![rw-book-cover](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51CwtgpX5eL._SL200_.jpg) ## Metadata - Authors: [[Roger Fisher]], [[William L. Ury]], [[Bruce Patton]] - Full Title: Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In - Topics: [[Communication]], [[Negotiation]], [[Relationships (Index)]] - Category: #books ## Summary - The fundamental question that the book aims to answer is: "**What is the best way for people to deal with their differences?**" (p. xix) In response, the book proposes a **method of principled negotiation** developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project. It isn't about "winning" at negotiations, but about having a better process for dealing with differences. - Most of the material in this book isn't revolutionary, but common sense. The key is to become more aware of what's happening in negotiations and put the ideas into practice. - **Negotiations happen on two levels: substance and procedure.** Substance is the content of the negotiation. Procedure is about the structure of the negotiation. Any step you take on the substance level also affects how you "play the game," i.e., the procedure. - **The authors suggest three criteria to judge whether a method of negotiation works**: - It needs to produce a "wise agreement," i.e., one that meets the interests of each side as much as possible and resolves conflicts fairly and durably. - It needs to be efficient, i.e., save time and energy. - It needs to protect and even strengthen the relationship between the parties involved. - **Most people only know of two ways to negotiate — soft or hard.** Soft negotiators want to avoid conflict and make quick concessions to reach an agreement. Hard negotiators, in contrast, make it a contest of will, where each side takes and defends extreme positions. - **Don't bargain over positions.** The "hard" way to negotiate fails on all of the criteria mentioned above. Any agreement likely doesn't adequately meet the interests of the parties. The process is inefficient and damages the relationship. - **Being soft is no answer.** It tends to produce a sloppy agreement and makes you vulnerable to hard negotiators. - **Principled negotiation is a "third way."** It focuses on basic interests, mutually satisfying options, and fair standards. There are four key principles: - **1. People: Separate the people from the problem.** - Recognize that negotiators are people first. They have emotions, values, prior experiences, cognitive biases, etc. - Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship. They both want a good outcome and a good relationship. - However, the relationship tends to become entangled with the problem, i.e., the substance of the negotiation. - You need to actively disentangle the relationship from the substance. Think of the people as partners in a joint search for a fair agreement. Discuss and understand the perceptions and emotions of both parties. Build a working relationship with the people involved before the negotiation begins. - **2. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.** - Interests or needs are what drives and motivates people. They are abstract. The most basic interests include, e.g., security, well-being, belonging, or control. - In contrast, positions or strategies are concrete ways to meet certain interests or needs. - There are usually many ways to meet a particular interest. - Conflict between parties mostly arises on the level of positions, not interests. - Each side usually has multiple interests in any given situation. - The purpose of negotiation is to serve both parties' interests. To do this, it helps to explicitly surface and communicate them. Write them down to facilitate the process. - **3. Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.** - Stay open to additional options and avoid premature judgment. - Broaden the set of available options instead of looking for a single answer. - Avoid zero-sum thinking and search for mutually beneficial options. - Help them meet their needs instead of seeing "their problem as their problem." - **4. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.** - Make a decision based on objective criteria and principles instead of pressure and will. - Come up with fair, legitimate, and practical standards and procedures in advance. - **Know your BATNA — your "Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement."** - The reason you negotiate is to get a better outcome than you could attain without negotiating. - Your BATNA is the standard against which to judge any proposed agreement. - Know your BATNA before negotiating. This way, you'll know what terms you should accept or reject. Similarly, you should consider the other side's BATNA. - The relative negotiation power of the parties mainly depends on the strength of their BATNA. - **Negotiation jujitsu: directing the other party's attention to the merits rather than positions.** - Don't push back when they assert their positions or attack yours. - Don't attack their position, but look for the interests behind it. %% ## Audiobook summary (≈ 2016-17) * Don’t defend your position * Negotiation on two levels: substance (positions) and procedure (principles) * Separate the people from the problem * Other side: desire to feel good about themselves; ego involved in positions. * Disentangle the relationship from the substance * Put yourself in their shoes * Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears * Discuss each other’s perceptions. Make them explicit * Pay attention to emotions. Make them explicit * Allow the other side to let off steam. Don’t react to emotional outbursts. * Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their expectations * Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process * Whatever you say, the other side will hear something different * Know the other side personally well. Build a working relationship. * Sit on the same side of the table, facing the problem together. * Focus on interests, not positions * Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. * Ask “why?” - what is their basic concern? * Ask “why not?” - what does the other side see you asking them for, and why have they not yet made that step? * Begin by showing that you appreciate their interests. * Make your interests specific, add concrete details. * Put the problem before your answer. Give your interests and reasoning first. * Be hard on the problem, but soft on the people. * Invent options for mutual gain * Obstacles that inhibit the inventing of options: * Premature judgment * Searching for a single answer * The assumption of a fixed pie * Thinking that solving their problem is their problem * Separate inventing from deciding * Before brainstorming: Define your purpose, choose a few participants, change the environment, design an informal atmosphere, choose a facilitator * During brainstorming: Seat the participants side by side facing the problem, clarify the ground rules (including a no criticism rule), brainstorm, record the ideas * After brainstorming: Star the most promising ideas, invent improvements, set up a time to evaluate and decide * Invent agreements of different strengths: agree on procedure if on substance is not possible, make a provisional agreement if permanent is not possible. * Look for mutual gain: identify shared interests * Insist on using objective criteria ## Highlights #### Acknowledgments - **==THIS BOOK BEGAN as a question: What is the best way for people to deal with their differences?==** ([Location 363](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=363)) - Drawing on our respective backgrounds in international law and anthropology and an extensive collaboration over the years with practitioners, colleagues, and students, we have evolved a **practical method for negotiating agreement amicably without giving in**. ([Location 367](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=367)) #### Introduction - **LIKE IT OR not, you are a negotiator. Negotiation is a fact of life.** ([Location 407](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=407)) - **Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others.** It is back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed (as well as some that may simply be different). ([Location 413](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=413)) - **Although negotiation takes place every day, it is not easy to do well.** Standard strategies for negotiation often leave people dissatisfied, worn out, or alienated—and frequently all three. ([Location 418](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=418)) - **People find themselves in a dilemma. They see two ways to negotiate: soft or hard.** - **The soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and so makes concessions readily to reach agreement.** He or she wants an amicable resolution; yet often ends up exploited and feeling bitter. - **The hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme positions and holds out longer fares better.** He or she wants to win; yet often ends up producing an equally hard response that exhausts the negotiator and his or her resources and harms the relationship with the other side. ([Location 420](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=420)) - **There is a third way to negotiate, a way neither hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft.** The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project 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**, and that where your interests conflict, you should **insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side**. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. ([Location 425](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=425)) ### I. THE PROBLEM #### 1. Don’t Bargain Over Positions - WHETHER A NEGOTIATION concerns a contract, a family quarrel, or a peace settlement among nations, people routinely engage in positional bargaining. Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise. ([Location 448](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=448)) - ==**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.== ([Location 452](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=452)) - ==A **wise agreement** can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.== ([Location 453](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=453)) - **Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes** - When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. ([Location 460](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=460)) - **Your ego becomes identified with your position.** You now have a new interest in “saving face”—in reconciling future action with past positions—making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties’ original interests. ([Location 463](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=463)) - As illustrated in these examples, the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. ([Location 486](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=486)) - Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties. ([Location 487](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=487)) - **Arguing over positions is inefficient** - **Bargaining over positions creates incentives that stall settlement.** In positional bargaining you try to improve the chance that any settlement reached is favorable to you by starting with an extreme position, by stubbornly holding to it, by deceiving the other party as to your true views, and by making small concessions only as necessary to keep the negotiation going. ([Location 492](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=492)) - The standard minuet also requires a large number of individual decisions as each negotiator decides what to offer, what to reject, and how much of a concession to make. Decision-making is difficult and time-consuming at best. ([Location 497](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=497)) - **Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship** - **Positional bargaining becomes a contest of will.** Each negotiator asserts what he will and won’t do. The task of jointly devising an acceptable solution tends to become a battle. Each side tries through sheer willpower to force the other to change its position. ([Location 503](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=503)) - Positional bargaining thus strains and sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties. ([Location 506](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=506)) - **When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse** - **Being nice is no answer** - The soft negotiating game emphasizes the importance of building and maintaining a relationship. ([Location 528](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=528)) - As each party competes with the other in being more generous and more forthcoming, an agreement becomes highly likely. But it may not be a wise one. ([Location 530](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=530)) - Any negotiation primarily concerned with the relationship runs the risk of producing a sloppy agreement. ([Location 533](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=533)) - More seriously, pursuing a soft and friendly form of positional bargaining makes you vulnerable to someone who plays a hard game of positional bargaining. ([Location 534](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=534)) - **There is an alternative** - The game of negotiation takes place at two levels: - **At one level, negotiation addresses the substance**; at another, it focuses—usually implicitly—on the procedure for dealing with the substance. ([Location 541](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=541)) - **This second negotiation is a game about a game—a “meta-game.”** Each move you make within a negotiation is not only a move that deals with rent, salary, or other substantive questions; it also helps structure the rules of the game you are playing. ([Location 544](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=544)) - This second negotiation by and large escapes notice because it seems to occur without conscious decision. ([Location 547](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=547)) - But whether consciously or not, you are negotiating procedural rules with every move you make, even if those moves appear exclusively concerned with substance. ([Location 549](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=549)) - At the Harvard Negotiation Project we have been developing an alternative to positional bargaining: a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. ==This method, called **principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits**, can be boiled down to four basic points==: - **==People: Separate the people from the problem.==** - The first point responds to the fact that human beings are not computers. We are creatures of strong emotions who often have radically different perceptions and have difficulty communicating clearly. Emotions typically become entangled with the objective merits of the problem. ([Location 561](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=561)) - **==Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.==** - The second point is designed to overcome the drawback of focusing on people’s stated positions when the object of a negotiation is to satisfy their underlying interests. A negotiating position often obscures what you really want. Compromising between positions is not likely to produce an agreement that will effectively take care of the human needs that led people to adopt those positions. ([Location 568](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=568)) - **==Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.==** - The third point responds to the difficulty of designing optimal solutions while under pressure. Trying to decide in the presence of an adversary narrows your vision. Having a lot at stake inhibits creativity. So does searching for the one right solution. You can offset these constraints by setting aside a designated time within which to think up a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests. ([Location 572](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=572)) - **==Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.==** - By discussing such criteria rather than what the parties are willing or unwilling to do, neither party need give in to the other; both can defer to a fair solution. Hence the fourth basic point: Insist on using objective criteria. ([Location 579](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=579)) - **==That period can be divided into three stages: analysis, planning, and discussion.==** - During the **analysis stage** you are simply trying to diagnose the situation—to gather information, organize it, and think about it. ([Location 585](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=585)) - You will want to consider the people problems of partisan perceptions, hostile emotions, and unclear communication, as well as to identify your interests and those of the other side. ([Location 586](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=586)) - During the **planning stage** you deal with the same four elements a second time, both generating ideas and deciding what to do. ([Location 588](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=588)) - Again during the **discussion stage**, when the parties communicate back and forth, looking toward agreement, the same four elements are the best subjects to discuss. Differences in perception, feelings of frustration and anger, and difficulties in communication can be acknowledged and addressed. Each side should come to understand the interests of the other. ([Location 590](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=590)) - ==**To sum up**, in contrast to positional bargaining, the principled negotiation method of focusing on basic interests, mutually satisfying options, and fair standards typically results in a wise agreement.== The method permits you to reach a gradual consensus on a joint decision efficiently without all the transactional costs of digging in to positions only to have to dig yourself out of them. And separating the people from the problem allows you to deal directly and empathetically with the other negotiator as a human being regardless of any substantive differences, thus making possible an amicable outcome. ([Location 594](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=594)) ### II. THE METHOD #### 2. Separate the People from the Problem - **Negotiators are people first** - A basic fact about negotiation, easy to forget in corporate and international transactions, is that **you are dealing not with abstract representatives of the “other side,” but with human beings.** They have emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints; and they are unpredictable. They are prone to cognitive biases, partisan perceptions, blind spots, and leaps of illogic. ([Location 636](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=636)) - A working relationship where trust, understanding, respect, and friendship are built up over time can make each new negotiation smoother and more efficient. ([Location 641](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=641)) - Failing to deal with others sensitively as human beings prone to human reactions can be disastrous for a negotiation. ([Location 649](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=649)) - **Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship** - Every negotiator wants to reach an agreement that satisfies his substantive interests. That is why one negotiates. Beyond that, a negotiator also has an interest in his relationship with the other side. ([Location 652](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=652)) - **The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem.** - A major consequence of the “people problem” in negotiation is that the parties’ relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance. ([Location 660](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=660)) - **Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict.** - **Disentangle the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem** - **Base the relationship on mutually understood perceptions, clear two-way communication, expressing emotions without blame, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook. Deal with people problems by changing how you treat people; don’t try to solve them with substantive concessions.** ([Location 682](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=682)) - ==To find your way through the jungle of people problems, it is useful to **think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication**.== ([Location 686](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=686)) - **Perception** - **Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people’s heads. Truth is simply one more argument—perhaps a good one, perhaps not—for dealing with the difference. The difference itself exists because it exists in their thinking.** ([Location 698](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=698)) - As useful as looking for objective reality can be, **it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution.** ([Location 706](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=706)) - **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.** ([Location 710](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=710)) - It is not enough to know that they see things differently. If you want to influence them, you also need to understand empathetically the power of their point of view and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in it. ([Location 711](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=711)) - **Discuss each other’s perceptions. One way to deal with differing perceptions is to make them explicit and discuss them with the other side.** As long as you do this in a frank, honest manner without either side blaming the other for the problem as each sees it, such a discussion may provide the understanding they need to take what you say seriously, and vice versa. ([Location 736](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=736)) - Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions. Perhaps the best way to change someone’s perceptions is to send them a message different from what they expect. ([Location 751](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=751)) - Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process. If they are not involved in the process, they are unlikely to approve the product. ([Location 757](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=757)) - To give the other side a feeling of participation, get them involved early. Ask their advice. ([Location 775](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=775)) - **Emotion** - **First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours.** ([Location 797](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=797)) - **Ask yourself what is producing the emotions.** Why are you angry? Why are they angry? ([Location 804](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=804)) - ==Pay attention to “core concerns.” Many emotions in negotiation are driven by a core set of five interests: autonomy, the desire to make your own choices and control your own fate; appreciation, the desire to be recognized and valued; affiliation, the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer group; role, the desire to have a meaningful purpose; and status, the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged.== ([Location 809](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=809)) - Consider the role of identity. Another surefire driver of strong negative emotion is a perceived threat to identity—one’s self-image or self-respect. ([Location 814](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=814)) - Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate. ([Location 824](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=824)) - Allow the other side to let off steam. Often, one effective way to deal with people’s anger, frustration, and other negative emotions is to help them release those feelings. ([Location 830](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=830)) - **Communication** - **There are three big problems in communication.** - **First, negotiators may not be talking to each other**, or at least not in such a way as to be understood. ([Location 858](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=858)) - **Even if you are talking directly and clearly to them, they may not be hearing you.** This constitutes the second problem in communication. ([Location 863](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=863)) - **The third communication problem is misunderstanding.** What one says, the other may misinterpret. ([Location 870](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=870)) - Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said. ([Location 879](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=879)) - Speak to be understood. Talk to the other side. It is easy to forget sometimes that a negotiation is not a debate. Nor is it a trial. ([Location 900](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=900)) - Speak about yourself, not about them. ([Location 912](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=912)) - **Prevention works best** - The best time for handling people problems is before they become people problems. ([Location 924](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=924)) - **Build a working relationship.** - Knowing the other side personally really does help. It is much easier to attribute diabolical intentions to an unknown abstraction called the “other side” than to someone you know personally. ([Location 928](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=928)) - The time to develop such a relationship is before the negotiation begins. Get to know them and find out about their likes and dislikes. ([Location 933](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=933)) - **Face the problem, not the people.** - A more effective way for the parties to think of themselves is as partners in a hardheaded, side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each. ([Location 940](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=940)) #### 3. Focus on Interests, Not Positions - **For a wise solution 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’s needs, desires, concerns, and fears. ([Location 969](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=969)) - ==Such desires and concerns are interests. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.== ([Location 975](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=975)) - Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons. **First, for every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it.** ([Location 988](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=988)) - **Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions also works because behind opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones.** ([Location 992](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=992)) - **Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.** ([Location 993](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=993)) - **How do you identify interests?** - A position is likely to be concrete and explicit; the interests underlying it may well be unexpressed, intangible, and perhaps inconsistent. ([Location 1015](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1015)) - **Ask “Why?”** - One basic technique is to put yourself in their shoes. Examine each position they take, and ask yourself “Why?” ([Location 1018](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1018)) - **Ask “Why not?”** - Think about their choice. One of the most useful ways to uncover interests is first to identify the basic decision that those on the other side probably see you asking them for, and then to ask yourself why they have not made that decision. What interests of theirs stand in the way? ([Location 1023](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1023)) - **Realize that each side has multiple interests.** - In almost every negotiation each side will have many interests, not just one. ([Location 1049](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1049)) - **The most powerful interests are basic human needs.** - In searching for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particularly for those bedrock concerns that motivate all people. ([Location 1066](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1066)) - Basic human needs include: security economic well-being a sense of belonging recognition control over one’s life ([Location 1068](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1068)) - As fundamental as they are, basic human needs are easy to overlook. ([Location 1070](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1070)) - **Make a list.** - To sort out the various interests of each side, it helps to write them down as they occur to you. This will not only help you remember them; it will also enable you to improve the quality of your assessment as you learn new information and to place interests in their estimated order of importance. ([Location 1086](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1086)) - **Talking about interests** - The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when you communicate them. The other side may not know what your interests are, and you may not know theirs. ([Location 1090](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1090)) - Make your interests come alive. ([Location 1097](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1097)) - One guideline is be specific. Concrete details not only make your description credible, they add impact. ([Location 1099](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1099)) - Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. ([Location 1109](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1109)) - Put the problem before your answer. ([Location 1117](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1117)) - If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later. ([Location 1122](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1122)) #### 4. Invent Options for Mutual Gain - **DIAGNOSIS** - **==In most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options:==** - premature judgment - searching for the single answer - the assumption of a fixed pie; and - thinking that “solving their problem is their problem.” ([Location 1199](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1199)) - **Premature judgment** - Inventing options does not come naturally. Not inventing is the normal state of affairs, even when you are outside a stressful negotiation. ([Location 1202](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1202)) - **Searching for the single answer** - By looking from the outset for the single best answer, you are likely to short-circuit a wiser decision-making process in which you select from a large number of possible answers. ([Location 1223](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1223)) - **The assumption of a fixed pie** - A negotiation often appears to be a “fixed-sum” game; $100 more for you on the price of a car means $100 less for me. Why bother to invent if all the options are obvious and I can satisfy you only at my own expense? ([Location 1227](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1227)) - **Thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”** - **PRESCRIPTION** - To invent creative options, then, you will need to - **separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them;** - **broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer** - **search for mutual gains**; and - **invent ways of making their decisions easy**. ([Location 1237](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1237)) - Make their decision easy ([Location 1474](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1474)) - 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. Rather than make things difficult for the other side, you want to confront them with a choice that is as painless as possible. ([Location 1475](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1475)) #### 5. Insist on Using Objective Criteria - **Deciding on the basis of will is costly** - If trying to settle differences of interest on the basis of will has such high costs, the solution is to negotiate on some basis independent of the will of either side—that is, on the basis of objective criteria. ([Location 1546](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1546)) - **The case for using objective criteria** - In short, the approach is to 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. ([Location 1560](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1560)) - Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently. ([Location 1561](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1561)) - **Developing objective criteria** - Whatever method of negotiation you use, you will do better if you prepare in advance. This certainly holds true of principled negotiation. So develop some alternative standards beforehand and think through their application to your case. ([Location 1592](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1592)) - **Fair standards.** ([Location 1593](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1593)) - At a minimum, objective criteria need to be independent of each side’s will. Ideally, to assure a wise agreement, objective criteria should be not only independent of will but also both legitimate and practical. ([Location 1602](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1602)) - **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. ([Location 1610](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1610)) - Letting someone else play a key role in a joint decision is a well-established procedure with almost infinite variations. The parties can agree to submit a particular question to an expert for advice or decision. ([Location 1628](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1628)) - **Negotiating with objective criteria** - ==There are three basic points to remember: Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.== ([Location 1638](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1638)) - Focus on objective criteria firmly but flexibly. ([Location 1640](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1640)) - Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. If you are negotiating to buy a house, you might start off by saying: “Look, you want a high price and I want a low one. Let’s figure out what a fair price would be. ([Location 1641](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1641)) - Reason and be open to reason. What makes the negotiation a joint search is that, however much you may have prepared various objective criteria, you come to the table with an open mind. ([Location 1655](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1655)) ### III. YES, BUT … #### 6. What If They Are More Powerful? (Develop Your BATNA—Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) - OF WHAT USE is talking about interests, options, and standards if the other side has a stronger bargaining position? What do you do if the other side is richer or better connected, or if they have a larger staff or more powerful weapons? ([Location 1724](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1724)) - **In response to power, the most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives**: first, to **protect you against making an agreement you should reject** and second, 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. ([Location 1729](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1729)) - **Protecting yourself** - **The costs 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.”** If you are buying, a bottom line is the highest price you would pay. ([Location 1738](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1738)) - Having a bottom line makes it easier to resist pressure and temptations of the moment. ([Location 1741](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1741)) - **But the protection afforded by adopting a bottom line involves high costs. It limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation.** By definition, a bottom line is a position that is not to be changed. ([Location 1748](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1748)) - **A bottom line also inhibits imagination.** It reduces the incentive to invent a tailor-made solution that would reconcile differing interests in a way more advantageous ([Location 1751](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1751)) - Moreover, a bottom line is likely to be set too high. ([Location 1756](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1756)) - ==In short, 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.== An arbitrarily selected figure is no measure of what you should accept. ([Location 1761](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1761)) - **Know your BATNA.** - **==The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating.==** What are those results? What is that alternative? What is your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? **That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured.** ([Location 1771](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1771)) - **==That is the only standard that can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept.==** ([Location 1774](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1774)) - **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, for instance, be too optimistic and assume that you have many other choices. ([Location 1777](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1777)) - One frequent mistake is psychologically to see your alternatives in the aggregate. You may be telling yourself that if you do not reach agreement on a salary for this job, you could always go to California, or go south, or go back to school, or write, or work on a farm, or live in Paris, or do something else. In your mind you are likely to find the sum of these alternatives more attractive than working for a specific salary in a particular job. The difficulty is that you cannot have the sum total of all those other alternatives; ([Location 1781](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1781)) - **In most circumstances, however, the greater danger is that you are too committed to reaching agreement.** Not having developed any alternative to a negotiated solution, you are unduly pessimistic about what would happen if negotiations broke off. ([Location 1786](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1786)) - **Formulate a trip wire.** - Although your BATNA is the true measure by which you should judge any proposed agreement, you may want another test as well. **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.** ([Location 1793](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1793)) - **Making the most of your assets** - **The better your BATNA, the greater your power.** - ==In fact, the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement.== ([Location 1803](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1803)) - **Develop your BATNA.** - Vigorous exploration of what you will do if you do not reach agreement can greatly strengthen your hand. ([Location 1824](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1824)) - Generating possible BATNAs requires three distinct operations: (1) inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached; (2) improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives; and (3) selecting, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best. ([Location 1826](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1826)) - **Consider the other side’s BATNA.** - **You should also think about the alternatives to a negotiated agreement available to the other side. The more you can learn of their alternatives, the better prepared you are for negotiation.** Knowing their alternatives, you can realistically estimate what you can expect from the negotiation. ([Location 1846](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1846)) - If both sides have attractive BATNAs, the best outcome of the negotiation — for both parties — may well be not to reach agreement. In such cases a successful negotiation is one in which you and they amicably and efficiently discover that the best way to advance your respective interests is for each of you to look elsewhere and not to try further to reach agreement. ([Location 1855](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1855)) - **When the other side is powerful** #### 7. What If They Won’t Play? (Use Negotiation Jujitsu) - There are three basic approaches for focusing their attention on the merits. ([Location 1874](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1874)) - The first centers on what you can do. You yourself can concentrate on the merits, rather than on positions. This method, the subject of this book, is contagious; it holds open the prospect of success to those who will talk about interests, options, and criteria. ([Location 1875](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1875)) - If this doesn’t work and they continue to use positional bargaining, you can resort to a second strategy that focuses on what they may do. It counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. This strategy we call negotiation jujitsu. ([Location 1877](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1877)) - The third approach focuses on what a third party can do. If neither principled negotiation nor negotiation jujitsu gets them to play, consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on interests, options, and criteria. Perhaps the most effective tool a third party can use in such an effort is the one-text mediation procedure. ([Location 1879](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1879)) - **Negotiation jujitsu** - **Do not push back.** 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. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. ([Location 1892](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1892)) - Typically their “attack” will consist of three maneuvers: asserting their position forcefully, attacking your ideas, and attacking you. ([Location 1897](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1897)) - **Don’t attack their position, look behind it.** When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for the interests behind it, seek out the principles that it reflects, and think about ways to improve it. ([Location 1899](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1899)) - **Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice.** A lot of time in negotiation is spent criticizing. Rather than resisting the other side’s criticism, invite it. Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what’s wrong with it. ([Location 1924](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1924)) - **Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem.** When the other side attacks you personally — as frequently happens — resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them. Instead, 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. ([Location 1937](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1937)) - **Consider the one-text procedure (mediation)** - Rather than ask about their positions he asks about their interests: not how big a bay window the wife wants, but why she wants it. ([Location 1976](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1976)) - Afterward, the architect develops a list of interests and needs of the two spouses (“morning sun, open fireplace, comfortable place to read, room for a wood shop, storage for snow-blower and medium-size car,” and so on). He asks each spouse in turn to criticize the list and suggest improvements on it. ([Location 1982](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1982)) - A few days later the architect returns with a rough floor plan. ([Location 1985](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1985)) - A short time later the architect comes back with a second sketch, again asking for criticism. ([Location 1988](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1988)) - And so it goes, through a third plan, a fourth, and a fifth. Finally, when he feels he can improve it no further, the architect says, “This is the best I can do. I have tried to reconcile your various interests as best I could. Many of the issues I have resolved using standard architectural and engineering solutions, precedent, and the best professional judgment I can bring to bear. Here it is. I recommend you accept this plan.” ([Location 1996](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1996)) - Each spouse now has only one decision to make: yes or no. ([Location 1999](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=1999)) #### 8. What If They Use Dirty Tricks? (Taming the Hard Bargainer) - PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION IS all very well, but what if the other negotiator deceives you or tries to throw you off balance? Or what if they escalate their demands just when you are on the verge of agreement? ([Location 2204](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2204)) - If they recognize that a tricky bargaining tactic is being used against them, most people respond in one of two ways. The first standard response is to put up with it. ([Location 2208](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2208)) - The second common response is to respond in kind. ([Location 2214](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2214)) - How do you negotiate about the rules of the game? ([Location 2222](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2222)) - Some common tricky tactics ([Location 2252](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2252)) ### IV. IN CONCLUSION - **You knew it all the time** - ==There is probably nothing in this book that you did not already know at some level of your experience. What we have tried to do is to organize common sense and common experience in a way that provides a usable framework for thinking and acting.== ([Location 2433](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2433)) - **Learn from doing** - ==A book can point you in a promising direction. By making you aware of ideas and aware of what you are doing, it can help you learn. No one, however, can make you skillful but yourself.== ([Location 2438](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2438)) - **“Winning”** - In most instances to ask a negotiator “Who’s winning?” is as inappropriate as to ask who’s winning a marriage. If you ask that question about your marriage, you have already lost the more important negotiation — the one about what kind of game to play, about the way you deal with each other and your shared and differing interests. ([Location 2445](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2445)) - This book is about how to “win” that important game — how to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences. ([Location 2448](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B008YUNDJS&location=2448)) #### Analytical Table of Contents #### A Note on the Harvard Negotiation Project