Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Before brainstorming: 1. Define your purpose. Think of what you would like to walk out of the meeting with. 2. Choose a few participants. The group should normally be large enough to provide a stimulating interchange, yet small enough to encourage both individual participation and free-wheeling inventing—usually between five and eight people. 3. Change the environment. Select a time and place distinguishing the session as much as possible from regular discussions. The more different a brainstorming session seems from a normal meeting, the easier it is for participants to suspend judgment. 4. Design an informal atmosphere. What does it take for you and others to relax? It may be talking over a drink, or meeting at a vacation lodge in some picturesque spot, or dressing less formally during the meeting and calling one another by your first names. 5. Choose a facilitator. Someone at the meeting needs to facilitate—to keep the meeting on track, to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak, to enforce any ground rules, and to stimulate discussion by asking questions.

“one cuts, the other chooses”

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.

What is your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured.

(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.

Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word.

The one-text procedure not only shifts the game away from positional bargaining, it greatly simplifies the process both of inventing options and of deciding jointly on one.

Turnbull at once reaffirms his appreciation of Mrs. Jones while he remains firm on the principle. In doing so, he avoids connecting the two thoughts with “but,” implicitly using “and” instead. “But,” sometimes called the “great eraser,” has a tendency to negate the first thing you say by implying that only one of two statements can be true, making it either/or. “And” underscores the more complex reality that both thoughts can be true at the same time. It helps ensure both that Mrs. Jones feels heard and appreciated and that she can’t frame Turnbull as wrongly untrusting.

You have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it. Learn to spot particular ploys that indicate deception, those designed to make you uncomfortable, and those that lock the other side into their position. Often just recognizing a tactic will neutralize it. Realizing, for example, that the other side is attacking you personally to impair your judgment may well frustrate the effort.

Disentangle the people from the problem. Unless you have good reason to trust somebody, don’t.

Before starting on any give-and-take, find out about the authority on the other side. It is perfectly legitimate to inquire, “Just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?” If the answer is ambiguous, you may wish to talk to someone with real authority or to make clear that you on your side are reserving equal freedom to reconsider any point.

For threats to be effective they must be credibly communicated. Sometimes you can interfere with the communication process. You can ignore threats; you can take them as unauthorized, spoken in haste, or simply irrelevant.

Recognize the tactic. Rather than discussing it with the other negotiator, you may want to get his agreement to the principle involved—perhaps in writing—and then if possible speak directly with the “hardhearted partner.”

would consider improper and in bad faith if used against you. It may be useful at the beginning of the negotiation to say, “Look, I know this may be unusual, but I want to know the rules of the game we’re going to play. Are we both trying to reach a wise agreement as quickly and with as little effort as possible? Or are we going to play ‘hard bargaining’ where the more stubborn fellow wins?” Whatever you do, be prepared to fight tricky bargaining tactics. You can be just as firm as they can, even firmer. It is easier to defend principle than an illegitimate tactic. Don’t be a victim.