📘

Getting to Yes
Status Not started

Type 📖 Book
About

Author Roger Fisher

Topic Communication Noegotiation

Dates

Last revised

Key info

Tags Shortform summary

Cover

1-Page Summary

1-Page Summary
In our daily lives, we all negotiate with others for things we want, whether the
context is business or personal. For instance, at work we may negotiate a contract
with a supplier, while at home we may negotiate with siblings over the division of
family heirlooms or with a spouse over where to go on vacation.
In Getting to Yes, authors Roger Fisher and William Ury point out that the number of
situations requiring negotiation is increasing. Organizational structures are less
hierarchical than they used to be and people expect to have a say in decisions
that affect them rather than being dictated to by a boss. This requires
negotiation.

Getting to Yes 1
 The Problem with Traditional Negotiation
Despite the prevalence of negotiation, however, we don’t do it very well. Most
people haven’t been taught negotiation skills, but a bigger problem is the
inadequacy of the age-old adversarial method we use, which the authors call
positional bargaining.
In positional bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends
it, and bargains to reach a compromise. An example is when you bargain with a
seller over the price of something.
People tend to take one of two approaches: aggressive or friendly (hard or soft).
Hard negotiators strive to win by taking the toughest positions and holding out the
longest. They may use posturing, threats, and other strong-arm tactics. Those who
take a friendlier approach try to avoid conflict and reach an amicable agreement.
Neither approach is ideal. Positional bargaining often produces unfair, less-than-
optimal outcomes, and it’s inefficient and damages relationships.

The Solution: Principled Negotiation

The authors offer an alternative approach, principled negotiation, which is
designed to generate fair agreements efficiently and civilly. Negotiators decide
issues on the objective merits (facts and evidence), rather than on what’s
acceptable or unacceptable to each side, and they look for mutual gains. Where
interests conflict, results are based on fair, objective standards. Principled
negotiators avoid deceptive tactics, posturing, and threats.
Anyone can use principled negotiation in almost any circumstances. There are four
elements:
1. People: Separate personalities and emotions from the issue being
negotiated. Because the relationship involves people and their emotions, it gets
intertwined with the substance of the negotiations. For example, you may think
you’re simply pointing out a problem (“The warehouse is a mess”), but someone on
the other side may take it as a personal attack or blaming. Handling people
sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for successful negotiation and for a
constructive ongoing relationship.
This is important because most negotiations involve a long-term relationship that’s
important to maintain. For instance, union members and bosses must be able to

Getting to Yes 2
 work together for a strong company bottom line and job stability.
2. Interests: Focus on the underlying interests of each side, not on positions.
Interests involve people’s needs, desires, fears, and concerns — they’re the
reasons behind the positions people take.

An example illustrates the difference. Two men get into an argument at a library
because one wants to keep a window open while the other wants to close it; neither
is willing to go halfway. The librarian asks each man for his reasons. One wants the
window open to get fresh air; the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. So, the
librarian opens a window in an adjoining room to provide air flow and avoid creating
a draft. She resolved the conflict by focusing on the men’s underlying interests,
rather than their positions on opening or closing a particular window.
3. Options: Come up with multiple options based on mutual interests. A
common challenge in negotiations arises when there doesn’t seem to be a way to
split the pie that serves both sides. The choice seems to be having a winner and a
loser, and neither side wants to lose. But the dilemma opens up the opportunity for
creative options that expand the pie before dividing it. A creative solution can break
an impasse and result in a better agreement.
For example, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty reached at Camp David in 1978
succeeded in part because negotiators considered the interests behind the two
countries’ positions on the issue of what to do with the Sinai Peninsula, which Egypt
had occupied since 1967. Each side wanted control over it and neither would
compromise. Egypt’s interest was in sovereignty over land of historical importance
to them. Israel’s interest was security — they didn’t want Egyptian tanks positioned
on their border. The solution addressing both interests was to give Egypt
sovereignty but create large demilitarized zones.

4. Criteria: Base the agreement on objective (fair and independent) standards.

Standard negotiations are a battle of wills. For instance, with a labor contract, the
prevailing side determines the level of pay increases and benefits, based on their
view of what’s appropriate. But you can avoid arbitrary agreements by demanding
the results meet objective standards independent of either side — for instance,
market values, legal standards, average salaries, expert opinions or data, or
customary practices. Instead of arguing about what either side is willing to accept,
agree to objective standards that will serve as the rationale for the specifics in the

Getting to Yes 3
 agreement. That way, neither party is imposing their say-so for what’s fair on the
other.

Key Skills for Getting to Yes

The book guides you through the process of principled negotiation with steps,
techniques, and examples. Besides the method of principled negotiation, key skills
include:

Determine your best available alternative to a negotiated agreement

(BATNA). The purpose of negotiating is to get better results than you’d get
without negotiating. So when negotiating, you need to know your best
alternative to negotiation in order to know whether to accept an agreement.
Measure any proposed agreement against your best alternative or BATNA. It
will protect you from accepting a bad agreement, as well as from rejecting a
good agreement.

Defuse emotions that hinder discussion. Talk openly with the other side
about their emotions. Talk about your own emotions too. Acknowledge the
emotions as legitimate. With emotions acknowledged, negotiations can be less
reactive and more proactive; people can more easily focus on the substantive
issues with emotions out of the way. Also, allow the other side to vent. Don’t
react to an emotional outburst and don’t interrupt — just sit and listen. Then you
can move on.

Build a positive relationship with the other side. Before negotiations begin,
get to know the people on the other side personally. It’s easier to negotiate with
someone you know than with a stranger. Meet informally, learn each others’
likes and dislikes and take the time to chat when you run into people on the
other side. Or use Ben Franklin’s technique — he liked to ask an opponent if he
could borrow a specific book. Their common interest in the book made them
more comfortable with each other and gave them something innocuous to chat
about.

Counter dirty tricks by redirecting the discussion. Positional bargainers

may use a variety of strong-arm tactics in an effort to get you to succumb to
their position, including lies, pressure tactics, and psychological tricks. The only
effective way to counter these tactics is to use the techniques of principled
negotiation to establish how you’re going to negotiate (the rules of the game).

Getting to Yes 4
 Follow these steps: recognize the tactic, call attention to it, and question its
validity as a tactic. Use the tactic as the basis for discussing how to negotiate
constructively.

Negotiate effectively when there are differences around gender, ethnicity,

or culture. Be aware of differing beliefs and customs, but don’t stereotype.
Individuals’ attitudes and characteristics may differ from those of their group (for
instance, not all Japanese prefer indirect communication). This applies to
genders as well. It’s insulting to make assumptions based on the group to which
someone belongs. Question your assumptions and be open to learning that
others are different from what you expected. Everyone has special interests and
qualities that don’t fit any mold.

Reach a successful agreement when the other side is more powerful.

While wealth and connections enhance negotiating power, the power of each
side also depends on negotiating skill and the strength of their alternative. If you
have a stronger alternative — for instance, the ability to get a better price
elsewhere — you can walk away from an agreement, which gives you leverage.
The stronger your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), the
greater your power. Other power enhancers include a good working
relationship, listening skills, and ability to identify the other side’s interests and
develop create mutually satisfying options.

To sum up, in contrast to adversarial bargaining, practicing principled negotiation

allows you to treat people with empathy, work toward a wise agreement that’s fair
for both parties, negotiate efficiently without deliberate delays, and end the process
on a positive note that bodes well for your future relationship.

Introduction

Introduction
We’re all negotiators — negotiation is how we get what we want from others in
business and personal life. We negotiate with our bosses, clients, sellers, real
estate agents, family members, and others. In fact, we reach most decisions in our
lives through negotiation, often without realizing it.

In Getting to Yes, authors Roger Fisher and William Ury note that the number of
situations requiring negotiation keeps increasing, which makes it essential to learn

Getting to Yes 5
 negotiation skills. Twenty or more years ago, command-and-control structures with
a chain of bosses ordering our actions were common. Today, however,
organizational structures are less hierarchical, more companies emphasize
teamwork, and people expect a say in decisions that affect them rather than being
dictated to. This requires negotiation.

Getting to Yes, a 30-year-old classic updated in 2011, presents an alternative to

adversarial bargaining — principled negotiation, a process focusing on finding
creative options that serve mutual interests (some have referred to it as win-win
negotiation). Their method continues to be taught in many U.S. law schools.

Negotiation is defined as a give-and-take effort by two or more parties to

reach agreement on a matter in which some of their interests conflict, some
are shared, and some differ.

Although we negotiate all the time, most of us don't do it very well. People tend to
approach negotiation from one of two extremes: overly aggressive or overly friendly
(hard or soft).

Hardball negotiators view negotiation as a contest they must win. Their

strategy is to take the toughest positions and hold out the longest. Their win-at-
any-cost approach exhausts energy and resources and ruins their relationship
with the other side.

On the other hand, those who take an overly friendly approach seek to

avoid conflict at all cost and reach an amicable agreement. They readily
make concessions and may end up feeling exploited.

Whichever method people use, there’s a tension between getting along with people
and getting what you want.

By contrast, principled negotiation combines elements of these approaches — there

are times to be tough and times be lenient. In addition, the method aims to decide
issues on their merits (facts and evidence), rather than on what’s
acceptable/unacceptable to each side, and to look for mutual gains. Where
interests conflict, results are based on fair, objective standards.

Principled negotiators avoid games. Each side’s goal is to get only what they’re
entitled to while being civil and to be fair but avoid being taken advantage of. The
process is transparent rather than dependent on hiding your real goal or strategy
from the other side.

Getting to Yes 6
 Part one of the book discusses problems created by the standard method of
bargaining — positional bargaining. The next four parts describe the four key
elements of the alternative method of principled bargaining. The remaining parts
describe procedures and tactics and how to deal with challenges, including a power
imbalance between the sides.

Anyone can use principled negotiation and it can be applied to any issue.

Exercise: Review Your Negotiations

Exercise: Review Your Negotiations

We’re always negotiating in our personal and work lives. In the traditional method of
adversarial bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and
haggles to reach a compromise.

Think of a situation where you negotiated with someone over something, for
instance a used car, a job offer, or how to divide the housework. What did you
want? What did the other person want? How did it turn out?
Did you both get what you wanted or could the outcome have been better for one or
both of you? How?
How did the negotiation affect your relationship in the short and long terms?

Part 1: Problems With Traditional Negotiation

Part 1: Problems With Traditional Negotiation

The authors identify three criteria for successful negotiation that apply to any
method:

The resulting agreement must be wise, meaning that it meets the interests of
each side, and it’s fair and lasting.

The process must be efficient, producing results without wasting time.

The process must strengthen the relationship between the parties — or at least
not damage it.

Positional bargaining falls short on all three counts.

Bargaining from Positions

Getting to Yes 7
 In positional bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends
it, and bargains to reach a compromise. A classic example is when you haggle
with a seller over the price of something.
Positional bargaining involves each side offering a series of positions and
concessions, which takes considerable time. Each can clearly see what the other
wants and the process usually leads to an agreement that both sides accept. But
the agreement it produces doesn’t meet the three criteria (wise, efficient, and
friendly).

Specifically, arguing over positions is problematic because:

1) Positional bargaining produces bad outcomes: Negotiators become rigid in
their positions. The harder you try to convince the other side of the rightness of your
position, and the more you defend it against attack, the more strongly committed to
it you become. You feel compelled to maintain consistency with your past positions
and to save face by not giving in.
For example, the 1961 U.S.-Soviet negotiations over a proposed nuclear test ban
failed because of rigid positions on each side. Talks were bogged down over how
many on-site inspections would be done annually — the Soviets wanted three and
the U.S. ten. They got stuck there without having even defined the inspection
procedure (for instance, how many inspectors could be sent into the other’s territory
and for how long). An agreement on the inspection process might have addressed
both sides’ desire for minimal intrusion and the U.S. interest in verification, while
avoiding the arms race that ensued.

The greater the emphasis on positions, the less attention is paid to what each side
really wants (the interests underlying their positions) and the less likely they are to
reach a good agreement. Instead, the agreement will reflect a splitting of differences
rather than addressing the valid interests of the parties. Both sides may end up
dissatisfied and will have missed the opportunity for a good agreement.
2) Positional bargaining is inefficient: The give-and-take of standard
negotiations, even when the parties aren’t hostile, is time-consuming. The process
has built-in features that slow things down, such as starting with an unreasonable
position and making incremental concessions. These common tactics work against
a prompt settlement. Negotiation requires multiple individual decisions on offers,
rejections, and concessions, each of which is an opportunity to stall. On top of that,

Getting to Yes 8
 negotiators can use deliberate delaying tactics and tricks such as threatening to
walk out.
3) Positional bargaining undermines the ongoing relationship between the
parties: When negotiations become a struggle of wills with each side trying to force
its position on the other, anger and resentment build. The bad feelings can linger,
hindering implementation and the ability of the two sides to work together in the
future.
It works especially poorly for multilateral negotiations: When you have multiple
sides in a negotiation, the inefficiency of the positional bargaining method is
magnified.
For example, in United Nations talks where as many as 150 countries may be
negotiating, all of them have to say “yes” for talks to proceed, but just one can stop
the process by saying “no.” It’s hard to come up with a common position and even
harder to change a position. Coalitions (East-West, North-South) tend to form
around symbolic rather than substantive interests. Also, the various sides have to
keep checking with higher authorities.
Sometimes negotiators try to mitigate the confrontational aspect of standard
bargaining by being “nice,” that is, making overly lenient offers and concessions that
don’t serve their interests in order to avoid conflict. They achieve an agreement, but
not necessarily a good one. Being nice — prioritizing the relationship — is the
approach most often used by family or friends. It’s especially risky if the other side
plays hardball, in which case the nonaggressive bargainer is likely to lose his shirt.

The Alternative to Positional Negotiation

You don’t have to choose either aggressive or soft bargaining along with their
attendant problems. In contrast to the traditional adversarial approach, principled
negotiation (which can also be called negotiating on the merits) is designed
to generate fair agreements efficiently and civilly.

It can be used in almost any circumstances and it’s straightforward: the two sides
work toward agreed-upon mutual interests rather than having hidden agendas. In
short, it’s a different game.

There are four components (more details follow below, and each element will be
addressed in an individual chapter):

Getting to Yes 9
 1. People: Separate personalities and emotions from the issue being negotiated.

2. Interests: Focus on the interests of each side — the reasons underlying their
positions — rather than on positions.

3. Options: Come up with multiple options based on mutual interests.

4. Criteria: Base the agreement on an objective (fair and independent) standard.

Separate Emotions from Issues

People get emotional, they have trouble communicating clearly, and their
perceptions vary. How they feel gets mixed with what they think about the merits
(facts) of an issue. They hold stubbornly to positions due to ego. When the other
side makes concessions, it can reward this behavior.
Before negotiators can make headway on addressing the issues, they need to
address people’s mindset and behavior. Both sides must see themselves as
working together alongside each other, attacking a problem rather than each other.

Talk about Interests Instead of Positions

You can overcome the flaws of positional bargaining when you focus on the
underlying interests (what you both really want) that led to taking the
positions. Because the negotiating positions that are taken often obscure these
interests, compromising doesn’t generate an agreement that addresses the reasons
people take the positions that they do.

Generate Options Serving Mutual Interests

When negotiating under pressure, it’s hard to come up with great solutions serving
both sides. It’s better for each side to set up a separate time to brainstorm creative
solutions that address each side’s interests while accommodating differences.
Another approach is for both sides to brainstorm together.

Use Objective Criteria

You can avoid arbitrary agreements by demanding that the results meet objective
standards independent of either side — for instance, market values, legal
standards, average salaries, expert opinions or data, or customary practices.
Instead of arguing about what either side is willing to accept, agree to objective

Getting to Yes 10
 standards that will serve as the rationale for the specifics in the agreement. That
way, neither party is imposing their say-so for what’s fair on the other.

Stages of Principled Negotiation

Principled negotiation has three broad stages, and you deal with the four elements
(people, interests, options, criteria) in each stage: analysis, planning, and
discussion.

Analysis: In this stage, assess the situation. Gather, organize, and weigh
information. Anticipate personality or emotional issues that might influence the
process — for instance, feelings, biases, and communication styles or problems
(the people element). Identify and list your interests and what you think the
other side’s interests are (the interests element). Identify any options already on
the table and any standards already suggested as a rationale.

Planning: In this stage, go through the four elements again. Decide what you’ll
do about each people problem, what interests are your top priorities, and what
your objectives are, as well as several options and potential criteria.

Discussion: In this stage, look toward agreement. Communicate with each

other about potential human issues (for instance frustrations and perceptions on
each side), identify common and differing interests, generate some mutually
beneficial options, and agree on objective standards.

To sum up, in contrast to adversarial bargaining, practicing principled negotiation

allows you to treat people with empathy, work toward a wise agreement that’s fair
for both parties, negotiate efficiently without deliberate delays, and end the process
on a positive note that bodes well for your future relationship.

Exercise: Three Criteria

Exercise: Three Criteria

The authors identify three criteria for successful negotiation: 1) the agreement must
be wise, meaning that it meets the interests of each side and it’s fair; 2) the process
must be efficient; and 3) the process must strengthen the relationship.

Think of a recent negotiation you were involved in. How did it compare to the above
criteria?

Getting to Yes 11
 If you had applied one or more of the criteria, how would it have changed the
negotiation process or the agreement?

Part 2: Principled Negotiation | Element 1: Separate Emotions from Issues

Part 2: Principled Negotiation | Element 1: Separate

Emotions from Issues
In a negotiation, you may be dealing with an institution, company, or organization,
but besides the entity, you’re dealing with human beings who have different
backgrounds, values, biases, emotions, and communication styles.
The human aspect can be both a plus and a minus in negotiations. People
misunderstand and misinterpret things, which can reinforce the other side’s
misgivings or spark negative reactions. On the other hand, a good working
relationship can help negotiations go smoothly. Also, people’s desire to be liked and
respected may make them more considerate.
In any case, handling people sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for
successful negotiation. Continually ask yourself whether you’re giving enough
consideration to human issues.

Substance Versus Relationship

Negotiators are always dealing with two issues: the substance of the
negotiations and the relationship between the two sides. Both issues are
important. For instance, a store owner wants to make a profit on a sale (substance),
but also create a return customer by sending her away happy the first time
(relationship). If he overcharges, he may make a profit, but he’ll damage his
relationship with the customer and she may not return.
Obviously, people and their emotions are driving factors in the relationship issue.

Most negotiations involve a long-term relationship that’s important to maintain. For

instance, union members and bosses must be able to work together for a strong
company bottom line and job stability. In some instances, the relationship may be
more important than the immediate negotiated results.

Because the relationship involves people and their emotions, it gets

intertwined with the substance of the negotiations. For example, you may think
you’re simply pointing out a problem (“The warehouse is a mess”), but someone on

Getting to Yes 12
 the other side may take it as a personal attack or blaming. Or, when people hear
comments on substance, they may infer something negative about the speaker’s
attitude toward them. We often conflate problems and people without realizing we’re
doing it.
Positional bargaining tends to pit people against each other — someone’s tough
position can be taken to mean she doesn’t care about the relationship or the other
person.
However, dealing with differences of substance needn’t conflict with having a good
relationship if the parties are committed to treating substance and relationship
separately, each on its merits. For instance, deal with hurt feelings or anger directly
rather than trying to appease the aggrieved person by making a concession on
substance. Use psychological techniques, such as testing assumptions, educating,
giving people an opportunity to vent, and improving communications.

Psychological Problems
In the context of negotiation, human problems generally fall into three categories:
perception, emotion, and communication.

Perception: Understanding the Other Side’s Thinking

When people or nations are in conflict, they usually focus on something concrete:
an object (a disputed possession, for instance) or an event (like a car accident).
They focus on getting more information about the item or occurrence, but the facts
aren’t the problem — it’s the parties’ beliefs or perceptions about the facts.
For instance, if one person lost a watch and another found it, they may agree on the
facts or circumstances, but not on who should get it.
Differing perceptions of an issue present a problem in negotiations initially, but also
an opportunity for a solution if people can understand each other’s perceptions and
even revise their own. Here are a few tips for understanding another’s perceptions:
See the issue through the other person’s eyes: How you see things depends on
your vantage point. People see what they want to see, selecting facts that support
their preconceived notions, and discarding contrary facts. The ability to see things
from the other side’s perspective is a key negotiating skill.
To be able to influence them, you must understand their view, not just in the abstract
but empathetically. Make yourself withhold judgment while putting yourself in their

Getting to Yes 13
 shoes. You don’t need to agree with their view, just to understand it. If you do end
up revising your own view as a result, that’s a plus because you’ve reduced the
scope of your dispute.
Don’t make assumptions about the other side’s intentions. We often make
assumptions about what other people intend based on our own biases and fears.
For instance, consider the assumptions you’d make in this scenario: A man at a bar
offers a woman a ride home, but he takes an unfamiliar route, which he says is a
shortcut. Your likely assumption (based on your fears) is that he intends to harm
her, but he could indeed be taking a shortcut that gets her home earlier than
expected. When we interpret whatever the other side says or does negatively based
on our existing perceptions, we overlook new ideas or changes the other side is
making in their position.

Don’t blame the other person for a problem. Even if justified, blaming the other
side is counterproductive. It provokes a counterattack or defensive response. It also
means you’ve both stopped listening. To talk about a problem, describe the
symptoms rather than assigning personal blame.
For example, if you’re having problems with a generator breaking down repeatedly,
don’t say: “Your company makes shoddy equipment,” or “Your service people don’t
know what they’re doing.” Instead, point out: “This is the third time this month that
it’s broken down, and disrupted our business. What can we do to improve its
reliability? Should we contact another company for a second opinion?”
Discuss each other’s perceptions: Explicitly discuss each other’s differing
perceptions without blaming. If you know what issues the other side takes seriously,
you know what issues you should also take seriously if you want to negotiate
effectively. When a topic isn’t important to you, you typically brush it aside, but if it’s
more important to the other side than you realize, it can impede an agreement. On
the other hand, understanding and incorporating it into the discussion can facilitate
agreement even if it’s not a central point.
For example, in negotiations with developing countries over ocean drilling rights, the
U.S. treated the developing nations’ desire for access to new technology, which was
critical for them, as unimportant. The U.S. agreed with transferring the technology,
but felt the details could easily be worked out later and so, they set the topic aside.
However, by prioritizing this interest, the U.S. could have built goodwill for the final
agreement or gotten something else in return.

Getting to Yes 14
 Prove their perceptions wrong. You can change people’s negative perceptions of
you or your side by acting differently from the way they expect you to act.
For example, in 1977 Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, flew to Israel’s disputed but
symbolic capital, Jerusalem, to discuss peace initiatives. By acting as a potential
partner rather than as an enemy (who would never make such a gesture), Sadat
convinced Israel that he sincerely wanted to achieve peace. This helped open the
way for a treaty two years later.
Involve the other side in the process so they have ownership of the outcome.
A feeling of having participated in the process is a key factor in whether a negotiator
accepts a proposal.
We all want to participate in decisions that affect us, but when trying to solve a
thorny problem we often try to work out the details first, then present it to the other
person. It’s a way of putting off the hard part and (we think) avoiding a long, messy
debate.
Predictably, however, the other side is likely to reject our findings, even when
acceptance would be in their interest, just because they were left out of the process.
In negotiations, each time a side’s input is incorporated into a proposal, it increases
their feeling of ownership.

Ensure they save face. The idea of face-saving has negative connotations,
suggesting a pretense to make someone feel better. But in negotiations, face-saving
means something different and more important. It means making an agreement
consistent with the principles and past words and actions of the two sides.
People may hold out, although a proposal is acceptable to them, because they don’t
want to appear to have backed down. But if the proposal can be reframed so it’s
consistent with their principles or so that it seems fairer, they’ll accept it.
Here’s an example of reframing to save face: a mayor balked at accepting the terms
of a negotiated agreement between the city and the Hispanic community over
access to city jobs. The two sides agreed to drop the agreement, instead allowing
the mayor to present the identical terms as his own program, thus fulfilling a
campaign promise. The agreement itself hadn’t changed terms, but the different
presentation allowed the mayor to save face and avoid looking like to constituents
like he passively accepted a deal.

Getting to Yes 15
 Emotion
People come to negotiations with strong feelings: they know that much is at stake
and they may already feel defensive or threatened. One side’s emotions will
generate a response from the other side. Emotions can create an impasse or end
negotiations. Here are some ways to keep this from happening:

Be aware of the emotions on both sides. Start by assessing your own

feelings and those of others on your side. Write down what you feel and what
you’d like to feel. Do the same for the other side. Listen to get a sense of what
they feel. Treat them as humans with feelings, not hired guns for their
organization. Consider what’s generating the emotions; why do people feel as
they do?

Pay attention to five underlying concerns. Emotions in negotiations are

typically driven by five interests. Addressing these factors can create a positive
climate while ignoring or undermining them generates counterproductive
responses:

Autonomy: the ability to make choices and control what happens to you.

Appreciation: feeling valued and respected.

Affiliation: desire to be accepted by peers.

Role: having a meaningful function or purpose

Status: having your role and value acknowledged.

Avoid threats to identity or self-image. We each have self-perceptions

involving what we’re good at and what kind of person we are (for instance, “I’m
a reasonable person,” or “I’m a good manager”). We feel threatened when
people point out our inconsistencies and flaws and we may get angry. When
you get the feeling you’ve “stepped in something” during a conversation, you
may have threatened someone’s identity. Rephrase your point or revise your
approach.

Talk openly with the other side about their emotions. Talk about your own
emotions too. Acknowledge the emotions as legitimate. With emotions
acknowledged, negotiations can be less reactive and more proactive; people
can more easily focus on the substantive issues with emotions out of the way.

Getting to Yes 16
 Allow the other side to vent, without reacting. As noted above, people get
relief from expressing their emotions and grievances. Don’t react to an
emotional outburst and don’t interrupt — just sit and listen. However, try
establishing a rule of letting only one person vent at a time (so others don’t
respond and pull the conversation off track).

Use small gestures to affirm others. Small actions — such as giving

someone a rose after a quarrel — acknowledge and defuse emotions or ease a
hostile environment. In the context of negotiations, useful constructive gestures
may include shaking hands, eating together, a note of sympathy, or an apology.
An apology can have a huge impact even when you don’t take personal
responsibility. These gestures don’t cost you anything and greatly improve the
atmosphere.

Communication
Of course, you can’t have negotiations without communication. An unavoidable
aspect of communication is misunderstanding, no matter how well you know
someone. In negotiations, it’s a given that something you say is likely to be heard or
interpreted in a way you didn’t intend.

There are three problems of communication:

1. Negotiators may not be communicating with each other in a way that’s being
understood. It may be that each side has given up and is no longer attempting
any serious communication, or they could be playing to their constituency.

2. Even if you’re talking directly and clearly, the other side’s negotiators may not
be hearing you or you may not be hearing them.

3. People simply misunderstand each other.

To address these problems:

Listen actively and acknowledge what you’re hearing. Use standard active
listening techniques, including paying close attention, asking the other person to
spell out exactly what they mean, and asking for a repeat if anything is unclear.
Unless you acknowledge what they’re saying and demonstrate that you
understand before you make a new point, they may believe you didn’t get what
they mean and will ignore your point and try to re-argue theirs.

Getting to Yes 17
 Focus on solving the problem as partners. You’re not debating before an
audience or trying to persuade a third party in a trial. Think of yourselves as two
judges working on a joint opinion: you respect each other and don’t yell, blame,
or call each other names. Work without an audience if possible: crucial
decisions generally are made by just two people in a room.

Speak for yourself, without impugning others’ motivations. In negotiations,

the two sides often spend time attacking the other’s supposed motivations and
intentions. But if you say something unfounded or inaccurate, they’ll focus on
that instead of your concerns. It seems less threatening if you talk about how a
problem affects you rather than why the other person is wrong.

Speak for a reason. Speak when you have something relevant and important
to say, having thought about what you want to communicate or learn, and for
what purpose. People sometimes talk too much, saying whatever enters their
mind. But some things shouldn’t be said, especially at emotional moments. In
addition, full disclosure can make reaching agreement more difficult — for
instance, disclosing the top price you’re willing to pay for a car won’t get you the
best price.

A better approach than addressing communication problems after the fact is to

prevent communication missteps from happening in the first place. Take two key
preventative steps:

1. Build a working relationship. Before negotiations begin, get to know the

people on the other side personally. It’s easier to negotiate with someone you
know than with a stranger. Meet informally, learn each others’ likes and dislikes,
and take the time to chat when you run into people. Or use Ben Franklin’s
approach — he liked to ask an opponent if he could borrow a specific book.
Their common interest in the book made them more comfortable with each
other and gave them something innocuous to chat about.

2. Again, separate the issue from the individuals. This is something you have
to keep working on. Think of yourselves as partners, like two shipwrecked
sailors working together on a problem. Do this by setting an example of issue-
focused negotiation, or by raising the issue directly.

Element 2: Focus on Interests

Getting to Yes 18
 Element 2: Focus on Interests
In standard negotiations, the focus is on coming up with a compromise on
conflicting positions, for instance splitting the difference between a union’s pay
request and a company’s smaller offer. Such negotiations over firm positions often
reach an impasse.

But underlying each side’s position are interests — the reasons for the positions.

Addressing interests rather than positions often opens the way to an agreement.
An example illustrates the difference. Two men get into an argument at a library
because one wants to keep a window open while the other wants to close it; neither
is willing to go halfway. The librarian asks each man for his reasons. One wants the
window open to get fresh air; the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. So, the
librarian opens a window in an adjoining room to provide air flow and avoid creating
a draft. She resolved the conflict by focusing on the men’s underlying interests
rather than their positions on opening or closing a particular window.

Interests Explain the Problem

In negotiations, you can’t come to an agreement without understanding both sides’
interests. Interests involve people’s needs, desires, fears, and concerns —
they drive people to take the positions they take.
For example, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty reached at Camp David in 1978
succeeded in part because negotiators considered the interests behind the two
countries’ positions on the issue of what to do with the Sinai Peninsula, which Egypt
had occupied since 1967. Each side wanted control over it and neither would
compromise. Egypt’s interest was in sovereignty over land of historical importance
to them. Israel’s interest was security — they didn’t want Egyptian tanks positioned
on their border. The solution addressing both interests was to give Egypt
sovereignty but create large demilitarized zones.
Reconciling interests works better than trying to compromise on positions because:

For every shared interest, there are several positions that would satisfy it. But
people often pick the most obvious position, and don’t move to another if it
doesn’t work.

Behind conflicting positions, there are more shared interests than conflicting
ones.

Getting to Yes 19
 You may neglect to look for shared interests because you assume that because the
other side opposes your position, your interests and theirs are in opposition too. In
reality, some underlying interests may be shared among all parties.
For example, if you have an interest in holding the line on your rent, you might think
your landlord wants to raise it. However, the landlord may have a different, higher-
priority interest, which you share: having a well-maintained property. A compromise
might lie in keeping the rent down in exchange for the tenant making improvements
to the apartment. A shared, complementary interest is the basis for an agreement.

How to Identify Interests

Identifying interests isn’t as clear-cut as presenting or understanding a position.
While positions tend to be concrete, interests, whether yours or the other side’s,
may not be obvious. It may take some effort to uncover them.
Here are some steps you can take:

For each position the opposing negotiators take, ask yourself, “Why did they
take it?” — that’s the underlying interest. What needs, concerns, or desires
does the position serve?

If the other side hasn’t accepted your proposal, ask yourself, “Why not?”
Consider what they might have to gain or lose by accepting — for instance,
political support or group cohesion. What consequences do they face?

Recognize that each side has multiple interests. For instance, a tenant may
want stable rent but also more favorable terms, such as the ability to sublet or
have a pet. Also, different individuals on the side you’re negotiating with may
have differing interests, which their negotiators are taking into account.

Understand basic human needs: Our most powerful interests are our human
needs for such things as security, control over our circumstances, or
recognition. Negotiators may mistakenly think money is the only interest
involved, but behind a position involving money may be a need for security. If a
basic human need is at risk, negotiations won’t progress.

Make a list of the interests of each side to help remember and prioritize them.

How to Talk About Interests

Getting to Yes 20
 In negotiations, both sides need to be able to communicate their interests
constructively in order to have them served. Here are some steps to take:

Be detailed and specific in explaining your interests. If you’re vague, you

can’t expect the other side to understand how important your interests are to
you and why. In the same way, a doctor can’t help you if you’re unclear or
downplay your symptoms. Details add legitimacy and impact.

Show that you appreciate the other side’s interests. Ask questions to get
clarification and to demonstrate that you’re listening.

Explain your reasoning and interests before giving your proposed

solution, so it’s more logical. For instance, if you want construction vehicles
driving through your neighborhood to slow down, you might first explain to the
company how many children play in the neighborhood and your fears of kids
being hurt or killed. Then ask for a speed reduction.

Talk about where you want to go. Instead of debating and arguing about the
past, talk about what you’d like to see happen in the future. You’re more likely to
satisfy your interests if you avoid making the other side feel defensive.

Know what you want, but be flexible. Have some options in mind that meet
your interests but also be open to additional options.

Be strongly committed to your interests. Don’t be afraid to be forceful about

what it will take to address the problem; just don’t blame or attack anyone
personally.

Exercise: Identifying Interests

Exercise: Identifying Interests

In negotiations, both sides need to understand each others’ interests. Interests
involve people’s needs, desires, and concerns — they drive people to take the
positions they take.

Think of something that you and a friend or partner are always debating, such as
what to do on the weekend. What is your partner’s usual position? What is yours?
What interests do you think prompted each of your positions?
What option might serve an interest of each of yours?

Getting to Yes 21
 Element 3: Invent Options for Mutual Gain

Element 3: Invent Options for Mutual Gain

A common challenge in negotiations arises when there doesn’t seem to be a way to
split the pie that serves both sides. The choice seems to be having a winner and a
loser, and neither side wants to lose. But the dilemma opens up the opportunity for
creative options that expand the pie before dividing it. A creative solution can break
an impasse and result in a better agreement.
But standard negotiation methods don’t often produce many options. The people on
both sides don’t see a need for them. They believe they have the right answer, that
their position is reasonable, and that it should be accepted. A suggestion to split the
difference is as creative as they get. The resulting agreement doesn’t serve either
party as well as it should.
Here are some additional obstacles to generating multiple options during
negotiations:

Premature criticism: Your inner critic hinders your imagination. You also fear
the other side’s reaction to a proposal — either dismissing it or taking it as a
commitment. You fear jeopardizing your bargaining position.

Searching for the one best answer: People see their job as narrowing the
options, not expanding them, which would make things more complicated.
They’re afraid discussion will delay and confuse the process; they’re looking for
the single best offer.

Assuming the size of the pie is fixed: People see the situation as either/or, a
fixed-sum game ($100 for you means $100 less for me. I can only satisfy you at
my expense.) They believe that if one side wins, the other side must lose.

Reluctance to seek ways to satisfy the other side: Each side is concerned
only with its immediate interests. Neither can detach and think of ways to satisfy
the other side or the interests of both. They also may hesitate to legitimize the
other side’s views. This leads to self-serving proposals.

How to Increase the Options

To invent creative options, separate the act of inventing from judging, broaden the
options beyond a single answer, search for mutual gains, and make decisions easy.

Getting to Yes 22
 Separate Inventing from Deciding
Since judgment gets in the way of imagination, set up a brainstorming session for
your side to come up with creative ideas that can be winnowed and refined later.

To get started with brainstorming: Establish your purpose: what do you want
to leave the meeting with? Choose a small group of participants (five to eight).
Choose a time and place conducive to creativity. Choose a facilitator to keep
things on track.

During brainstorming: Sit facing a whiteboard. Ban criticism and clarify other
ground rules. Brainstorm — come up with a long list of ideas, approaching the
topic from every angle. List the ideas on the whiteboard.

After brainstorming: Identify the most promising ideas. Relax the no-criticism
rule. Think of ways to improve on the best ideas and implement them. Set up a
time to finalize the list, deciding which ideas to put on the table for negotiation.

Brainstorming with people from the other side can also be valuable. Benefits
include producing ideas that encompass all interests, creating a problem-solving
climate, and increasing each side’s understanding of the other’s concerns. It’s
important, however, to distinguish brainstorming from a negotiation session: Discuss
options rather than take positions; ask questions rather than making assertions.

Broaden Your Options

When you create a large number and variety of options, you develop room in which
to negotiate. Creating options involves four steps, including both general and
specific thinking:

Describe the problem. What’s wrong? What are the symptoms of the
problem? What are the current facts compared to an ideal situation?

Analyze the problem. Name/diagnose the problem, categorize symptoms,

suggest possible causes, and note barriers to fixing the problem.

Consider various approaches. What are some possible strategies and

prescriptions?

Come up with ideas for action. What could be done? What specific steps
could be taken to deal with the problem?

Getting to Yes 23
 You can start with general thinking and move to specifics or go backward. When
you have a promising idea, go back and try to identify the general (theoretical)
approach behind it. This could generate more ideas along the same line.
Here are some additional ideas for generating options:

Think like an expert. Imagine how experts in different fields would view your
problem. For example, consider a child custody issue from the perspective of a
teacher, minister, lawyer, doctor, and psychiatrist. What questions would they
ask; what would their priorities be?

Consider a range of agreements, from looser to more binding. In case you

can’t reach an optimal agreement, have backup plans. Agree on a procedure
for moving forward if you can’t agree on substance (for instance, hiring a
mediator or arbitrator). Clarify where you agree and disagree. Consider a
tentative, “in principle,” non-binding, or contingent agreement.

Consider changing the scope. Break down the agreement into smaller parts,
possibly limited to particular matters, involving few parties, or remaining in effect
for a limited period. On the other hand, consider how expanding the scope
could make the agreement better or more attractive.

Look for Mutual Gain

A third obstacle to creative problem-solving is the assumption that the pie is fixed,
that “if you get less, I get more.” Usually, this isn’t the case. There’s almost always
a way both sides can gain through a creative solution that addresses shared
interests.

Sometimes shared interests aren’t obvious, but making the effort to find them is in
your interest. The alternative, in which the other side gets nothing, is also bad for
you. For example, if your customer goes away feeling cheated, you’ll lose both the
customer and your reputation. Also, you want the other side to be satisfied enough
to comply with the agreement.
Additional points about mutual gain to keep in mind are:

Shared interests exist in every negotiation, though you can’t always see them. If
they’re not immediately obvious, ask the other side about their goals and the
reasons behind the goals.

Getting to Yes 24
 Shared interests are opportunities, but not slam dunks — you have to make
something of them. Take a shared interest and shape it into a shared goal that’s
concrete and future-oriented.

Emphasizing shared interests can make negotiations smoother and friendlier.

People de-emphasize differences when pursuing mutual interests.

You can reach an agreement even if each side wants different things, as
long as those things are complementary, or low-cost to one side and high-
benefit to the other. Recall the Jack Sprat nursery rhyme, in which Jack’s and
his wife’s dietary preferences were complementary (he couldn’t eat fat; she
couldn’t eat lean). There are many common areas of complementary interests.
For example, one side may care more about reputation while the other cares
more about results. One side may be focused on immediate concerns while the
other is taking the long view. Other complementary interests include economic
versus political considerations and internal versus external concerns.

Make It Easy for the Other Side to Decide in Your Favor

You succeed in negotiations when the other side agrees to give you what you want.
You should make this decision as easy for them as possible. That means taking
care of their interests. To broaden your thinking beyond your immediate interests,
put yourself in their shoes:

Pick a specific person. The other side may include multiple people and
entities. Ask yourself who you’re trying to influence and zero in on a person.
Consider the problem and possible solutions from that person’s perspective.
You can’t negotiate with an abstract entity such as “the university.”

Draft several potential agreements attractive to them. Make the terms

attractive to them, but beneficial to both sides. Make the agreements easy to
implement. Make them seem legitimate (the right thing to do) in terms of being
legal, fair, and honorable. Base them on a comforting precedent so they’re
consistent with their past views and actions.

Clarify the consequences, good and bad. Consider the consequences of

agreeing from their perspective. What results would they desire and what would
they fear? Focus on making the positive results even more attractive: how could
they defend accepting it to their constituents; what are some specific things they

Getting to Yes 25
 might like. Finally, draft a proposal they could say “yes” to (one that’s
satisfactory, realistic, and can be implemented).

Element 4: Insist on Objective Criteria

Element 4: Insist on Objective Criteria

Standard negotiations are a battle of wills. For instance, with a labor contract, the
prevailing side determines the level of pay increases and benefits, based on their
view of what’s appropriate. The agreement won’t be efficiently arrived at and it won’t
be civil because one side has to back down. It’s also unlikely to be a wise
agreement (encompassing the interests of both sides).
A better alternative is to negotiate an agreement measured against objective
standards, independent of the will of either side.

Why Use Objective Standards?

When you use objective standards, such as market value or average salaries,
you’re basing the agreement on principle instead of succumbing to pressure tactics
or threats to use an arbitrary standard chosen by the other side.

Principled negotiation using objective criteria is more likely to produce a fair

and balanced agreement efficiently and civilly. Objectives standards support the
three criteria for a successful negotiation:

Fairness: Objective standards relying on precedent, scientific merit, and

community practices strengthen the agreement — it’s less vulnerable to attack
and both sides are likely to ensure smooth implementation.

Efficiency: The negotiation process is more efficient and less adversarial when
the two sides focus on standards and solutions, rather than on forcing their
position on the other side.

A better working relationship: Having avoided a battle for dominance, the two
sides are more likely to work cooperatively together in the future.

When a large number of parties is involved, having independent standards is

especially important because positional bargaining by many sides gets extremely
complicated.

Getting to Yes 26
 How to Develop Independent Criteria
Before negotiations begin, start thinking about possible independent standards to
use, and how you would apply them (fair standards and fair procedures). Often
there are multiple objective standards for your situation. Possible standards include:
professional standards, precedent, tradition, moral standards, market value,
scientific studies and data, depreciation tables, average salaries, cost of living, and
comparable contracts.
Objective standards are:

Independent of either side’s position.

Applicable to both sides.

Practical and credible.

Besides having fair standards, you must use fair procedures in applying
them. The old childhood rule for dividing a cake (one cuts, the other chooses) is
one example. A modified version would be for the parties to negotiate what they
think is a fair agreement before deciding who will get what.
Other fair procedures include: taking turns, drawing straws, flipping a coin, or letting
someone else decide. The point is that each side has equal opportunity under the
procedure. For instance, heirs could take turns selecting items they want from a
family estate.
In many disputes it’s common to turn to a third party for help: you could submit the
dispute to binding arbitration, hire a mediator, or submit a question to an expert.

How to Negotiate with Fair Standards

When using objective standards, you should be firm but reasonable. Follow these
guidelines:

With each issue you discuss, consider objective criteria. Agree first on the
standards to apply (the principles). You’ll be more persuasive if you can make
your case using criteria the other side suggested. When someone gives you a
position (such as a price) ask for the theory behind it; how did the person come
up with the price? Act as though the other person also wants a result based on
objective criteria.

Getting to Yes 27
 Be reasonable and open. Insisting that an agreement be based on objective
criteria doesn’t give you the right to impose your criteria. Other standards may
be equally valid and you should be open to exploring them or splitting the
difference. For example, market value and depreciated cost may both be valid.
Alternatively, both sides can agree on the standard most widely used or ask a
third party to decide. Note: There’s a difference between seeking agreement on
appropriate standards and using standards you select to support your position
or try to force agreement. The first is principled and the second is positional
negotiation.

Don’t give in to pressure; stick to principle. Pressure may include threats,

manipulation, or intransigence. In response, ask the other side for their
reasoning and suggest objective standards. Change your position only for
sound reasons. The other side may start arguing based on the objective criteria
if that’s the only approach you respond to. If they still won’t move from an
unacceptable position, however, you can walk away.

Exercise: FInding an Objective Standard

Exercise: FInding an Objective Standard

The authors argue that agreements should be based on objective standards
independent of either side, such as market values. Use these questions to
determine the objective standards in your own negotiations.

Think of a situation where you negotiated with someone over the price of
something. What was the rationale behind the price you ended up with? Was it fair?
What objective standards could you use in the following negotiations: your salary or
work compensation, splitting chores among your household, and the use of the
family car.
What is an existing conflict that you haven’t resolved yet? In this case, what would
be an objective standard for settling the conflict?

Part 3: Practical Application

Part 3: Practical Application

Getting to Yes 28
 (Shortform note: In the final two parts of the book, the authors answer questions
about principled negotiation. Because some answers introduce new material or are
repetitive, we’ve reorganized the information into sections on Practical Application
(Procedures, Tactics), and Challenges to make it easier to grasp.)

Procedures
Informal negotiations with family and friends about such things as where to eat or
spend a vacation tend to be impromptu. However, formal negotiations between
companies and employees, or involving governments, and other entities require
planning. Here are some logistics and procedural considerations.

Deciding Where to Meet

Deciding where to meet for negotiations will depend on both needs and
circumstances. Think about where the parties would be most comfortable and
productive.

Seclusion may be important if there’s a significant chance of interruptions and

distractions.

If the other side’s chief negotiator relies heavily on support staff and
documentation, you may want to meet in his or her offices. Meeting in the other
side’s offices also gives you the option of walking away if necessary.

If there are equipment needs such as a whiteboard or computer projection

screen, you’ll need a facility that accommodates them.

Deciding How to Communicate

Challenging conversations, especially those involving emotions or relationship
issues, typically are best handled face to face. Electronic communication, which has
become integral in our personal and work lives, can be useful as an adjunct in
negotiations. But it has potential drawbacks as well as positives such as
convenience. Carefully consider the pluses and minuses of various methods,
including phone, email, text messages, and video chat applications.
Among the potential advantages:

Many people are more comfortable asking tough questions on the phone than
face-to-face.

Getting to Yes 29
 People pay closer attention to content when they don’t have visual or audio
cues, such as tone of voice or facial expressions. Objections may have more
impact when delivered in writing via email.

Email allows time for reflection and research before answering.

Emails and texts before the start of negotiations can create a personal
connection before getting into substance. The connection may help promote
cooperation and increase the chance of agreement.

However, beware of the potential drawbacks of non face-to-face communication:

Results can vary depending on the method of communication. One study

showed written interactions can lead to impasses.

There’s a greater potential for misunderstanding or lying.

Lack of visual cues can make messages more difficult to interpret and decrease
our empathy.

To prevent problems with non face-to-face communication:

Try to have an initial meeting in person or by phone, as well as periodic check-

ins in-person or by phone.

Reread your messages several times before sending them; make the context
and your reasoning extra-apparent, look for ambiguities, and ask yourself how it
could be read differently from what you mean.

If you can’t have a difficult conversation face to face, try to do it by phone or

video chat.

Deciding Protocol and Strategy

There are numerous considerations involving protocol and strategy. People often
ask, Who should make the first offer, and how high should it be?
Wait to give the first offer: Making an offer too soon can make the other side feel
rushed or pressured. It’s better to start by examining interests, options, and
standards first. Once both sides have a handle on the problem, an offer that
accommodates all interests will come across as constructive. In any case, in the
early stages, you could try to introduce an objective or standard favorable to you.

Getting to Yes 30
 Ultimately, if both sides are well prepared for negotiation, it doesn’t make much
difference who makes the first offer.

Deciding how high to start: In cases involving a buyer and seller, people are used
to judging success by how far the other person retreats from their original position.
The buyer’s goal is paying less than the original asking price. In traditional
bargaining, if you’re selling, you start with the highest number you can ask for
without looking unreasonable. In a principled negotiation, however, start with the
highest figure that a neutral person would see as fair. And before making the offer,
explain your rationale. You don’t want to be too firm initially because if you move
later you may lose credibility. Alternatively, you could point out what people are
paying for comparable items, thereby suggesting a standard without committing to
that number.

Preparation First
Thinking about the first offer at the outset gets the cart before the horse.
Preparation is the initial step. Your strategy will grow naturally from your
preparation. Since you won’t know what the other side’s strategy is going to be, it’s
best to focus on preparation initially and decide your direction later.
Here’s how to prepare and move through the negotiation process (rather than
simply starting off by considering how high an offer to make):

Think about the end: Before starting to negotiate, think about what a good
agreement would look like. To get there, what issues would have to be
resolved? What kind of agreement could both sides justify to their constituents?
Envisioning the end result will help you stay on track.

Draft a framework agreement. Outline a potential agreement with spaces for

each item to be resolved. It can serve as an agenda, help keep discussions
focused, and ensure important issues are addressed.

Don’t rush toward commitment. As you work through each issue, including
options and standards, aim for a proposal that reflects all points made and
meets each side’s interests on that issue. If you can’t get consensus on an
issue, attempt to narrow the options and move on. Commitments should be
deemed tentative at this point to encourage brainstorming. Expect to go through
the issues several times, while making gradual forward progress.

Getting to Yes 31
 Pursue your interests persistently, but don’t lock into a specific solution
(which would be positional). Explain your interests and reasoning, and have the
other side explain theirs. Clarify points of agreement and disagreement.
Resolve conflicting interests with independent standards.

Make an offer. After you’ve explored one or more issues, make an offer. It

should grow from the discussions so far rather than being a surprise, and
should address the interests of both sides. If there are still outstanding issues,
agree on fair procedures for resolving them (for instance, splitting the
difference).

Make a final gesture. When agreement is near, consider giving the other side
something they want that’s within the logic of the agreement. This may relieve
last-minute doubts and seal the deal. If the other side leaves negotiations on a
positive note, it will improve implementation and enhance the relationship.

Building Your Negotiation Skills

To begin practicing principled negotiation:

Start small: Start with negotiations on smaller issues, where the other side is
open to a principled approach. Start with techniques that build on your current
skills and gradually incorporate new techniques.

Make a commitment: In order to get better, you need to commit yourself to

learning new techniques.

Review your performance: After each negotiation, assess what worked and
what didn’t.

Prepare for negotiations by doing your homework. Build a good relationship

with the other side. List your interests and theirs. Gather facts and consider
possible options and standards. Draft a framework agreement.

Practice: Consider practicing the techniques by role-playing. Get advice and

feedback from experienced negotiators.

Tactics
Sometimes, despite your best efforts to practice principled negotiation, the other
side insists on the traditional adversarial method of bargaining from position. There

Getting to Yes 32
 are three ways you can try to shift their focus to merits (facts and evidence):

1. Focus on merits yourself instead of positions. Talking about interests, options,

and standards may be contagious — the other side may play along if you just
start playing a different game.

2. Respond to each of their positional moves in a way that shifts the focus to
merits. This mimics jujitsu, the Japanese martial arts method of countering an
opponent by using his strength and weight against him.

3. Bring in a trained third party to focus the discussion on merits (using the one-
text mediation procedure explained below).

Shift the Focus to Merits

When the other side takes a firm position, it’s tempting to criticize and reject it.
When they attack your proposal, you’ll want to forcefully defend it. But if you get into
a mode of pushing back and forth, you’ll waste time and won’t get anywhere.
Instead, when they push, don’t push back. Don’t reject their position, defend yours,
or counterattack. Refuse to act and you’ll interrupt the dynamic. Play conversational
jujitsu by avoiding a direct response and channeling their energy toward the
interests, options, and criteria.
Launching an offensive in positional bargaining often has three aspects:
aggressively arguing their position, attacking your proposals, and attacking you
personally. Here’s how to respond indirectly:

Determine what’s behind their position instead of pushing back. Ask

yourself: What are their interests? What principles does their position reflect?
For instance, what’s the basis for the pay increase they’re asking for and how is
it fair? How can you improve on the position? Ask them why they’re taking the
position: What concern are they trying to address and how does their position
address it? Treat their position as one option and analyze how it meets each
side’s interests.

Ask for criticism of your ideas. Ask them what’s wrong with your idea and
what’s missing (what does it fail to account for?). This gives you a chance to
learn their interests and make your proposal more acceptable to them. You can
also turn criticism around by asking what they would do in your situation — they

Getting to Yes 33
 end up addressing your problem and may come up with an option that
accommodates your interests.

Turn a personal attack into an attack on the problem. First, let them vent
without responding; just listen. Demonstrate that you get what they’re saying.
Then reframe their ad hominem attack as an attack on the problem. For
instance, if they accuse you of not caring about children, respond: “I’m as
concerned as you are about providing our kids with a good education. How can
we work together to make sure we’re doing that?”

Use questions and silence. Instead of making statements or declarations,

which prompt resistance, ask questions that give the other side an opportunity
to offer and explain their points. After you ask a question, wait silently for a
response. If their response is inadequate or unreasonable, wait some more.
SIlence makes people feel pressured to respond, often constructively.

Try the ‘One-Text’ Approach

When you’re deadlocked and unable to shift negotiations from positional to
principled, it may be time to bring in a mediator. Mediators often use an approach
called the ‘one-text’ process to come up with a fair agreement acceptable to both
sides. Here’s how it works:

The mediator starts by making a list of both sides’ interests and needs.

She asks each side to critique and improve on the list.

She draws up a rough plan and asks for a critique.

She comes back with a revised plan and asks for a critique.

She continues doing this until she feels she can’t further improve the plan.

When the mediator feels she can’t improve it further, she presents it as her final
recommendation.

The two sides then vote yes or no.

The ‘one-text’ approach breaks impasses by bypassing positional bargaining.

It also speeds up and simplifies the negotiation process by narrowing the options to
one. You can use the method without a mediator: Just prepare a draft and ask the

Getting to Yes 34
 other side to critique it. It works well in two-party negotiations, and is even more
useful in multilateral talks as a way of streamlining a complex process.
The one-text approach was the basis for the Camp David agreement between
Egypt and Israel in 1978. In the role of mediator, the U.S. prepared a draft, asked
for critiques, and continued to improve it. After 23 revised drafts, President Jimmy
Carter presented a recommendation and both sides accepted it.

How to Handle Dirty Tricks

There’s an array of strong-arm tactics that hard bargainers may use in an effort to
get you to succumb to their position, including lies, pressure tactics, and
psychological tricks. They’re designed to be used by only one side, without the
other side knowing they’re being manipulated.
The targets of these tactics typically:

Give in, in hopes the other side won’t ask for more, which usually doesn’t work.
For example, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler
in 1938. But each time he thought they had an agreement, Hitler escalated his
demands.

Respond in kind with their own threats, outrageous proposals, and deceptive
tactics. This ends in an impasse unless one party gives in.

The only effective way to counter these tactics is to use the techniques of principled
negotiation to establish how you’re going to negotiate (the rules of the game). Let’s
look at some strategies.

Call Out the Tactic

Follow these steps: recognize the tactic, call attention to it, and question its validity
as a tactic. Use the tactic as the basis for discussing how to negotiate
constructively.
Often just calling attention to the tactic will blunt its effectiveness and cause the
other side to worry that they overplayed their hand and alienated you. As a result,
they may drop it. But the important thing is that you can now negotiate the process.
Setting aside substance temporarily, shift your aim to getting a fair agreement on
procedure.
The method remains the same:

Getting to Yes 35
 Separate emotions from the issue: Question the tactic, not someone’s integrity.

Talk about interests instead of positions: Look for the “whys” behind the
position.

Generate options serving mutual interests: Suggest alternatives to unfair

tactics.

Agree on objective standards: Apply the principle of reciprocity for all tactics.
For instance, if you’ve purposely been given an uncomfortable chair, suggest
that someone else use it next time.

Common Underhanded Tactics

Underhanded tactics fall into three categories: deception, psychological abuse, and
pressure for concessions. Let’s look at specific ways to deal with each.
Deception involves misrepresenting facts, authority or intentions. Examples
include:

Phony facts: The negotiator makes false assertions. In response, request

verification or check the facts yourself.

Deferring to a higher authority: They may announce they have to take the
decision to a higher authority in order to get another shot at making changes.
Insist that both sides have the same opportunity to propose changes.

Misrepresenting intentions: If you have reason to believe they don’t really

intend to comply, build consequences into the agreement.

Psychological abuse is aimed at making you uncomfortable so you want to

end as soon as possible. Examples include: creating stressful situations, personal
attacks, threats, and a good cop/bad cop routine. In response, you can ignore these
tactics or call them out. In the case of threats, you could point out potential
consequences, or call them out and ask for agreement to use more constructive
behavior.
Positional pressure tactics are intended to force you into making
concessions. Examples include:

Refusing to negotiate: Ask what’s behind their refusal to talk. Suggest bringing
in a third party or using another method of communication.

Getting to Yes 36
 Making extreme demands: Call them on it. Ask them to justify it.

Escalating demands: For every concession they offer, the other side may
increase their demands or reopen issues. Call it out and take a break to
consider whether you want to keep negotiating.

Locking-in a position: The other side locks in their position to make

concession impossible. For instance, a union president makes a speech vowing
to deliver a 15% pay increase. She can’t back down in negotiations without
losing her credibility. You can call the other side’s bluff or downplay the position
so they can back down without fanfare.

Blaming a partner: A negotiator may blame her intransigence on a partner or

authority. Get an agreement in principle, then try to speak to the partner.

Stalling to gain an advantage: The other side may try to delay a decision until
a more favorable time, for instance until a union’s strike fund will run out. Call
out the tactic and negotiate it or establish credible deadlines based on relevant
events, such as a board meeting.

Take it or leave it: You may want to ignore the ultimatum. Alternatively, point
out what they have to lose and find a way for them to back down without losing
face.

Exercise: Dealing With Pressure Tactics

Exercise: Dealing With Pressure Tactics

Hardball negotiators use an array of strong-arm tactics to get you to accept their
position, including lies, pressure tactics, and psychological tricks.

Think of some pressure tactics someone used in a negotiation with you, for instance
threats or refusing to budge. How did they affect the negotiation?
How did you respond to the threats?
How could you respond differently if it something similar happens in the future?

Part 4: Challenges in Negotiations

Part 4: Challenges in Negotiations

Getting to Yes 37
 Two types of challenges that can stymie principled negotiation are:

Dealing with the human element when you can’t separate people and their
emotions from the substance because people are the problem.

Negotiating successfully when there’s a power imbalance — when the other

side is more powerful than you are.

Handling Human Problems

People’s defensive or reactionary behavior is often a reason that negotiations
fail. Dealing with the human element of how you’re treating the other side and how
the people are reacting is critical to success. Whether you’re focusing on a specific
human issue, or people are just one concern of negotiation, follow these guidelines:

Build a good working relationship that’s separate from the substance of the

negotiations. A good relationship makes it easier to get a good outcome and
good outcomes make a good relationship even better. But don’t entangle the
relationship with substance. For instance, don’t make concessions in order to
save the relationship and don’t try to force a concession by threatening the
relationship, for instance by saying something like, “If you really cared, you’d
accept the proposal.”

Negotiate relationship issues. If human problems stymie negotiations,

negotiate the human issues on their merits (facts and evidence). Without
judging, state your concerns, perceptions, and feelings about the other’s
behavior and ask for theirs. Propose fair standards for how you should deal with
each other.

Don’t treat them the way they treat you, or you’ll encourage further negative
behavior. Demonstrate by example the kind of behavior you prefer.

Respond rationally. If others are behaving irrationally, continue trying to be

rational yourself. Question your assumptions about their behavior. They may
see the situation differently. Try to learn and understand their reasoning and you
may be able to help them change it.

Human problems in negotiation can crop up around issues of personality, gender, or

culture. While people share certain basic needs, such as being loved and
respected, we differ on many other levels. Here are some guidelines for recognizing
and adjusting to differences.

Getting to Yes 38
 Get in sync. Be aware of and adapt to the perceptions, values, customs or
norms, and feelings of the people you’re dealing with. To influence them in
negotiations you need to understand where they’re coming from. Differing
preferences and styles may include: whether the atmosphere is relaxed or
formal, how close to each other people sit, whether the conversation is direct or
indirect, whether the relationship extends beyond business, and who serves as
spokesperson for each side.

Adapt this book’s general advice to your specific situation. Use the
approach but adapt the principles to the context. For instance, consider where
you are (environment, community, or country) and local or industry customs.

Be aware of differing beliefs and customs, but don’t stereotype.

Individuals’ attitudes and characteristics may differ from those of their group (for
instance, not all Japanese prefer indirect communication). This applies to
genders as well. It’s insulting to make assumptions based on the group to which
someone belongs.

Question your assumptions. Be open to learning that others are different from
what you expected. Everyone has special interests and qualities that don’t fit
any mold.

Extreme Negotiating
For most of us, negotiations involve typical things like jobs, real estate, divorces and
other civil matters, or labor contracts. Principled negotiation works well in these
circumstances, as well as in higher-level matters between countries. But what
happens when the other side is decidedly unprincipled, for instance a Hitler
or group of terrorists? Principled negotiation can still work, but involves somewhat
different considerations.
However nasty the other side, unless you have a better alternative than negotiating,
it makes sense to negotiate. The key question is how.

Negotiating With Terrorists

In the case of terrorists, even if you’re not talking to them, you’re negotiating with
them — by words and actions, even from a distance, you’re trying to influence their
decisions and they’re trying to influence yours. The question is whether to negotiate

Getting to Yes 39
 indirectly from a distance or more directly. You’ll have greater influence if your
communication is strong.

Negotiation doesn’t mean giving in. It may allow you to convince the other side they
won’t get a ransom. You also may learn of some legitimate interest they have that
you can use in a deal where neither side gives in. For example, in the resolution of
the Iran hostage crisis in 1981, the interests of both sides were served and neither
side gave more than the other side was entitled to: Iran released the hostages and
paid its debts, and upon payment, the U.S. returned the funds it had seized.
Countries often refuse to negotiate with terrorists on the theory that it rewards them
with attention and status. However, you can avoid giving terrorists public attention
by taking a lower-profile approach using low-level officials or professionals as
negotiators. Also, professionals can be highly successful. Police negotiators often
succeed in getting hostages released and taking criminals into custody.

Negotiating With a Hitler

Whether to negotiate with someone like Hitler depends on the alternative.
Sometimes war — fighting and dying — is better or more honorable than
negotiation. On the other hand, war has huge costs and offers no guarantee of good
results. If you can substantially meet your interests through negotiation, it deserves
consideration.
From a Western point of view, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin was as bad as Hitler,
employing aggression, genocide, and a similar ideology. But war, with the
availability of the hydrogen bomb, wasn’t a viable option for getting rid of him or his
ideology. Nor were there principles involved that justified war. Instead, the West
opposed Soviet communism by applying other kinds of pressure and it eventually
collapsed on its own.
Even with a Hitler or Stalin, negotiating may have the potential to produce results
that serve our interests better than the alternative of war.
When the other side is acting out of religious conviction, they still may be
influenceable through negotiation. While they’re not going to change their religious
ideology, they may have interests that can be served by an agreement that doesn’t
compromise either side’s principles.

Getting to Yes 40
 Governments often mistakenly overvalue their alternatives to negotiation. They may
imply that if other means fail, they always have a military option. But sometimes,
military options aren’t viable. For instance, raids to rescue hostages have a high risk
of failure. The question is what decision you want the other side to make, and how
military force could influence them to make it.

Dealing with a Power Imbalance

Sometimes there’s a significant power imbalance between your side and the other
side in a negotiation. They may be richer, have more physical and human
resources, have connections with people in power, or have power (social, political,
or economic) themselves. But even though it seems like they have all the leverage,
you still have options. The biggest risk you face is being too quick to agree in order
to end the process.
When facing a power imbalance, you should strive to meet two objectives:

1. Avoid making an agreement you should reject.

2. Make the most of the assets you have, so the agreement will satisfy your
interests as well as possible.

1) Protecting Yourself
To avoid being too accommodating, negotiators often determine a bottom line,
or worst acceptable outcome, in advance.

If you’re a buyer, it’s the highest price you would pay.

If you’re a seller, it’s the lowest price you’d accept.

For instance, a couple asking for $300,000 for their house might agree to accept no
less than $250,000. With a bottom line, you can more easily resist pressure. It also
limits the authority of someone acting on your behalf, such as a broker or lawyer.
There are downsides, however. Because your bottom line can’t be changed, you
can’t benefit from information you get during negotiation. Bottom lines tend to be too
high or too low. Having a bottom line inhibits coming up with a creative option that’s
better. And it focuses on only one measure of success, although there are likely
multiple measures that should be considered.

Getting to Yes 41
 So while having a bottom line can protect you from a bad agreement, it can also
stand in the way of a better agreement. There’s an alternative to a bottom line,
however — knowing your BATNA, or best alternative to a negotiated
agreement.

How a BATNA Works

Typically when you’re deciding your minimum price for selling a house, you’re
thinking of what you should be able to get. However, a more important question is
what you’ll do if you’re not able to sell it by your deadline. The answer is
your BATNA — the most attractive alternative to negotiation if negotiation falls
apart.
You may have an alternative that’s better than selling it for $250,000 — for instance,
if the market is trending upward, you may get a better price by waiting and selling it
later. On the other hand, selling it for $240,000 may be better than paying the costs
of holding onto it indefinitely.
The purpose of negotiating is to get better results than you’d get without negotiating.
So when negotiating to sell your house, you need to know your best alternative to
negotiation in order to know whether to accept an agreement.
Any proposed agreement should be measured against your best alternative or
BATNA. It will protect you from accepting a bad agreement, as well as from
rejecting a good agreement. Unlike a bottom line, it’s flexible enough to allow you to
explore additional options. Instead of rejecting a proposal that doesn’t meet the
bottom line, you can compare it with your BATNA to see if it better satisfies your
interests.
If you haven’t thought seriously about what you’ll do if you don’t reach an
agreement, you’re negotiating blindly. For instance, you may reject an agreement
because, in the abstract, you think you have many other choices without fully
appreciating their downsides. However, the greater danger is that you’ll be overly
committed to reaching an agreement because you’re afraid of what might happen if
you don’t.
Another test you can use in addition to a BATNA is a trip wire — a less-than-perfect
agreement that’s still better than your BATNA. Before accepting anything worse
than your trip wire agreement, you should step back from negotiation and

Getting to Yes 42
 reexamine the situation. You should have wiggle room between your trip wire and
BATNA.

2) Making the Most of Your Assets

Besides protecting you from accepting a bad agreement, your BATNA will help you
make the most of your assets to reach a good agreement. The stronger your
BATNA, the greater your power.
While wealth and connections enhance negotiating power, the power of each side
also depends on the strength of their alternative. If you have a stronger alternative
— for instance, the ability to get a better price elsewhere — you can walk away from
an agreement, which gives you leverage.
Here’s an example of how a small town with a strong BATNA overcame a power
imbalance in negotiation with a large company. The town was negotiating with a
corporation that had a factory outside the town limits to increase its goodwill
payment to the town from $300,000 to $3.2 million. The town’s BATNA was that if it
couldn’t reach an agreement with the company for more money, it would expand the
town limits to include the factory and tax it for even more than it was requesting as a
goodwill payment. Because of its stronger BATNA, the town had the greater
leverage in negotiations.

How to Develop a BATNA

Generating a solid BATNA involves:

Developing a list of actions you might take if an agreement isn’t reached.

Consider things you might do if, for instance, you don’t get a satisfactory job
offer.

Improving some of the better options, and converting them into viable
alternatives. For example, if one of your alternatives to an adequate job offer in
your current city is moving to Chicago, try to make that more viable by exploring
jobs there.

Selecting your most realistic alternative to a negotiated agreement.

Measure every offer against your BATNA. If it’s strong, you can negotiate more
confidently.

Getting to Yes 43
 It may or may not make sense to disclose your BATNA in negotiations. For
example, it could be to your advantage to do so if you have another customer
waiting in the next room, or if the other side thinks you don’t have a good alternative
to accepting an agreement. But don’t disclose your BATNA if it’s worse than other
side thinks.
It’s also to your benefit to think about the other side’s alternatives or BATNA. The
more you know about their options, the better you can prepare for negotiation and
the more accurate you can be about what to expect.
If they seem to be overestimating it, you may want to help them rethink their
expectations. If their BATNA is actually better than negotiating on the merits,
consider what you can do to change it. If both sides have strong BATNAs, the best
outcome may not be agreement.

Enhance Your Power

When the other side is more powerful, many factors, especially specific negotiation
skills, can strengthen your hand. For example:

Taking an optimistic approach: Even when something isn’t a sure bet, it’s often
worth striving for. The higher you aim, the more you may get.

Recognizing multiple sources of power: For instance, power comes from having
a better alternative, and from each of the four elements of the principled
negotiation method (people, interests, options, criteria).

A good working relationship, which smooths negotiation and increases trust.

Effective communication: Helping the other side understand your thinking and
clarify their views can clear up misperceptions and facilitate problem-solving.

Good listening increases your information and ability to influence the other side.

Knowledge of the negotiation process and ability to redirect it, for instance, to
change the focus from positions to interests, options, and standards.

Ability to identify and understand the other side’s interests.

Creativity in crafting options, especially making interests dovetail.

A strong BATNA.

Identifying external criteria that lend legitimacy to an agreement.

Getting to Yes 44
 Making an offer that commits to what you will do, won’t do, and want the other
side to do. The more concrete an offer is, the more credible it is.

You’ll make the most of your potential power if you combine all of the elements and
skills of principled negotiation so they reinforce each other. For instance, don’t
depend on one skill, such as developing a BATNA, alone. They’re designed to work
together.

Getting to Yes 45