Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

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.

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.

These four points define a straightforward method of negotiation that can be used under almost any circumstance. Each point deals with a basic element of negotiation, and suggests what you should do about it. 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.

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?

Positional bargaining deals with a negotiator’s interests both in substance and in a good relationship by trading one off against the other.

Put yourself in their shoes. How you see the world depends on where you sit. People tend to see what they want to see. Out of a mass of detailed information, they tend to pick out and focus on those facts that confirm their prior perceptions and to disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions into question. Each side in a negotiation may see only the merits of its case, and only the faults of the other side’s.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Speak to be understood.

it is useful to establish private and confidential means of communicating with the other side.

Speak about yourself, not about them.

Speak for a purpose.

For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions

Put the problem before your answer.

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

You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from. 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.

It may not be wise to commit yourself to your position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests.

In 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.”

PRESCRIPTION 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.

joint brainstorming sessions have the great advantages of producing ideas that take into account the interests of all those involved, of creating a climate of joint problem-solving, and of educating each side about the concerns of the other.

Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The Circle Chart.

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. Then write out a couple of sentences with which the other side might reply in defense.

“yesable proposition.” Try to draft a proposal to which their responding with the single word “yes” would be sufficient, realistic, and operational. When you can do so, you will have reduced the risk that your immediate self-interest has blinded you to the necessity of meeting concerns of the other side.

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.

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. “What concerns of yours would this salary proposal fail to take into account?”

Less than full disclosure is not the same as deception. Deliberate deception as to facts or one’s intentions is quite different from not fully disclosing one’s present thinking. Good faith negotiation does not require total disclosure.

Psychological warfare These tactics are designed to make you feel uncomfortable, so that you will have a subconscious desire to end the negotiation as soon as possible.

Positional pressure tactics This kind of bargaining tactic is designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions.