Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness.

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.

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.

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.

People: Separate the people from the problem. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain.

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.

During the planning stage you deal with the same four elements a second time, both generating ideas and deciding what to do. How do you propose to handle the people problems? Of your interests, which are most important? And what are some realistic objectives?

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.

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.

Put yourself in their shoes.

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.

Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears.

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.

First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours.

Ask yourself what is producing the emotions. Why are you angry? Why are they angry? Are they responding to past grievances and looking for revenge? Are emotions spilling over from one issue to another? Are personal problems at home interfering with business?

Pay attention to “core concerns.”

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.

Consider the role of identity.

Allow the other side to let off steam.

Don’t react to emotional outbursts.

Use symbolic gestures.

Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said.

Speak to be understood.

Speak about yourself, not about them.

Speak for a purpose.

Build a working relationship.

Face the problem, not the people.

Interests define the problem.

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.

Ask “Why?”

Ask “Why not?” Think about their choice.

The most powerful interests are basic human needs.

Make a list.

One guideline is be specific.

Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem.

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

Look forward, not back.

The question “Why?” has two quite different meanings. One looks backward for a cause and treats our behavior as determined by prior events. The other looks forward for a purpose and treats our behavior as subject to our free will.

Instead of arguing with the other side about the past—about last quarter’s costs (which were too high), last week’s action (taken without adequate authority), or yesterday’s performance (which was less than expected)—talk about what you want to have happen in the future.

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

Be hard on the problem, soft on the people.

In fact, it is usually advisable to be hard. It may not be wise to commit yourself to your position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests.

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.

One useful rule of thumb is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem.

most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options: (1) premature judgment; (2) searching for the single answer; (3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and (4) thinking that “solving their problem is their problem.” To overcome these constraints, you need to understand them.

To invent creative options, then, you will 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; and (4) invent ways of making their decisions easy.