More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
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.
Figuratively if not literally, the participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other. Hence the first proposition: Separate the people from the problem.
The second basic element of the method is: Focus on interests, not positions.
Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain.
This does not mean insisting that the terms be based on the standard you select, but only that some fair standard such as market value, expert opinion, custom, or law determine the outcome. By discussing such criteria rather than what the parties are willing or unwilling to do, neither party need give in to the other; both can defer to a fair solution. Hence the fourth basic point: Insist on using objective criteria.
Problem Positional Bargaining: Which Game Should You Play? Solution Change the Game—Negotiate on the Merits Soft Hard Principled Participants are friends. Participants are adversaries. Participants are problem-solvers. The goal is agreement. The goal is victory. The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably. Make concessions to cultivate the relationship. Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship. Separate the people from the problem. Be soft on the people and the problem. Be hard on the problem and the people. Be soft on the people, hard on the problem. Trust
...more
To sum up, in contrast to positional bargaining, the principled negotiation method of focusing on basic interests, mutually satisfying options, and fair standards typically results in a wise agreement. The method permits you to reach a gradual consensus on a joint decision efficiently without all the transactional costs of digging in to positions only to have to dig yourself out of them. And separating the people from the problem allows you to deal directly and empathetically with the other negotiator as a human being regardless of any substantive differences, thus making possible an amicable
...more
A working relationship where trust, understanding, respect, and friendship are built up over time can make each new negotiation smoother and more efficient.
The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem. 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. Within the family, a statement such as “The kitchen is a mess” or “Our bank account is low” may be intended simply to identify a problem, but it is likely to be heard as a personal attack.
Disentangle the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem
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. The various people problems all fall into one of these three baskets.
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. It is not enough to know that they see things differently. 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.
Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it. It is true that a better understanding of their thinking may lead you to revise your own views about the merits of a situation. But that is not a cost of understanding their point of view, it is a benefit. It allows you to reduce the area of conflict, and it also helps you advance your newly enlightened self-interest.
Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears.
Don’t blame them for your problem.
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. It is common in a negotiation to treat as “unimportant” those concerns of the other side perceived as not standing in the way of an agreement. To the contrary, communicating loudly and convincingly things you are willing to say that
...more
Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions.
Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values.
In a negotiation, particularly in a bitter dispute, feelings may be more important than talk. The parties may be more ready for battle than for cooperatively working out a solution to a common problem.
First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours.
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. Trampling on these interests tends to generate strong negative emotions. Attending to them can build rapport and a positive climate for problem-solving negotiation.[1]
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.
If you find a counterpart’s behavior oddly out of character or feel as if you have unexpectedly stepped on a land mine in your conversation, think about whether they might be experiencing a threat to their identity from something you have said or might say. Similarly, if you find yourself feeling off-balance and emotional, ask yourself if your sense of identity feels threatened.
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate.
Allow the other side to let off steam. Often, one effective way to deal with people’s anger, frustration, and other negative emotions is to help them release those feelings.
Don’t react to emotional outbursts. Releasing emotions can prove risky if it leads to an emotional reaction. If not controlled, it can result in a violent quarrel.
Use symbolic gestures. Any lover knows that to end a quarrel the simple gesture of bringing a red rose goes a long way.
An apology may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments you can make.
Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different.
There are three big problems in communication. First, negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood. Frequently each side has given up on the other and is no longer attempting any serious communication with it.
Even if you are talking directly and clearly to them, they may not be hearing you. This constitutes the second problem in communication.
The third communication problem is misunderstanding. What one says, the other may misinterpret.
Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said. The need for listening is obvious, yet it is difficult to listen well, especially under the stress of an ongoing negotiation.
Make it your task while listening not to phrase a response, but to understand them as they see themselves. Take in their perceptions, their needs, and their constraints.
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. You might say, “You have a strong case. Let me see if I can explain it. Here’s the way it strikes me. . . .” Understanding is not agreeing. One can at the same time understand perfectly and disagree completely with what the other side is saying. But unless you can convince them that you do grasp how they see it, you may be unable to get them to hear when you explain your viewpoint to them. Once you have made their case for them,
Speak about yourself, not about them. In many negotiations, each side explains and condemns at great length the motivations and intentions of the other side. 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.”
Speak for a purpose. Sometimes the problem is not too little communication, but too much. When anger and misperception are high, some thoughts are best left unsaid. At other times, full disclosure of how flexible you are may make it harder to reach agreement rather than easier.
A more effective way for the parties to think of themselves is as partners in a hardheaded, side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each.
Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs.
Basic human needs include: security economic well-being a sense of belonging recognition control over one’s life
Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. Each of us tends to be so concerned with his or her own interests that we pay too little heed to the interests of others.
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.
A well-known theory of psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance, holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it. By attacking a problem, such as speeding trucks on a neighborhood street, and at the same time giving the company representative, Mr. Jenkins, positive support, you create cognitive dissonance for him. To overcome this dissonance, he will be tempted to dissociate himself from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it.
Negotiating hard for your interests does not mean being closed to the other side’s point of view. Quite the contrary. You can hardly expect the other side to listen to your interests and discuss the options you suggest if you don’t take their interests into account and show yourself to be open to their suggestions. Successful negotiation requires being both firm and open.
instead
