Negotiation - Getting to Yes

Tong Ka Io
2011.07.19
Roger Fisher and
William Ury. 1991.
Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In. 2nd ed.
Random House Business
Books
Negotiation
 It is back-and-forth communication designed to
reach an agreement when you and the other side
have some interests that are shared and others
that are opposed
提綱
1. 討價還價

2. 按原則的談判

3. 實力和茅招

4. 總結
1. 討價還價
Like it or not, you are a negotiator
 Negotiation is a fact of life

 Everyone negotiates something every day

 Negotiation is a basic mean of getting what you

want from others

 People differ, and they use negotiation to handle

their differences
Positional bargaining
 Each side takes a position, argues for it,
and makes concessions to reach a
compromise
 Depends upon successively taking – and
then giving up – a sequence of positions
講價高手
 秘訣是 ……
Two way to negotiate
 Soft Hard
Participants are friends Participants are adversaries
The goal is agreement The goal is victory
Make concessions to cultivate the Demand concessions as a condition of the
relationship relationship
Be soft on the people and the problem Be hard on the problem and the people
Trust others Distrust others
Change your position easily Dig in to your position
Make offers Make threats
Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line
Demand one-sided gains as the price of
Accept one-sided losses to reach agreement
agreement

Search for the single answer: the one they Search for the single answer: the one you
will accept will accept
Insist on agreement Insist on your position
Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will
Yield to pressure Apply pressure
Orange experiment
 你是高級餐廳大廚

 正準備一重要晚宴

 二廚和三廚負責的菜
色都需要一個橙

 但頂級的橙只剩一個

 二廚和三廚爭得面紅
耳赤來找你 ……
Solution?
1. 切開一人一半

2. 重要性 / 優先性

3. 輪流

4. 抽籤

5. ……

6. 授權
真相
 二廚做的橙汁豆腐，  三廚做的是蜜橙皮，
需要一個橙的汁 需要一個橙的皮
Successful negotiation
Three criteria of successful
negotiation
1. Produce a wise agreement if agreement
is possible
2. Be efficient
3. Improve or at least not damage the
relationship between the parties
Wise agreement
 Meets the legitimate interests of each
side to the extent possible
 Resolves conflicting interests fairly
 Is durable
 Takes community interests into account
Soft negotiator
 Wants to avoid personal conflict and so
makes concessions readily in order to
reach agreement
 Wants an amicable resolution
 Often ends up exploited and feeling bitter
Hard negotiator
 Sees any situation as a contest of wills in
which the side that takes the more
extreme positions and holds out longer
fares better
 Wants to win
 Often ends up producing an equally hard
response which exhausts him and his
resources and harms his relationship with
the other side
Arguing over positions
1) Produces unwise agreements
2) Is inefficient
3) Endangers an ongoing relationship
4) Is even worse when there are many
parties
5) Being nice is no answer
1) Produces unwise agreements
 Locking into positions and “saving face”
 Any agreement reached may reflect a
mechanical splitting of difference
2) Is inefficient
 Requires a large number of individual
decisions
 Creates incentives that stall settlement
 Starting with an extreme position, stubbornly
holding to it, deceiving the other party as to
your true views

 Dragging one’s feet, threatening to walk out,

stonewalling
3) Endangers an ongoing relationship
 Become a battle
 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
4) Is even worse when there are many
parties
 Reciprocal concessions are difficult
 Leads to the formation of coalitions, often
more symbolic than substantive
 Becomes more difficult
to develop a common
position, and worse,
much harder to change
it
5) Being nice is no answer
 Runs the risk of producing a sloppy
agreement
 Makes you vulnerable to
someone who plays a
hard game
An alternative
 Change the game
 Principled negotiation
 Developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project

 A method of negotiation explicitly designed

to produce wise outcomes efficiently and
amicably

 Can be boiled down to four basic points:

people, interests, options, criteria
Game of negotiation
Four basic points
n Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem
n Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions
n Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain
n Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA
1. Separate the PEOPLE from the
Problem
 Before working on the substantive
problem, the “people problem” should be
disentangled from it and dealt with
separately
 Participants should come to see
themselves as working side by side,
attacking the problem, not each other
2. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions
 Position = something you have decided
upon
 Interests = what caused you to so decide
= desires and concerns
 To satisfy people’s underlying interests
3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain
 Setting aside a designated time within
which to think up a wide range of
possible solutions that advance shared
interests and creatively reconcile
differing interests
4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA
 Insisting that single say-so is not enough
and that the agreement must reflect some
fair standard independent of the naked
will of either side
 Positional Bargaining
Soft
Participants are friends
The goal is agreement
Make concessions to
cultivate the relationship
Be soft on the people and
the problem
Trust others
Change your position easily
Make offers
Disclose your bottom line
Accept one-sided losses to
reach agreement
Search for the single answer:
the one they will accept
Insist on agreement
Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will
Yield to pressure
Hard
Participants are adversaries
The goal is victory
Demand concessions as a
condition of the relationship
Be hard on the problem and
the people
Distrust others
Dig in to your position
Make threats
Mislead as to your bottom line
Demand one-sided gains as
the price of agreement
Search for the single answer:
the one you will accept
Insist on your position
Apply pressure
Principled
Negotiation
Participants are problem-solvers
The goal is a wise outcome reached
efficiently and amicably
Separate the people from the
problem
Be soft on the people, hard on the
Be soft on the people,
problem
hard
Proceed on the problem
independent of trust
Focus on interests, not positions
Explore interests
Avoid having a bottom line
Invent options for mutual gain
Develop multiple options to choose from;
decide later
Insist on using objective criteria
Try to reach a result based on standards
independent of will
Reason and be open to reasons; yield to
principle, not pressure
2. 按原則的談判
Principled negotiation
1. Separate the PEOPLE from the
Problem
 Negotiators are people first
 Every negotiator has two kinds of
interests: in the substance and in the
relationship
 The relationship tends to become
entangled with the problem
Two kinds of interests
People People

Substance Substance
1.1. Separate the relationship from the
substance
 Dealing with a substantive problem and
maintaining a good working relationship need
not be conflicting goals if the parties are
committed and psychologically prepared to treat
each separately on its own legitimate merits

 Base the relationship on accurate perceptions,

clear communication, appropriate emotions, and
a forward-looking, purposive outlook

 Deal with people problems directly; don’t try to

solve them with substantive concessions
People People

Substance Substance
1.2. Deal directly with the people
problem
 To deal with psychological problems, use
psychological techniques
 To find your way through the jungle of
people problem, it is useful to think in
terms of three basic categories:
perception, emotion, and communication
People problems
1.2.1. Perception
 Put yourself in their shoes
 Don’t deduce their intentions from your fear
 Don’t blame them for your problem; even if blaming is
justified, it is usually counterproductive; separate the
symptoms from the person
 Discuss each other’s perceptions
 Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with
their perceptions
 Give them a stake in the outcome by making
sure they participate in the process
 Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent
with their values
1.2.2. Emotion
 First recognize and understand emotions, theirs
and yours
 Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them
as legitimate
 Allow the other side to let off steam
 Don’t react to emotional outbursts
 Adopt the rule that only one person
could get angry at a time
 Use symbolic gestures
1.2.3. Communication
Three big problems: not be talking to each other;
forget to listen; misinterpret
 Listen actively and acknowledge what is being
said
 Speak to be understood
 Reduce distracting effect

 Speak about yourself,

not about them
 Speak for a purpose
1.2.4. Prevention works best
 Build a working relationship
 Face the problem, not the people
 It helps to sit literally on the same side of a
table and to have in front of you the contract,
the map, the blank pad of paper, or whatever
else depicts the problem
People People
- Perception - Perception
- Emotion - Emotion
- Communication - Communication

Substance Substance
2. Focus on INTEREST, Not
Positions
 For a wise solution reconcile interests,
not positions
 How do you identify interests?
 Talking about interests
People People
- Perception - Perception
- Emotion - Emotion
- Communication - Communication

Substance Substance

Position Position

Interests Interests
2.1. For a wise solution reconcile
interests, not positions
 Interests define the problem
 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
Behind opposed positions
2.2. How do you identify interests?
 Ask “Why?” – Put yourself in their shoes
 Ask “Why not?” – Think about their
choice
 Realize that each side has multiple
interests
 The most powerful interests are basic
human needs
 Make a list
2.3. Talking about interests
 Make your interests come alive
 Acknowledge their interests as part of the
problem
 Put the problem before your answer
 Look forward, not back
 Be concrete but flexible
 Be hard on the problem, soft on the
people
Be hard on the problem, soft on
the people
 It is wise to commit yourself to your interests

 Attack the problem without blaming the people

 Give positive support to the human being on the

other side equal in strength to the vigor with
which you emphasize the problem

 Be both firm and open

People People
- Perception - Perception
- Emotion - Emotion
- Communication - Communication

Substance Substance

Position Position

Interests Interests

Procedure Procedure
- Principled - Positional
3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain
 The ability to invent solutions
advantageous to both is one of the most
useful assets a negotiator can have
Four major obstacles
People usually believe that they know the right answer
 ZOPA = Zone of Possible Agreement

Often you are negotiating along a single dimension and see

the choice as one between winning and losing
Prescription
 Separate inventing from deciding
 Broaden your options
 Look for mutual gain
 Make their decision easy
3.1. Separate inventing from deciding
 Before brainstorming

 During brainstorming

 After brainstorming

 Consider brainstorming with the other side

3.2. Broaden your options
 Multiply options by shuttling between the
specific and the general: The Circle Chart

 Look through the eyes of different experts

 Invent agreements of different strengths

 Change the scope of a proposed agreement

3.3. Look for mutual gain
 Identify shared interests

 Dovetail differing interests

 Ask for their preferences

3.4. Make their decision easy
 Whose shoes?

 What decision?

 Making threats is not enough

4. Insist on Using Objective
CRITERIA
 Developing objective criteria
 Negotiating with objective criteria
4.1. Developing objective criteria
 Fair standards

 Fair procedures
4.2. Negotiating with objective criteria
 Frame each issue as a joint search for objective
criteria
 “What’s your theory?”

 Reason and be open to reason

 Never yield to pressure

Pressure
 Bribe

 Threat

 Manipulative appeal to trust

 Simply refusal to budge

3. 實力和茅招
What If They Are More Powerful?
Power ≠ Resource
 People think of negotiating power as
being determined by resources like
wealth, political connections, physical
strength, friends, and military might
 In fact, the relative negotiating power of
two parties depends primarily upon how
attractive to each is the option of not
reaching agreement (BATNA)
Some things you can’t get
 The best negotiator in the world will not
be able to buy the White House
 You should not expect success in
negotiation unless you are able to make
the other side an offer they find more
attractive than their BATNA
2 objectives in response to power
 Protecting yourself
 Know your BATNA

 Formulate a trip wire

 Making the most of your assets

 Develop your BATNA

 Consider the other side’s BATNA

BATNA ≠ bottom line
 “Bottom line” = worst acceptable outcome
established in advance

 Arbitrarily selected, likely to be set too high

 Limits your ability to benefit from what you learn

during negotiation

 Inhibits imagination to invent a tailor-made

solution which would reconcile differing
interests in a way more advantageous for both
BATNA
 Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
 Ex. Instead of selling a house at an agreed price, you
may rent it

 The reason you negotiate is to produce

something better than the results you can obtain
without negotiating

 The relative negotiating power of two parties

depends primarily upon how attractive to each is
the option of not reaching agreement
Developing your BATNA
1. Inventing a list of actions
you might conceivably
take if no agreement is
reached
2. Improving some of the
more promising ideas
and converting them into
practical alternatives
3. Selecting, tentatively, the
one option that seems
best
How you negotiate makes a big
difference
 Don’t ask, “Who’s more
powerful?”
 There are many sources
of negotiation power
 Make the most of your
potential power
Enhance your negotiation power
 Developing a good working relationship between
the people negotiating
 Understanding interests
 Inventing an elegant option
 Using external standards of legitimacy
 Developing a good BATNA
 To worsen the other side’s BATNA

 Making a carefully crafted commitment

 Negotiation power is not a zero-sum
phenomenon. You will often benefit from the
other side’s increasing ability to influence you

 The more clearly you understand the other side’s

concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy
them at minimum cost to yourself

 Convincing the other side that you are asking for

no more than is fair is one of the most powerful
arguments you can make
 Micro-BATNA – if no agreement is reached at
this meeting, what is the best outcome?

 Use each source of power in harmony with other

sources

 Believe what you say and say what you believe

What If They Won’t Play?
 What you can do
 Principled
negotiation
 What they may do
 Negotiation jujitsu
 What a third party
can do
 One-text mediation
procedure
Negotiation jujitsu
 Don’t attack their
position, look behind it
 Don’t defend your
ideas, invite criticism
and advice
 Recast an attack on
you as an attack on the
problem
 Ask question and
pause
One-text procedure
 Mediator asks parties about their
interests
 Develops a list of interests and needs and
asks parties to criticize and suggest
improvements
 Prepares sequential drafts and asks for
criticism until no more improvement can
be made
Stock phrases
 Please correct me if I’m
wrong
 We appreciate what you’ve
done for us
 Our concern is fairness
 We would like to settle this
on the basis not of selfish
interest and power but of
principle
 Trust is a separate issue
 Could I ask you a few
questions to see whether my
facts are right
 What’s the principle behind
your action
 Let me see if I understand
what you’re saying
 Let me get back to you
 Let me show you where I
have trouble following some
of your reasoning
 One fair solution might be
……
 If we agree …… If we
disagree ……
 We’d be happy to see if we
can leave when it’s most
convenient for you
 It’s been a pleasure dealing
with you
What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
Dirty Tricks
 Tricky tactics are illegitimate because
they fail the test of reciprocity
 Negotiate about the rules of game
 Don’t be a victim
Negotiate about the rules of game
 Recognize the tactic
 Raise the issue explicitly
 Question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability
 Negotiate over it
 Separate the people from the problem
 Focus on interests, not positions
 Invent options for mutual gain
 Insist on using objective criteria
Common tricky tactics
Common tricky tactics
1. Deliberate deception
 Phony facts

 Ambiguous authority

 Dubious intentions
Responses to deliberate deception
 Unless you have good reason to trust
somebody, don’t, making the negotiation
proceed independent of trust

 Verifying factual assertions

 Do not assume that the other side has full

authority

 Make the problem explicit and use their

protestations to get a guarantee
1. Psychological warfare
 Stressful situations: physical circumstances

 Personal attacks: comment on you, making

you wait, interrupting, refuse to listen, make
you repeat, refuse to make eye contact ……

 The good-guy / bad-guy routine

 Threats
Responses to psychological warfare
 If you find the physical surroundings
prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so
 Recognizing the tactic and bringing it up
 What is your principle?
 Ignore threats, to be principled
1. Positional pressure tactics: structure the
situation so that only one side can
effectively make concessions
 Refusal to negotiate
 Extreme demands
 Escalating demands
 Lock-in tactics
 Hardhearted partner
 A calculated delay
 “Take it or leave it”
Responses to positional pressure
tactics
 Recognize the tactics as a possible negotiating ploy; talk
about that, find out their interests and suggest some
options; insist on using principles
 Ask for principled justification
 Call it to their attention and take a break to consider
 Interpret lock-ins as goal and resist on principle
 Get his agreement to the principle involved and speak
directly with the “hardhearted partner”
 Create a fading opportunity
 Look for a face-saving way
Don’t be a victim
 Is this an approach I would use in dealing with a
good friend or a member of my family?

 I want to know the rules of the game we’re going

to play. Are we both trying to reach a wise
agreement as quickly and with as little effort as
possible? Or are we going to play hard
bargaining where the more stubborn fellow
wins?

 It is easier to defend principle than an

illegitimate tactic
4. 總結
 People People
- Perception - Perception
- Emotion - Emotion
- Communication - Communication

Substance Substance

Position Position

Interests Interests

Procedure Procedure
- Principled - Positional
- Dirty tricks
Tong KI 2011
Successful negotiation
Principled negotiation
Common tricky tactics
Conclusion
 You knew it all the time
 Learn from doing
 “Winning”
 Better process for dealing with differences
 Getting what you deserve

 Being decent
附：常見問題
Q1: Does positional bargaining ever
make sense?
 In virtually every case, the outcome will be better
for both sides with principled negotiation. The
issue is whether it is worth the extra effort
 How important is it to avoid an arbitrary outcome?
 How complex are the issues?
 How important is it to maintain a good working
relationship?
 What are the other side’s expectations, and how hard
would they be to change?
 Where are you in the negotiation?
 In single-issue negotiations among strangers
where the transaction costs of exploring
interests would be high and where each side is
protected by competitive opportunities, simple
haggling over positions may work fine
Q2: What if the other side believes in a
different standard or fairness?
 In most negotiation there will be no one “right”
or “fairest” answer

 Usually one standard will be more persuasive

than another

 Agreement on the “best” standard is not

necessary, the parties can explore tradeoffs or
resort to fair procedures to settle the remaining
differences
Q3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to
be?
 How much is the difference worth to you?

 Will the unfair result be durable?

 What damage might the unfair result cause to

this or other relationships?

 Will your conscience bother you?

Q4: What do I do if the people are the
problem?
 People problems often require more attention
than substantive ones. The human propensity
for defensive and reactive behavior is one
reason so many negotiations fail
 Build a working relationship independent of
agreement or disagreement

 Negotiate the relationship

 Distinguish how you treat them from how they treat

you

 Deal rationally with apparent irrationality

 A good working relationship is one that can cope
with differences. Such a relationship cannot be
bought by making substantive concessions or
by pretending that disagreements do not exist.

 Making an unjustified concession now is

unlikely to make it easier to deal with future
differences
 There is no need to emulate unconstructive
behavior. Doing so may indeed “teach them a
lesson”, but often not the lesson we would like.

 In most cases responding in kind reinforces the

behavior we dislike. Our behavior should be
designed to model and encourage the behavior
we would prefer, and to avoid any reward for the
behavior we dislike
 Recognize that while people often do not
negotiate rationally, it is worth trying to yourself
– in a mental hospital, we do not want crazy
doctors

 Question your assumption that others are acting

irrationally. These people are reacting rationally
to the world as they see it.

 In quire emphatically, taking their feelings

seriously and trying to trace their reasoning to
its roots
Q5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists,
or someone like Hitler? When does it make
sense not to negotiate?
 However unsavory the other side, unless you
have a better BATNA, the question you face is
not whether to negotiate, but how

 We should negotiate if negotiation holds the

promise of achieving an outcome that, all things
considered, meets our interests better than our
BATNA

 If your BATNA is fine and negotiation looks

unpromising, there is no reason to invest much
time in negotiation
Q6: How should I adjust my negotiating
approach to account for differences of
personality, gender, culture, and so on?
 Get in step

 Adapt our general advice to the specific

situation

 Pay attention to differences of belief and

custom, but avoid stereotyping individuals

 Question your assumptions; listen actively

Q7: What about practical questions like, “where
should we meet?” “Who should make the first
offer?” and “How high should I start?”
 We have no all-purpose medicines. Good tactical
advice requires knowledge of specific
circumstance
 To explore interests, options, and criteria for a
while before making an offer
 To start with the highest figure that you would
try to persuade a neutral third party was fair
 To put out a standard and a figure without
committing to it at all
 Strategy depends on preparation
Q8: Concretely, how do I move from
inventing options to making commitments?
 Think about closure from the beginning

 Consider crafting a framework agreement

 Move toward commitment gradually

 Be persistent in pursuing your interests, but not

rigid in pursuing any particular solution

 Make an offer

 Be generous at the end

Q9: What is the best way to try out these
ideas without taking too much risk?
 Start small

 Make an investment

 Review your performance

 Prepare – negotiation power requires hard work

in advance
Q10: Can the way I negotiate really make a
difference, if the other side is more powerful? And,
How do I enhance my negotiating power?
 Some things you can’t get

 How you negotiate makes a big difference

 “Resources” are not the same as “negotiation

power”

 Don’t ask, “Who’s more powerful?”

 There are many sources of negotiation power

 Make the most of your potential power

Negotiation power
 Developing a good working relationship between
the people negotiating

 Understanding interests

 Inventing an elegant option

 Using external standards of legitimacy

 Developing a good BATNA

 Making a carefully crafted commitment

 Negotiation power is not a zero-sum
phenomenon. You will often benefit from the
other side’s increasing ability to influence you

 The more clearly you understand the other side’s

concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy
them at minimum cost to yourself

 Convincing the other side that you are asking for

no more than is fair is one of the most powerful
arguments you can make
 Micro-BATNA – if no agreement is reached at
this meeting, what is the best outcome?

 Use each source of power in harmony with other

sources

 Believe what you say and say what you believe