Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties.

the best time for handling people problems is before they become people problems.

Judgment hinders imagination.

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. So if you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs.

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.

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.

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

An open mind is not an empty one.

The more extreme the opening positions and the smaller the concessions, the more time and effort it will take to discover whether or not agreement is possible.

The challenge is not to eliminate conflict but to transform it. It is to change the way we deal with our differences

The most powerful interests are basic human needs. In searching for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particularly for those bedrock concerns that motivate all people. If you can take care of such basic needs, you increase the chance both of reaching agreement and, if an agreement is reached, of the other side’s keeping to it. Basic human needs include: security economic well-being a sense of belonging recognition control over one’s life As fundamental as they are, basic human needs are easy to overlook. In many negotiations, we tend to think that the only interest involved is money. Yet even in a negotiation over a monetary figure, such as the amount of alimony to be specified in a separation agreement, much more can be involved.

Pressure can take many forms: a bribe, a threat, a manipulative appeal to trust, or a simple refusal to budge. In all these cases, the principled response is the same: invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria you think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.

Understanding is not agreeing.

THE METHOD 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

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.

The second negotiation concerns how you will negotiate the substantive question: by soft positional bargaining, by hard positional bargaining, or by some other method. This second negotiation is a game about a game—a “meta-game.” Each move you make within a negotiation is not only a move that deals with rent, salary, or other substantive questions; it also helps structure the rules of the game you are playing. Your move may serve to keep the negotiations within an ongoing mode, or it may constitute a game-changing move.

Whether a negotiation concerns a contract, a family quarrel, or a peace settlement among nations, people routinely engage in positional bargaining. Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise.

the ongoing relationship is far more important than the outcome of any particular negotiation.

Increase your negotiation power is by improving your walk-away alternative. An attractive BATNA is a strong argument with which to persuade the other side of the need to offer more.

Negotiation is a process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision

For more interesting examples from the Law of the Sea negotiations, see James K. Sebenius, Negotiating the Law of the Sea: Lessons in the Art and Science of Reaching Agreement (Harvard University Press, 1984).

Reason and be open to reason; yield to principle, not pressure.

Like it or not, you are a negotiator.

Where the parties speak different languages the chance for misinterpretation is compounded. For example, in Persian, the word “compromise” apparently lacks the positive meaning it has in English of “a midway solution both sides can live with,” but has only a negative meaning as in “our integrity was compromised.” Similarly, the word “mediator” in Persian suggests “meddler,” someone who is barging in uninvited. In early 1980 U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim flew to Iran to seek the release of American diplomats being held hostage by Iranian students soon after the Islamic revolution. His efforts were seriously set back when Iranian national radio and television broadcast in Persian a remark he reportedly made on his arrival in Tehran: “I have come as a mediator to work out a compromise.” Within an hour of the broadcast, his car was being stoned by angry Iranians.

BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement?

A well-established reputation for fair dealing can be an extraordinary asset.

In a mental hospital, we do not want psychotic doctors.

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.

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.

Insurance Adjuster Tom We have studied your case and we have decided the policy applies. That means you’re entitled to a settlement of $13,600. I see. How did you reach that figure? That’s how much we decided the car was worth. I understand, but what standard did you use to determine that amount? Do you know where I can buy a comparable car for that much? How much are you asking for? Whatever I’m entitled to under the policy. I found a secondhand car just about like it for $17,700. Adding the sales and excise tax, it would come to about $19,000. $19,000! That’s too much! I’m not asking for $19,000 or $18,000 or $20,000, but for fair compensation. Do you agree that it’s only fair I get enough to replace the car? OK, I’ll offer you $15,000. That’s the highest I can go. Company policy. How does the company figure that? Look, $15,000 is all you’ll get. Take it or leave it. $15,000 may be fair. I don’t know. I certainly understand your position if you’re bound by company policy. But unless you can state objectively why that amount is what I’m entitled to, I think I’ll do better in court. Why don’t we study the matter and talk again? Is Wednesday at eleven a good time to talk? . . .