and reliability, attitude of acceptance/rejection, relative emphasis on persuasion/coercion, degree of mutual understanding) should be disentangled.
    • Distinguish how you treat them from how they treat you – no need to emulate unconstructive behavior
    • Deal rationally with apparent irrationality – maybe they see the situation differently, or maybe you can help them see how their reasoning is flawed due to a logical leap/factual misperception
14. Ten questions: Should I negotiate with terrorists?
    • Unless you have a better BATNA, yes.
    • But negotiating tends to achieve better more desirable outcomes.
    • What if they are acting out of religious conviction? the convictions are unlikely to be changed, but the actions they take may be subject to influence.
    • When does it make sense NOT to negotiate? only if your BATNA is fine. Think carefully about the two levels of negotiation and if you have exhausted all options.
15. Ten questions: How do I adjust approach to account for personality/gender/culture differences?
    • Common differences in negotiation: Pacing (fast or slow?), Formality (high or low?), Physical proximity while talking (close or distant?), Oral or written agreements (which are more binding/inclusive?), Bluntness of communication (direct or indirect?), time frame: (short-term or longer?), scope of relationship (business-only or all-encompassing?), expected place of doing business (private/public?), who negotiates (equals in status or most competent?), rigidity of commitments (written in stone/flexible?)
    • Avoid stereotyping individuals. Question your assumptions, listen actively.
16. Ten questions: How do I things like “Who should make the first offer/How high should I start”? (Tactics)
    • You may want to anchor the discussion early around an approach or standard favorable to you.
    • Start with the highest figure that you could justify without embarrassment.
    • 2 points on strategy – strategy is a function of preparation, and 2) a clever strategy cannot make up for a lack of preparation
17. Ten questions: How do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
    • Think about closure from the beginning
    • Consider crafting a framework agreement
    • Move toward commitment gradually
    • Be persistent in pursuing your interests but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution
    • Make an offer.
    • Be generous at the end.
18. Ten questions: How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
    • Start small.
    • Make an investment
    • Review your performance.
    • Prepare!
19. Ten questions: How do I enhance my negotiating power/Can I mitigate the other side’s power by negotiation?
    • Some things you are not going to be able to get through negotiation.
    • How you negotiate makes a big difference.
    • Resources are not the same as “negotiation power”
    • Don’t ask “Who’s more powerful?” – it inhibits creativity and optimism
    • There are many sources of negotiation power – developing a good BATNA, people, understanding their interests, inventing elegant options, and criteria – and lastly, the power of commitment – if you work well with the other side you will benefit.
    • Commitment – clarify what you will do, committing to what you will not do, and clarify what you want them to do.

Personally I think the Shell book is more useful for negotiating