Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Standard strategies for negotiation often leave people dissatisfied, worn out, or alienated—and frequently all three.

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.

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.

Principled negotiation is an all-purpose strategy. Unlike almost all other strategies, if the other side learns this one, it does not become more difficult to use; it becomes easier.

people routinely engage in positional bargaining. Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise.

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.

the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely.

Anger and resentment often result as one side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go unaddressed.

In a soft negotiating game the standard moves are to make offers and concessions, to trust the other side, to be friendly, and to yield as necessary to avoid confrontation.

Most people see their choice of negotiating strategies as between these two styles. Looking at the table as presenting a choice, should you be a soft or a hard positional bargainer?

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.

We are creatures of strong emotions who often have radically different perceptions and have difficulty communicating clearly.

Taking positions just makes this worse because people’s egos become identified with their positions. Making concessions “for the relationship” is equally problematic, because it can actually encourage and reward stubbornness, which can lead to resentment that ends up damaging the relationship.

first proposition: Separate the people from the problem.

human needs that led people to adopt those positions. The second basic element of the method is: Focus on interests, not positions.

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

fourth basic point: Insist on using objective criteria.

That period can be divided into three stages: analysis, planning, and discussion.

2. Separate the People from the Problem 3. Focus on Interests, Not Positions 4. Invent Options for Mutual Gain 5. Insist on Using Objective Criteria

Failing to deal with others sensitively as human beings prone to human reactions can be disastrous for a negotiation.

A major consequence of the “people problem” in negotiation is that the parties’ relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance. On both the giving and receiving end, we are likely to treat people and problem as one.

if you care more about a favorable solution than being respected or liked by the other side, you can try to extract concessions by holding the relationship hostage.

Dealing with a substantive problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits.

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.

Where perceptions differ, look for ways to test assumptions and to educate.

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.

Understanding the other side’s thinking is not simply a useful activity that will help you solve your problem. Their thinking is the problem.

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.

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.

It is all too easy to fall into the habit of putting the worst interpretation on what the other side says or does.

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,

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.

This is a grave misunderstanding of the role and importance of face-saving. Face-saving reflects people’s need to reconcile the stand taken in a negotiation or an agreement with their existing principles and with their past words and deeds.

Face-saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators. Its importance should not be underestimated.

In dealing with negotiators who represent their organizations, it is easy to treat them as mere mouthpieces without emotions.

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.

Making your feelings or theirs an explicit focus of discussion will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem, it will also make the negotiations less reactive and more “pro-active.”

Don’t react to emotional outbursts. Releasing emotions can prove risky if it leads to an emotional reaction.

First, negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood.

Even if you are talking directly and clearly to them, they may not be hearing you.

The third communication problem is misunderstanding. What one says, the other may misinterpret.

If you pay attention and interrupt occasionally to say, “Did I understand correctly that you are saying that

As you repeat what you understood them to have said, phrase it positively from their point of view, making the strength of their case clear.

Understanding is not agreeing. One can at the same time understand perfectly and disagree completely with what the other side is saying.

Speak to be understood.

It is more persuasive, however, to describe a problem in terms of its impact on you than in terms of what they did or why: “I feel let down” instead of “You broke your word.” “We feel discriminated against” rather than “You’re a racist.”

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

the best time for handling people problems is before they become people problems.