Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Focus on interests, not positions.

Insist on using objective criteria. Above all, be hard on principle. “Is there a theory behind having me sit in the low chair with my back to the open door?” Try out the principle of reciprocity on them. “I assume that you will sit in this chair tomorrow morning?”

Frame the principle behind each tactic as a proposed “rule” for the game.

Tricky tactics can be divided into three categories: deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure tactics.

Deliberate deception Perhaps the most common form of dirty trick is misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions.

Disentangle the people from the problem. Unless you have good reason to trust somebody, don’t. This does not mean calling him a liar; rather it means making the negotiation proceed independent of trust.

A practice of verifying factual assertions reduces the incentive for deception, and your risk of being cheated.

Ambiguous authority. The other side may allow you to believe that they, like you, have full authority to compromise when they don’t. After they have pressed you as hard as they can and you have worked out what you believe to be a firm agreement, they announce that they must take it to someone else for approval.

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

Before starting on any give-and-take, find out about the authority on the other side. It is perfectly legitimate to inquire,

If they do announce unexpectedly that they are treating what you thought was an agreement as a basis for further negotiation, insist on reciprocity. “All right. We will treat it as a joint draft to which neither side is committed. You check with your boss and I’ll sleep on it and see if I come up with any changes I want to suggest tomorrow.”

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.

Dubious intentions. Where the issue is one of possible misrepresentation of their intention to comply with the agreement, it is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement itself.

Make the problem explicit and use their protestations to get a guarantee.

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.

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.

Contrary to the accepted wisdom, it is sometimes advantageous to accept an offer to meet on the other side’s turf. It may put them at ease, making them more open to your suggestions.

If you find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so.

Personal attacks. In addition to manipulating the physical environment, there are also ways for the other side to use verbal and nonverbal communication to make you feel uncomfortable.

The good-guy/bad-guy routine. One form of psychological pressure that also involves deception is the good-guy/bad-guy routine.

Threats. Threats are one of the most abused tactics in negotiation. A threat seems easy to make—much easier than an offer. All it takes is a few words, and if it works, you never have to carry it out. But threats can lead to counterthreats in an escalating spiral that can unhinge a negotiation and even destroy a relationship.

Good negotiators rarely resort to threats. They do not need to; there are other ways to communicate the same information. If it seems appropriate to outline the consequences of the other side’s action, suggest those that will occur independently of your will rather than those you could choose to bring about.

Perhaps the best response to a threat, however, is to be principled. “We have prepared a sequence of countermoves for each of management’s customary threats.

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

First, recognize the tactic as a possible negotiating ploy: an attempt to use their entry into negotiation as a bargaining chip to obtain some concession on substance. A variant on this ploy is to set preconditions for negotiations.

Second, talk about their refusal to negotiate. Communicate either directly or through third parties. Don’t attack them for refusing to negotiate, but rather find out their interests in not negotiating.

Suggest some options,

Finally, insist on using principles.

Extreme demands. Negotiators will frequently start with extreme proposals like offering $175,000 for your house that is apparently worth $300,000. The goal is to lower your expectations.

Bringing the tactic to their attention works well here. Ask for principled justification of their position until it looks ridiculous even to them.

Escalating demands. A negotiator may raise one of his demands for every concession he makes on another. He may also reopen issues you thought had been settled.

Lock-in tactics.

This is an example of an extreme commitment tactic designed to make it impossible to yield.

Hardhearted partner. Perhaps the most common negotiating tactic used to justify not yielding to your requests is for the other negotiator to say that he personally would have no objection, but his hardhearted partner will not let him.

A calculated delay. Frequently one side will try to postpone coming to a decision until a time they think favorable.

“Take it or leave it.” There is nothing inherently wrong with confronting the other side with a firm choice.

As an alternative to explicitly recognizing the “Take it or leave it” tactic and negotiating about it, consider ignoring it at first. Keep talking as if you didn’t hear it, or change the subject, perhaps by introducing other solutions.

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?”

“Who’s winning?” is as inappropriate as to ask who’s winning a marriage. If you ask that question about your marriage, you have already lost the more important negotiation—the one about what kind of game to play, about the way you deal with each other and your shared and differing interests.