Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people.

Principled negotiation is an all-purpose strategy.

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.)

When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it.

As illustrated in these examples, the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties.

Positional bargaining

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. Positional bargaining thus strains and sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties.

However, any negotiation primarily concerned with the relationship runs the risk of producing a sloppy agreement.

In positional bargaining, a hard game dominates a soft one.

principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits,

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.

Emotions typically become entangled with the objective merits of the problem. 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.

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 point is designed to overcome the drawback of focusing on people’s stated positions when the object of a negotiation is to satisfy their underlying interests. A negotiating position often obscures what you really want.

Trying to decide in the presence of an adversary narrows your vision. Having a lot at stake inhibits creativity. So does searching for the one right solution.

Where interests are directly opposed, a negotiator may be able to obtain a favorable result simply by being stubborn. That method tends to reward intransigence and produce arbitrary results. However, you can counter such a negotiator by insisting that his single say-so is not enough and that the agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side.

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.

The four propositions of principled negotiation are relevant from the time you begin to think about negotiating until the time either an agreement is reached or you decide to break off the effort. That period can be divided into three stages: analysis, planning, and discussion.

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.

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

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.

Deal with people problems by changing how you treat people; don’t try to solve them with substantive concessions.

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.

Fears, even if ill-founded, are real fears and need to be dealt with.

As useful as looking for objective reality can be, it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution.

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.

Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it.

the cost of interpreting whatever they say or do in its most dismal light is that fresh ideas in the direction of agreement are spurned, and subtle changes of position are ignored or rejected.

Don’t blame them for your problem. It is tempting to hold the other side responsible for your problem.

But even if blaming is justified, it is usually counterproductive. Under attack, the other side will become defensive and will resist what you have to say. They will cease to listen, or they will strike back with an attack of their own. Assessing blame firmly entangles the people with the problem.

When you talk about the problem, distinguish the symptoms from the person with whom you are talking. “Our rotary generator that you service has broken down again. That is three times in the last month. The first time it was out of order for an entire week. This factory needs a functioning generator. I need your advice on how we can minimize our risk of generator breakdown. Should we change service companies, sue the manufacturer, or what?”

Discuss each other’s perceptions. One way to deal with differing perceptions is to make them explicit and di...

Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions. Perhaps the best way to change someone’s perceptions is to send them a message different from what they expect.

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.

A proposal evolves that bears enough of the suggestions of both sides for each to feel it is theirs.

Giving credit generously for ideas wherever possible will give them a personal stake in defending those ideas to others.

Apart from the substantive merits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the single most important factor in determining whether a negotiator accepts a proposal. In a sense, the process is the product.

Instead of just telling one party, “You win,” and telling the other, “You lose,” she explains how her decision is consistent with principle, law, and precedent. She wants to appear not as arbitrary, but as behaving in a proper fashion. A negotiator is no different.

Face-saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators.

Ask yourself what is producing the emotions. Why are you angry? Why are they angry? Are they responding to past grievances and looking for revenge? Are emotions spilling over from one issue to another? Are personal problems at home interfering with business?

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.

“I am a kind person.” “I’m a good manager.” This sets us up to feel threatened by people pointing out our inevitable failings and inconsistencies. No one is perfect or entirely consistent about anything,

“You know, the people on our side feel we have been mistreated and are very upset. We’re afraid an agreement will not be kept even if one is reached. Rational or not, that is our concern. Personally, I think we may be wrong in fearing this, but that’s a feeling others have. Do the people on your side feel the same way?”

Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem.

Don’t react to emotional outbursts.

Acts that would produce a constructive emotional impact on one side often involve little or no cost to the other. A note of sympathy, a statement of regret, a visit to a cemetery, delivering a small present for a grandchild, shaking hands or embracing, eating together—all may be priceless opportunities to improve a hostile emotional situation at small cost.

On many occasions an apology can defuse emotions effectively, even when you do not acknowledge personal responsibility for the action or admit an intention to harm. 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.

Effective communication between the parties is all but impossible if each plays to the gallery.