Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

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.

The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it.

This method, called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits, can be boiled down to four basic points.

Separate the people from the problem.

Focus on interests, not positions.

Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.

Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve.

Try arriving early to chat before the negotiation is scheduled to start, and linger after it ends.

lt helps to sit literally on the same side of a table and to have in front of you the contract, the map, the blank pad of paper, or whatever else depicts the problem.

A position is likely to be concrete and explicit; the interests underlying it may well be unexpressed, intangible, and perhaps inconsistent.

Examine each position they take, and ask yourself “Why?”

In almost every negotiation each side will have many interests, not just one.

Thinking of negotiation as a two-person, two-sided affair can be illuminating, but it should not blind you to the usual presence of other persons, other sides, and other influences.

If you want the other side to take your interests into account, explain to them what those interests are.

It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate your interests are.

So if you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs.

If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later.

If you ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will typically identify a cause, not a purpose.

Instead of asking them to justify what they did yesterday, ask, “Who should do what tomorrow?”

Attack the problem without blaming the people. Go even further and be personally supportive: 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.

He expands the pie before dividing it. Skill at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have.

Take one promising idea and invent ways to make it better and more realistic, as well as ways to carry it out.

What are some terms that the other party could sign, terms that would be attractive to them as well as to you? Can you reduce the number of people whose approval would be required?

To evaluate an option from the other side’s point of view, consider how they might be criticized if they adopted it. Write out a sentence or two illustrating what the other side’s most powerful critic might say about the decision you are thinking of asking for.

Try to draft a proposal to which their responding with the single word “yes” would be sufficient, realistic, and operational.

When each party is advancing a different standard, look for an objective basis for deciding between them, such as which standard has been used by the parties in the past or which standard is more widely applied.

Having a bottom line makes it easier to resist pressure and temptations of the moment.

Seek out and discuss the principles underlying the other side’s positions.

Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what’s wrong with it.

A good negotiator rarely makes an important decision on the spot.

In principled negotiation you present your reasons first before offering a proposal.

He does not claim it is the only fair solution, but one fair solution.

Do not assume that the other side has full authority just because they are there negotiating with you.

You may later find that what you thought was an agreement will be treated by the other side as simply a floor for further negotiation.

One way to try to head off this problem is to clarify early in the negotiation that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” so that any effort to reopen one issue automatically reopens all issues.

Using external standards often helps narrow the range of disagreement and may help expand the area of potential agreement.

We argue only that using independent standards to discuss the fairness of a proposal is an idea that can help you get what you deserve and protect you from getting taken.

Once both sides have a sense of the problem, an offer that makes an effort to reconcile the interests and standards that have been advanced is more likely to be received as a constructive step forward.

It is extremely risky to measure the value of an item by the other side’s first proposal or figure. If you know that little about an item’s value, you should probably engage in more research before starting the negotiation.