Section Summary Notes

[John]

A few points I paraphrased or added more text to provide context.

Summary of Lesson from Part I: The power of Framing
Control the frame of the negotiations to make it easier for the other side to back down from strong positions.

Wise concessions on style and structure can help avoid costly concessions on substance.

Pay attention to the optics: how will the deal look to the other side’s audience?

Help the other side sell the deal to their audience.

Make it safe for the other side to ask for help on optics.

Avoid one-issue negotiations: add issues or link separate one-issue negotiations.

Negotiate multiple issues simultaneously, not sequentially.

Diffuse the spotlight so one issue does not become too prominent.

If there is only one issue, try splitting it in two.

Unmask the underlying interests: incompatible demands can hide reconcilable interests.

Be firm on substance, flexible on structure: I know where I need to get, I’m flexible on how I get there.

Getting unstuck is a worthy enough short-term goal.

Address the logic of appropriateness: what does a person like me do in a situation like this?

Leverage social proof to boost appropriateness.

Framing an option as unique is a double-edged sword.

Frame your proposal as the default option.

The party that drafts the initial version of the agreement or process gains leverage.

Establish a proper reference point for their evaluations.

Always justify your offer, but don’t apologize for it.

Strategic ambiguity can help resolve deadlock when no one can back down.

Strategic ambiguity should be used only if other mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance.

Strategic ambiguity can help overcome initial hesitations to starting relationships.

Ambiguity is not a remedy for substantive conflict.

Ambiguity involves a trade-off between current conflicts and future conflicts.

If closing deals is rewarded, negotiators might conceal substantive disagreements to push through flawed deals.

Ambiguous deals may be parasitic, hurting those who are not at the table.

Be the first mover: control the frame early.

If the existing frame is disadvantageous, reframe as early as possible.

Better to preempt conflict than resolve it: frame decisions in ways that help people avoid confrontation.

Early in the relationship, find low-cost opportunities to create the right frame for the relationship.

******* *******
Summary of Part II: The Power of Process
Have a process strategy.

Don’t just strategize the negotiation process; strategize the mplementation process, too.

Be the most prepared person in the room.

Negotiate process before substance.

Synchronize with the other side on process.

Seek clarity and commitment on process.

Normalize the process and encourage others to normalize it for you. [others have done it this way.]

Even the other side’s refusal to clarify or commit to process is informative.

See commitments that are explicit, unambiguous, public, and personal.

Before walking away because of a process breach, assess the other side’s perspective, evaluate all consequences, and suggest visible remedies.

Committing to a very rigid process is not always possible or advisable.

Preserve forward momentum. How will pursuing near-term advantage affect future engagement?

Consensus has merits, but it gives everyone veto power and reduces the likelihood of agreement.

Sufficient consensus helps preserve momentum and limits hostage-taking on individual issues.

Keep a low bar for progress on individual issues, but a high bar for approving the final agreement.

You want the other side to understand any concession comes from strength, yet it’s nice and smart.

“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” Transparency can stifle progress.

Allow for closed-door negotiations, then give constituents a say in the final deal.

Even after successful negotiations, create channels and processes to manage residual and latent conflict.

Stay at the table, especially after failed negotiations.

If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.

Get leverage when you are not at the table by helping sell the deal or by creating value elsewhere.

Beware the tendency, during times of peace, to underinvest in the maintenance of peace.

We get stuck on process because of inadequate preparation, wanting a perfect process, or wanting too much flexibility.

To get unstuck, agree to a process that can be revised, or start negotiating substance in parallel with process.

Be the first mover in establishing the right process: shape the terms of future engagement.

Your willingness to incur costs in support of the process sends a credible signal of our commitment.

Label your concessions.

If a destructive pattern is entrenched, label your future concessions.

Safeguard your credibility by following through on commitments, even the small ones.

If you want to stand firm on process, emphasize its for equality, not your own advantage.

******* ******* *******
Summary of lessons from Part III: The Power of Empathy
Empathy expands the set of options–for you.

Empathy is needed most when dealing with people who seem to
deserve it least.

Create slack. Your calendar for when to retaliate or escalate should accommodate mistakes and misunderstanding.

There is a trade-off between maintaining strategic flexibility and safeguarding credibility.

Don’t corner yourself with unwise or unnecessary ultimatums and threats.

Don’t force the other side to choose between smart decisions and saving face.

Beware the curse of knowledge.

Don’t just prepare your arguments, prepare your audience for your arguments.

Consider all potential explanations for the other side’s behavior, no not start by assuming incompetence or ill intent.

Identify all the barriers: psychological, structural, and tactical.

Work the whole body: target all barriers, use all levers.

Ignore ultimatums.

Rephrase ultimatums.

What isn’t negotiable today may be negotiable tomorrow–shape future incentive and options.

Yielding means “going with” not “giving in.” Understand, adopt, and leverage the other side’s perspective.

Bridge to accommodate competing perspectives.

Yielding to the other side’s frame might enhance your leverage.

If necessary, give up control over proposing the solution–but clarify the conditions the other side must meet.

Think trilaterally. Evaluate how third parties influence or alter the interests, constraints, and alternatives of those at the table.

Map out the negotiation space.

ICAP analysis: what are the Interests, Constraints, Alternatives, and Perspective of all parties.

Your analysis should include the state, dynamic, and strategic possibilities of leveraging third parties.

Be prepared–psychologically, organizationally, and politically–for good fortune.

If reaching a deal today is impossible, improve positioning and create option value for the future.

Don’t pick a winning strategy too soon. Maintain options and strengthen your ability to change course.

See the other side as partners, not opponents.

Focus on creating value, no matter how ugly the conflict.

“Imagine a world where this would be possible. Now paint me a picture.”

Understand the deep-seated forces that legitimize each side’s perspective and behavior.

Avoid asking for sacred concessions as a precondition to engagement.

History begins when we are wronged.

Don’t ask people to forget the past–encourage them to find value-creating ways to apply its lessons.

Never let fear dictate your response to problems of human interaction.