Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said.

It has been said that the cheapest concession you can make to the other side is to let them know they have been heard.

Unless you acknowledge what they are saying and demonstrate that you understand them, they may believe you have not heard them. When you then try to explain a different point of view, they will suppose that you still have not grasped what they mean.

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, then come back with the problems you find in their proposal. If you can put their case better than they can, and then refute it, you maximize the chance of initiating a constructive dialogue on the merits and ...

Try putting yourself in that role, treating your opposite number as a fellow judge with whom are you attempting to work out a joint opinion. In this context it is clearly unpersuasive to blame the other party for the problem, to engage in name-calling, or to raise your voice. On the contrary, it will help to recognize explicitly that they see the situation differently and to try to go forward as people with a joint problem.

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.” If you make a statement about them that they believe is untrue, they will ignore you or get angry; they will not focus on your concern.

raise the issue with them explicitly. “Look, we’re both lawyers [diplomats, businessmen, family, etc.]. Unless we try to satisfy your interests, we are hardly likely to reach an agreement that satisfies mine, and vice versa. Let’s look together at the problem of how to satisfy our collective interests.”

The basic approach is to deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits.

For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions

Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.

Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons. First, for every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it.

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

Examine each position they take, and ask yourself “Why?”

You can also ask the landlord himself why he takes a particular position. If you do, make clear that you are asking not for justification of this position, but for an understanding of the needs, hopes, fears, or desires that it serves. “What’s your basic concern, Mr. Peters, in wanting the lease to run for no more than three years?”

In constructing the other side’s currently perceived choice the first question to ask is “Whose decision do I want to affect?” The second question is what decision people on the other side now see you asking them to make.

You are trying to understand a very human choice, not making a mathematical calculation.

Realize that each side has multiple interests.

In almost every negotiation each side will have many inter...

appreciate the differing interests of the various people and factions involved.

Whether it is their employer, client, employees, colleagues, family, or spouse, all negotiators have a constituency to whose interests they are sensitive.

To understand a negotiator’s interests means to understand the variety of somewhat differing interests that they need to take into account.

The most powerful interests are basic...

Basic human needs include: security economic well-being a sense of belonging recognition control over one’s life

Make a list. To sort out the various interests of each side, it helps to write them down as they occur to you. This will not only help you remember them; it will also enable you to improve the quality of your assessment as you learn new information and to place interests in their estimated order of importance.

The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when you communicate them.

How do you discuss interests constructively without getting locked into rigid positions?

Make your interests come alive.

It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate your interests are.

One guideline is be specific. Concrete details not only make your description credible, they add impact. For example: “Three times in the last week, a child was almost run over by one of your trucks. About eight-thirty Tuesday morning that huge red gravel truck of yours, going north at almost forty miles an hour, had to swerve and barely missed hitting seven-year-old Loretta Johnson.”

As long as you do not seem to imply that the other side’s interests are unimportant or illegitimate, you can afford to take a strong stance in settin...

“correct me if I’...

You want them to feel not that you are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem you face legitimately demands attention.

You need to convince them that they might well feel the same way if they were in your shoes. “Do you have children? How would you feel if trucks were hurtling at forty miles per hour down the street where you live?”

Acknowledge their interests as part o...

People listen better if they feel that you have understood them. They tend to think that those who understand them are intelligent and sympathetic people whose own opinions may be worth listening to.

“As I understand it, your interests as a construction company are basically to get the job done quickly at minimum cost and to preserve your reputation for safety and responsibility in the city. Have I understood you correctly? Do you have other important interests?”

“It would be terrible for all of us if one of your trucks hit a child.”

Put the problem before your answer.

If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later.

Look forward, not back.

Either we have free will or it is determined that we behave as if we do. In either case, we make choices.

In a negotiation you want to know where you are going and yet be open to fresh ideas.

To keep your flexibility, treat each option you formulate as simply illustrative.

Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. You can be just as hard in talking about your interests as any negotiator can be in talking about their position. In fact, it is usually advisable to be hard. It may not be wise to commit yourself to your position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests.

Often the wisest solutions, those that produce the maximum gain for you at the minimum cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests.

“Surely you’re not saying that my son’s life is worth less than the price of a fence. You wouldn’t say that about your son. I don’t believe you’re an insensitive person, Mr. Jenkins. Let’s figure out how to solve this problem.”

Attack the problem without blaming the people. Go even further and be personally supportive: Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize your concern with meeting their basic needs, and so on. Show them that you are attacking the problem, not them.

One useful rule of thumb is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem. This combination of support and attack may seem inconsistent. Psychologically, it is; the inconsistency helps make it work. 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.