Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

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.

Unlike almost all other strategies, if the other side learns this one, it does not become more difficult to use; it becomes easier.

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.

(A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.)

The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to

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.

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.

You can offset these constraints by setting aside a designated time within which to think up a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests.

it is worth asking yourself, “Am I paying enough attention to the people problem?”

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.

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.

only one person could get angry at a time. This made it legitimate for others not to respond stormily to an angry outburst.

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.

No matter how many people are involved in a negotiation, important decisions are typically made when no more than two people are in the room.

The more quickly you can turn a stranger into someone you know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become.

The time to develop such a relationship is before the negotiation begins.

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.

security economic well-being a sense of belonging recognition control over one’s life

You need to convince them that they might well feel the same way if they were in your shoes.

(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.”

Separate inventing from deciding

The pairs of adjectives below suggest potential agreements of differing “strengths”:

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.

BATNA—Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)

Mediate your own dispute.

The one-text procedure is a great help for two-party negotiations involving a mediator.

“Please correct me if I’m wrong”

“We appreciate what you’ve done for us”

“Our concern is fairness”

“We would like to settle this on the basis of independent standards, not of who can do what to whom”

avoid making the commitment a central question. Deemphasize it so that the other side can more gracefully back down.