Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Don’t attack their position, look behind it. When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for the interests behind it, seek out the principles that it reflects, and think about ways to improve it.

Assume every position they take is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side;

Treat their position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so. “How will a $2,000 across-the-board increase keep our schools’ salaries competitive with others in the area and thus assure that the students will have high-quality teachers?”

Seek out and discuss the principles underlying the other side’s positions. “What is the theory that makes $2,000 a fair salary increase? Is it based on what other schools pay or what others with comparable qualifications make?”

Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice. A lot of time in negotiation is spent criticizing. Rather than resisting the other side’s criticism, invite it.

Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what’s wrong with it. “What concerns of yours would this salary proposal fail to take into account?”

Examine their negative judgments to find out their underlying interests and to improve your ide...

Another way to channel criticism in a constructive direction is to turn the situation around and ask for their advice.

“If your jobs were at stake, what would you do? Our members are feeling so insecure about their jobs and frustrated by their shrinking dollars they’re talking about inviting a militant union in to represent them. If you were leading this association, how would you act?”

Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem.

“When you say that a strike shows we don’t care about the children, I hear your concern about the children’s education. I want you to know that we share this concern: they are our children and our students. We want the strike to end so we can go back to educating them. What can we both do now to reach an agreement as quickly as possible?”

Ask questions and pause. Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use two key tools. The first is to use questions instead of statements. Statements generate resistance, whereas questions generate answers.

Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word.

If you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient answer, just wait.

When you ask questions, pause. Don’t take them off the hook by going right on with another question or some comment of your own.

Rather than ask about their positions he asks about their interests: not how big a bay window the wife wants, but why she wants it. “Is it for morning sun or afternoon sun? Is it to look out or look in?”

“Personally, I am dissatisfied with it, but before working on it further I thought I would get your criticisms. What would be wrong with something like this?”

Inventing the best possible reconciliation of their interests within their financial constraints is separated from making decisions and is free of the fear of making an overhasty commitment.

Each spouse now has only one decision to make: yes or no.

Note that in most situations you do not have to get anyone’s consent to start using the one-text procedure. Simply prepare a draft and ask for criticism.

you can change the game simply by starting to play the new one.

essence of principled negotiation lies in remaining open to persuasion by objective facts and principles.

This approach makes them two colleagues trying to establish the facts.

Making yourself open to correction and persuasion is a pillar in the strategy of principled negotiation. You can convince the other side to be open to the principles and objective standards you suggest only if you show yourself open to the ones they suggest.

Giving personal support to the person on the other side is crucial to disentangling the people from the problem—separating relationship issues from the substantive merits.

Turnbull takes a basic stand on principle and announces his intention to stick to it; he must be persuaded on the basis of principle.

Turnbull at once reaffirms his appreciation of Mrs. Jones while he remains firm on the principle. In doing so, he avoids connecting the two thoughts with “but,” implicitly using “and” instead.

Even if he does not trust her, it would be a poor strategy to tell her so.

It helps to have stock phrases like “It’s not a question of trust” to turn aside ploys like Mrs. Jones’s plea for trust.

Could I ask you a few questions to see whether the facts I’ve been given are right? Is the apartment really under rent control? Is the legal maximum rent really $932? Paul asked me whether this makes us parties to a violation of the law.

I’m not clear why you charged us $1,200 a month. What were your reasons for charging that much?

He does not ask whether there were any reasons. He assumes there are good reasons. This flattering assumption leads the other side to search for reasons even if there are none, thus keeping the negotiation on the basis of principle.

Let me see if I understand what you’re saying, Mrs. Jones. If I’ve understood you correctly, you think the rent we paid is fair because

Once she feels understood, she can relax and discuss the problem constructively.

A good negotiator rarely makes an important decision on the spot.

A good negotiator comes to the table with a credible reason in his pocket for leaving when he wants.

Too much time at the table may wear down one’s commitment to principled negotiation. Returning to the table with renewed resolve, Turnbull can be soft on the person without being soft on the problem.

In principled negotiation you present your reasons first before offering a proposal.

In preparing for your negotiation, it helps to think about what standards would be useful, who might be able to provide them, and how to frame your questions to elicit the most relevant information.

Turnbull presents a proposal not as his, but as a fair option that deserves their joint consideration.

He does not claim it is the only fair solution, but one fair solution.

We feel confident we can settle this matter fairly with you to your satisfaction and ours.

The trickiest part of the message to communicate is the alternative if no agreement is reached. How can Turnbull get this across—he wants her to take it into account in her decision—without upsetting the negotiations? He bases the alternative on objective principle by attributing it to a legal authority—the hearing examiner. He distances himself personally from the suggestion. Nor does he say he will definitely take action. Instead, he leaves it as a possibility and emphasizes his reluctance to do anything drastic. Finally, he closes by affirming his confidence that a mutually satisfactory agreement will be reached.

Tricky bargaining tactics are in effect one-sided proposals about negotiating procedure, about the negotiating game that the parties are going to play. To counter them, you will want to engage in principled negotiation about the negotiating process.

recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability—negotiate over it.

“Say, Joe, I may be totally mistaken, but I’m getting the feeling that you and Ted here are playing a good-guy/bad-guy routine. If you two want a recess any time to straighten out differences between you, just ask.” Discussing the tactic not only makes it less effective,

Separate the people from the problem. Don’t attack people personally for using a tactic you consider illegitimate.

Focus on interests, not positions. “Why are you committing yourself in the press to an extreme position? Are you trying to protect yourself from criticism? Or are you protecting yourself from changing your position? Is it in our mutual interest to have both of us use this tactic?”

Invent options for mutual gain. Suggest alternative games to play. “How about our undertaking to make no statements to the press until we reach agreement or break off the talks?”

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 ...