Getting to Yes Flashcards
(230 cards)
1
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - three criteria
A
- Negotiations shoud produce a wise agreement, if agreement is possible
- it meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible
- it resolves conflicting interests fairly
- it is durable
- it takes community interests into account - It should be efficient
- It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties (amicably)
2
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 1. arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes
A
The more attention is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns and legitimate interests of the parties
3
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 2. arguing over positions is inefficient
A
Bargaining over positions creates incentives that stall settlement (dragging feet, threatening to walk out, stonewalling), with risk that no agreement is reached at all
4
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 3. arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship
A
The task of jointly devising an acceptable solution becomes a battle
5
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 4. when there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse
A
Several parties may sit at the table, while each side may have constituents, higher-ups, boards of directors or committees
6
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 5. being nice is no answer
A
A soft negotiation game tends to be efficient, but it may not be a wise one. A woman sells her hair to buy her husband a watchchain, while the husband sells its watch to buy the wife beautiful combs. Against a hard bargainer the process will produce an agreement, although it may not be a wise one, you will probably lose your shirt.
7
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 6. there is an alternative - at what two levels does the game of negotiations takes place?
A
- At one level negotiation addresses the substance
- At another level it focuses on the procedure for dealing with the substance - a game about a game; you structure the rules of the game you are playing
8
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 6. there is an alternative - what are the four basic points of principled negotiation?
A
- People - separate the people from the problem
- Interests - focus on interests, not positions
- Options - invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do
- Criteria - insist that the result be based on some objective standard
9
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 6. there is an alternative - are people objective?
A
We are creatures of strong emotions who often have radically different positions and have difficulty communicating clearly
10
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 6. there is an alternative - focus on interests, not positions
A
A negotiation position often obscures what you really want. Compromising between positions is not likely to produce an agreement that will effectively take care of the human needs that led people to adopt those positions
11
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 6. there is an alternative - what are the three stages of principled negotiation?
A
Analysis, planning and discussion
12
Q
- Don’t bargain over positions - 6. there is an alternative - what two kinds of interests does every negotiation have?
A
In the substance and in the relationship - sometimes the ongoing relationship is more important than the outcome of a particular negotiation - positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict
13
Q
- Separate the people from the problem
A
2 cases - What is going on in these cases?
14
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 1. negotiators are people first
A
You are dealing with human beings - they have emotions, deeply held values, different backgrounds and viewpoints. They are prone to cognitive biases, partisan perceptions, blind spots and leaps of illogic. This human aspect of negotiations can be either helpful or disastrous
15
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 2. every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship
A
Most negotiations take place in the context of an ongoing relationship where it is import to carry on each negotiation in a way that will help rather than hinder future relations and future negotiations
16
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 2. every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship - the relationship tends to become entangled with the problem
A
We are likely to treat people and problem as one. People draw from comments on substance unfounded inferences, which they then treat as facts about that person’s intentions and attitudes toward them
17
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 2. every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship - positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict
A
Positional bargaining deals with a negotiator’s interest both in substance and in a good relationship by trading ond off against the other
18
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 3. disentangle the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem - name the three basic categories
A
The various people problems all fall into one of the following three categories: perception, emotion, communication
19
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - what are the 8 rules of engagement?
A
- Their thinking is what counts
- Put yourself in their shoes
- Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears
- Don’t blame them for your problem
- Discuss each others perceptions
- Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
- Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the problem
- Face-saving: make your proposals consistent with their values
20
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 1: their thinking is what counts
A
Conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people’s heads - their thinking is the problem - fears, even if ill-founded are real fears and need to be dealt with - hope, even if unrealistic, may cause a war - facts, even if established, may do nothing to solve the problem - it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in negotiation and opens the way to a solution
21
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 2: put yourself in their shoes
A
People tend to see what the want to see, they focus on facts that confirm their prior perceptions and disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions into question. The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. If you understand empathetically the power of their point of view and feel the emotional force with which they believe in it, you may be able to reduce the area of conflict
22
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 3: don’t deduce their intentions from your fears
A
It seems the ‘safe’ thing to do to assume that whatever you fear, the other side intends to do. The cost is that fresh ideas in the direction of agreement are spurned and subtle changes of position are ignored or rejected
23
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 4: don’t blame them for your problem
A
Blaming is usually counterproductive - it firmly entangles the people with the problem. Distinguish the symptoms from the person with whom you are talking
24
Q
- Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 5: discuss each others perceptions
A
Communicating loudly and convincingly things you are willing to say that they would like to hear can be one of the best investments a negotiator can make. By taking time to work out the practical arrangements of that what you are willing to offer, you make your offer far more credible and far more attractive to the other side
25
2. Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 6: look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
See if you can surprise, by instead of acting as an enemy, acting as a partner
26
2. Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 7: make sure they participate in the process, by giving them a stake in the outcome
Even if the terms of an agreement seems favourable, the other side may reject them simply out of a suspicion born of their exclusion from the drafting process. Agreement becomes much easier if both parties feel ownership of the ideas. The whole process of negotiation becomes stronger as each side puts their imprimatur bit by bit on a developing solution. Apart from the substantive merits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the single most important factor in determining whether a negotiator accepts a proposal
27
2. Separate the people from the problem - 4. perception - rule 8: make your proposals consistent with their values (face-saving)
Face-saving reflects people’s needs to reconcile tge stand taken in a negotiation or an agreement with their existing principles and with their past words and deeds. If the substance can be phrased or conceptualized differently so that it seems a fair outcome, it becomes more acceptable - terms negotiated between a major city and its Hispanic community on access to municipal jobs were unacceptable to the mayor, until the agreement was withdrawn and the mayor was allowed to announce the same terms as his own decision, carrying out a campaign promise
28
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - what are the 7 rules of engagement?
1. First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours
2. Pay attention to “core concerns”
3. Consider the role of identity
4. Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
5. Allow the other side to let off steam
6. Don’t react to emotional outbursts
7. Use symbolic gestures
29
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 1: first recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours
The parties may be more ready for battle than for cooperatively working out a solution to a common problem. It may be useful to write down what you feel, do the same for them. Negotiators who represent their organizations have issues on which they are particulary sensitive and other on which they are particulary proud. Why are you angry, why are they angry? What is at stake?
30
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 2: pay attention to “core concerns” - what are the 5 core interests that drive many emotions in negotiations?
1. *Autonomy* - the desire to make your own choices, control your fate
2. *Appreciation* - the desire to be recognized and valued
3. *Affiliation* - the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer group
4. *Role* - the desire to have a meaningful purpose
5. *Status* - the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged
31
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 3: consider the role of identity
A perceived threat to one’s self-image or self-respect is a driver of negative emotion. Human beings apply their general tendency toward either-or thinking to their self-perception. Is someone’s sense of identity at stake during the negotiation?
32
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 4: make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
Making feelings on both sides an explicit focus of discussion underscores the seriousness of the problem and makes the negotiation less reactive and more ‘pro-active’. Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem
33
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 5: allow rhe other side to let off steam
People obtain psychological release through the process of recounting their grievances to an attentive audience. Letting of steam makes it easier to talk rationally later. A negotiator may be given a freer hand by her constituency after making an angry speech
34
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 6: don’t react to emotional outbursts
Consider the rule that only one person can get angry at a time
35
2. Separate the people from the problem - 5. emotion - rule 7: use symbolic gestures
A red rose, a note of sympathy, a statement of regret, a small present for a grandchild, shaking hands, embracing, eating together, an apology - I am not wrong but I did something clumsy
36
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. communication - what are the three big problems in communication
1. Negotiators may not be willing to talk to one another
2. The sides are not hearing what the other side is saying
3. Genuine misunderstanding due to language
37
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. communication - what can be done about the three big problems in communication? - listen actively and acknowledge what is being said
Listening enables you to understand their perceptions, feel their emotions and hear what they are trying to say. Understanding is not agreeing. One can at the same time understand perfectly and disagree completely with what the other side is saying
38
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. communication - what can be done about the three big problems in communication? - speak to be understood
Talk, don’t debate, don’t persuade, be like two judges trying to reach agreement on how to decide a case
39
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. communication - what can be done about the three big problems in communication? - speak about yourself, not about them
A statement about how you feel is difficult to challenge. You convey the same information without provoking a defensive reaction that will prevent them from taking it in
40
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. communication - what can be done about the three big problems in communication? - speak for a purpose
Know what you want to communicate and know what purpose this information will serve
41
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. prevention works best - what helps to structure the negotiation game in a way that disentangles the substantive problem from the relationship and protect people’s ego’s? - build a working relationship
The more quickly you can turn a stranger into someone you know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become. Get to know them and find out about their likes and dislikes. Arrive early to chat before the negotiation is scheduled to start and linger after it ends
42
2. Separate the people from the problem - 6. prevention works best - what helps to structure the negotiation game in a way that disentangles the substantive problem from the relationship and protect people’s ego’s? - face the problem, not the people
Think of parties as hardheaded, side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each. They may have different interests and perceptions, and have an emotional involvement, but jointly face a common task. Deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits
43
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 1. reconcile interests, not positions - why is the difference between positions and interests crucial? - interests define the problem
The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s needs, desires, concerns and fears. Your position is something you have decided upon, your interests are what caused you to so decide
44
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 1. reconcile interests, not positions - why is the difference between positions and interests crucial? - behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones
We tend to assume that because the other side’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed. Agreement is often made possible precisely because interests differ
45
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 2. how do you identify interests, given that the interests underlying positions may well be unexpressed, intangible and perhaps inconsistent? - ask ‘Why?
Figuring out their interests will be at least as important as figuring out yours - put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself “Why do they take this position?” for an understanding of the needs, hopes, fears or desires that it serves
46
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 2. how do you identify interests, given that the interests underlying positions may well be unexpressed, intangible and perhaps inconsistent? - ask ‘Why not?
Identify the basic decision that those on the other side probably see you asking them for, and ask yourself why they have not made that decision - what interests stand in the way? Analyse the consequences of agreeing vs. refusing to make the decision you are asking for
47
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 2. how do you identify interests, given that the interests underlying positions may well be unexpressed, intangible and perhaps inconsistent? - realise that each side has multiple interests
Do not assume that each person on the other side has the same interests. All negotiators have a constituency to whose interests they are sensitive. Try to understand the variety of somewhat differing interests that they need to take into account
48
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 2. how do you identify interests, given that the interests underlying positions may well be unexpressed, intangible and perhaps inconsistent? - the most powerful interests are basic human needs
If you can take care of basic human needs, you increase the chance of reaching and keeping agreement:
- security
- economic well-being
- a sense of belonging
- recognition
- control over one’s life
49
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 2. how do you identify interests, given that the interests underlying positions may well be unexpressed, intangible and perhaps inconsistent? - make a list
Write the various interests down as they occur to you and place them in their estimated order of importance. This may stimulate ideas for how to meet them
50
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - make your interests come alive
- Be specific, give concrete details
- Try to establish the legitimacy of your concerns
51
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - acknowledge their interests as part of the problem
In addition to demonstrating that you have understood their interests, it helps to acknowledge that their interests are part of the overall problem you are trying to solve
52
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - put the problem before your answer
Give you interests and reasoning first, and your conclusions or proposal later
53
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - look forward, not back
When looking back, neither party is seeking agreement or is even trying to influence the other. They identify a cause, not a purpose. They are not acting in their longterm interest
54
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - the question ‘Why?’ has two quite different meanings
You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from
55
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - be concrete but flexible
How can you move from identifying interests to developing specific options and still remain flexible with regard to those options? Treat each option you formulate as simply illustrative > illustrative specificity
56
3. Focus on interests, not positions - 3. talking about interests - if you want to serve your interests, you will have to communicate them - how do you discuss interests constructively? - be hard on the problem, soft on the people
It is usually advisable to be hard in talking about your interests, but separate the people from the problem. A rule of thumb is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem. The other side will dissociate herself from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it. Meanwhile you remain open to the other side’s point of view
57
4. Invent options for mutual gain
58
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 1. diagnosis - which four major obstacles inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options?
1. Premature judgement
2. Search for the single answer
3. The assumption of a fixed pie
4. Thinking that ‘solving their problem is their problem’
59
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 1. diagnosis - 1. premature judgement
Judgement hinders imagination
60
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 1. diagnosis - 2. searching for the single answer
If the first impediment to creative thinking is premature criticism, the second is premature closing
61
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 1. diagnosis - 3. the assumption of a fixed pie
Each side sees the situation as essentially either/or. Either I get what is in dispute or you do
62
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 1. diagnosis - 4. thinking that ‘solving their problem is their problem’
For you as a negotiator to reach an agreement that meets your own self-interest, you need to develop a solution that also appeals to the self-interest of the other
63
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - what steps facilitate the invention of creative options?
1. Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them
2. Broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer
3. Search for mutual gain
4. Invent ways of making their decisions easy
64
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding
As a negotiator, you will of necessity do much inventing by yourself. Separate the process of thinking up possible decisions from the process of selecting among them, separate the creative act from the critical one. Judgement hinders imagination. Consider the desirability of arranging an inventing ot brainstorm session with a few colleagues or friends
65
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - 1. Brainstorm: define your purpose
Think of what you would like to walk out of the meeting with
66
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - 2. choose a few participants
Large enough to provide a stimulating exchange (>= 5) abd small enough to encourage both individual participation and freewheeling inventing (=< 8)
67
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - 3. change the environment
A time and place distinguishing the session as much as possible from a regular sessions - eases suspension of judgement
68
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - 4. design an informal atmosphere
What does of take to relax? - No formal dressing, first names, vacation lodge in picturesque spot, drinks
69
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - what to do before brainstorming? - 5. choose a facilitator
Role facilitator: keep meeting on track, make sure everyone gets a chance to speak, enforce ground rules, stimulate discussion with questions
70
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - what to do during brainstorming?
1. **Seat the participants side by side facing the problem** - The physical reinforces the psychological, a semicircle facing a whiteboard or flip chart
2. **Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule** - introduction, groundrules, outlaw negative criticism - unrealistic is ok, off the record, no attribution of ideas to a participant
3. **Brainstorm** - long list, every conceivable angle, let imaginations go
4. **Record the ideas in full view** - collective achievement, stimulates
71
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - what to do after brainstorming?
1. **Star the most promising ideas** - nominating ideas worth developing further
2. **Invent improvements for promising ideas** - one promising idea, make it as attractive as you can, ways to make it better, more realistic, ways to carry it out, what I like best ... might even be better if ...
3. **Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide** - draw up a selective and improved list of ideas, set you a time for deciding, and how
72
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 1. separate inventing from deciding - consider brainstorming with the other side
Produces ideas that take into account the interests of all involved, creates a climate of joint problem-solving, educates each side about the concerns of the other
73
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 2. broaden your options
The key to wise decision-making lies in selecting from a great number and variety of options
74
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 2. broaden your options - multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The Circle Chart
I. What is wrong in the real world? What are current symptoms of the problem? What are disliked facts contrasted with a preferred situation?
II. What’s wrong in theory? Diagnose the problem. Short symptoms into categories. Suggest causes. Observe what is lacking. Note barriers to resolving the problem
III. What might be done in theory? What are possible strategies? What are some theoretical cures? Generate broad ideas about what might be done
IV. What might be done in the real world? What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem?
75
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 2. broaden your options - look through the eyes of different experts
On a dispute over the custody of a child, how is the problem seen by an educator, a banker, a psychiatrist, a civil rights lawyer, a minister, a nutritionist, a doctor, a feminist or a football coach
On a business contract, what options might occur to a banker, an inventor, a labor leader, a speculator in real estate, a stockbroker, an economist, a tax expert or a socialist
User the Circle Chart through the eyes of different experts
76
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 2. broaden your options - invent agreements of different strengths
What are weaker versions if a sought for agreement proves beyond reach? Perhaps you can agree on procedure, provision to an arbiter, a provisional agreement, agree on where you disagree?
substantive > procedural
permanent > provisional
comprehensive > partial
final > in principle
unconditional > contingent
binding > nonbinding
first-order > second-order
77
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 2. broaden your options - change the scope of a proposed agreement
Instead of the strength, vary the scope. Fractionate the problem into more manageable units. Make the agreement partial, involve fewer parties or apply to a certain geographical area. Enlarge the subject matter to “sweeten the pot”
78
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 3. look for mutual gain
Rarely if ever is there a fixed pie
79
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 3. look for mutual gain - identify shared interests
In almost every case, your satisfaction depends to a degree on making the other side sufficiently content with an agreement to want to live up to it - shared interests lie latent in every negotiation - shared interests are opportunities, not godsends, you need to make something out of them - stressing your shared interests can make the negotiation more smooth and amicable
80
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 3. look for mutual gain - dovetail differing interests
1. **Any difference in interests?** -
Care by a party for:
Form vs Substance
Economic vs Political considerations
Internal vs External considerations
Symbolic vs Practical considerations
Immediate vs More Distant future
Ad hoc results vs the Relationship
Hardware vs Ideology
Progress vs respect for Tradition
Precedent vs This case
Prestige, reputation vs Results
Political points vs Group welfare
2. **Different beliefs** -
Let a third party or the members decide ?
3. **Different values placed on time?** -
Time may be money for one or the other party
4. **Different forecasts?** -
Payment based on the positive forecast of one of the parties
5. **Differences in aversion to risk?** -
The party averse to risk pays less to compensate for the risk, and more once the risk is mitigated
81
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 3. look for mutual gain - ask for their preferences
Look for items that are low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa: differences in interests, priorities, beliefs, forecasts, attitudes towards risk. Invent options equally acceptable to you and ask the other party which one they prefer. Take that option, work it a bit more, and again ask which the prefer, to find more joint gains
82
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 4. make their decision easy
Make their decision an easy one, confront them with a choice that is as painless as possible, put yourself in their shoes
83
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 4. make their decision easy - whose shoes?
Who are you trying to convince? The person with whom you are dealing? Look at the problem from her or his side of view.
How do they (others) impinge on the person with whom you are negotiating? How can I help my opposite to get new instructions?
84
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 4. make their decision easy - what decision?
What is the order side‘s currently perceived choice? Generate options that enables them to change their choice. What if the other side wants as much as they can get, but they themselves do not know how much that is? Don’t ask for more than you want for “negotiating room”. If you want a horse to jump a fence, don’t raise the fence. Start drafting possible agreements. What are terms the other party could sign, that are attractive to them as week as to you? It easier to refrain from doing something than to stop action already underway. Look for actions that are legitimate, fair, honorable, as those are more likely to be accepted. Look for precedent
85
4. Invent options for mutual gain - 2. prescription - 4. make their decision easy - making threats is not enough
What are the results they most fear if they make the decision you would like them to make? What will they hope for? Make offers, not threads. If they decide as you wish, how can the consequences improve from their point of view? How can you make your offer more credible? Do they want to be given credits? Would they like to make the announcement? What is attractive to them and low in cost to yourself? How might the other side be criticised if they adopt it? What is a proposal to which their response ‘yes’ would be sufficient, realistic and operational? Take seriously the necessity of meeting the concerns of the other side. Invent first, generate many options, decide later. What are shared and differing interests, dovetail, and seek to make their decision easy
86
5. Insist on using objective criteria
Interests will differ
87
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 1. deciding on the basis of will is costly
The party’s will, will on itself not lead to a solution. Try to negotiate on some basis independent of the will of either side – that is, on the basis of objective criteria
88
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 2. the case for using objective criteria
Commit yourself to reaching a solution based on principle, on the merits of the problem, on reason
89
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 2. the case for using objective criteria - principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently
The more you bring:
- standards of fairness;
- efficiency;
- scientific merit;
- precedent;
- community practice;
- standard terms;
- practice in the industry
the less the risk that either negotiator will feel that he was harshly treated or will later try to repudiate the agreement
Independent standards are even more important to efficiency when more parties are involved
90
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 3. developing objective criteria
How do to develop objective criteria?
How do to use them in negotiation?
You will do better if you prepare in advance
91
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 3. developing objective criteria - fair standards
You will usually find more than one objective criterion available as a basis for agreement:
- market value
- what a court would decide
- precedent
- moral standards
- scientific judgment
- equal treatment
- orofessional standards
- tradition
- efficiency
- reciprocity
- costs
- etc.
Objective criteria need to be independent of will, legitimate and practical
92
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 3. developing objective criteria - fair procedures
To produce an outcome independent of will, you can use either fair standards for the substantive question or fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests.
Consider, for example, the age-old way to divide a piece of cake between two children: one cuts and the other chooses. In a divorce negotiation, for example, before deciding which parent will get custody of the children, the parents might agree on the visiting rights (and responsibilities) of the other parent. Other basic means of settling differences are: taking turns, drawing lots, or letting someone else decide, for example, by agreeing to submit a particular question to an expert for advice or decision. An option is to make a selection tentative so parties see how it comes out before committing themselves to accept it
93
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 4. negotiating with objective criteria
How do you go about discussing objective criteria and procedures with the other side? Focus on objective criteria firmly but flexibly:
- frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.
- reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied.
- never yield to pressure, only to principle
94
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 4. negotiating with objective criteria - frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria
Before even considering possible terms, you may want to agree on the standards to apply. Treat the problem as though the seller too is looking for a fair price based on objective criteria. You might begin by suggesting one or more criteria yourself. Your case will have more impact if it is presented in terms of their criteria, and they will find it difficult to resist applying their criteria to the problem
95
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 4. negotiating with objective criteria - reason and be open to reason
You come to the table with an open mind: one standard of legitimacy does not preclude the existence of others. When each party is advancing a different standard, look for an objective basis for deciding between them.
A principled negotiator is open to reasoned persuasion on the merits; it is the combination of openness to reason with insistence on a solution based on objective criteria that makes principled negotiation so persuasive and so effective at getting the other side to play
96
5. Insist on using objective criteria - 4. negotiating with objective criteria - never yield to pressure
Never yield to pressure, only to principle. Invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria you think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis. You have the power of legitimacy and the persuasiveness of remaining open to reason. It will be easier for you to resist making an arbitrary concession than it will be for them to resist advancing some objective standards
97
6. What if they are more powerful?
Of what use is talking about **interests**, **options**, and **standards** if the other side has a stronger bargaining position? What do you do if the other side is richer or better connected, or if they have a larger staff or more powerful weapons? No book on gardening can teach you to grow lilies in a desert or a cactus in a swamp. In response to power, the most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives: first, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible.
98
6. What if they are more powerful? - 1. protecting yourself
Negotiation will often present you with the following situation. When you are trying to catch an airplane your goal may seem tremendously important; looking back on it, you see you could have caught the next plane.
99
6. What if they are more powerful? - 1. protecting yourself - the cost of using a bottom line
A bottom line limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation. A bottom line also inhibits imagination. In short, while adopting a bottom line may protect you from accepting a very bad agreement, it may keep you both from inventing and from agreeing to a solution it would be wise to accept
100
6. What if they are more powerful? - 1. protecting yourself - know your BATNA
The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. What is your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured
101
6. What if they are more powerful? - 1. protecting yourself - the insecurity of an unknown BATNA
Whether you should or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative
102
6. What if they are more powerful? - 1. protecting yourself - formulate a trip wire
To give you early warning that the content of a possible agreement is beginning to run the risk of being too unattractive, it is useful to identify one far from perfect agreement that is better than your BATNA. Before accepting any agreement worse than this trip-wire package, you should take a break and reexamine the situation
103
6. What if they are more powerful? - 2. making the most of your assets
Protecting yourself against a bad agreement is one thing. Making the most of the assets you have is another. How do you do this? Again the answer lies in your BATNA
104
6. What if they are more powerful? - 2. making the most of your assets - the better your BATNA, the greater your power
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, and their respective preparation for determination of their BATNA
105
6. What if they are more powerful? - 2. making the most of your assets - develop your BATNA
Vigorous exploration of what you will do if you do not reach agreement can greatly strengthen your hand. Generating possible BATNAs requires three distinct operations: (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; and (3) selecting, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best. The desirability of disclosing your BATNA to the other side depends upon your assessment of the other side’s thinking: is it in your interest to let the other side know, or is your best alternative worse for you than they think?
106
6. What if they are more powerful? - 2. making the most of your assets - consider the other side’s BATNA
You should also think about the alternatives to a negotiated agreement available to the other side. The more you can learn of their alternatives, the better prepared you are for negotiation. If their BATNA is so good they don’t see any need to negotiate on the merits, consider what you can do to change it, for example filing a lawsuit that challenges their status quo
107
6. What if they are more powerful? - 3. when the other side is powerful
The stronger they appear in terms of physical or economic power, the more you benefit by negotiating on the merits. To the extent that they have muscle and you have principle, the larger a role you can establish for principle the better off you are. Developing your BATNA not only enables you to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement, it will probably raise that minimum. Developing your BATNA is perhaps the most effective course of action you can take in dealing with a seemingly more powerful negotiator
108
7. What if they won’t play?
Talking about emotions, interests, options, and standards may be a wise, efficient, and amicable game, but what if the other side won’t play? What can you do to turn them away from positions and toward the merits? There are three basic approaches for focusing their attention on the merits. The first centers on what *you* can do. You yourself can concentrate on the merits, rather than on positions. This method, the subject of this book, is contagious. The second strategy focuses on what *they* may do. It counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. The third approach focuses on what a *third party* can do. Consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on interests, options, and criteria.
109
7. What if they won’t play? - 1. negotiation jujitsu
*Do not push back.* When they assert their positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don’t defend them. When they attack you, don’t counterattack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Instead of pushing back, sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem.
110
7. What if they won’t play? - 1. negotiation jujitsu - don’t attack their position, look behind it
When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for the interests behind it, seek out the principles that it reflects, and think about ways to improve it. Assume every position they take is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side; ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand. Treat their position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so. Seek out and discuss the principles underlying the other side’s positions. To direct their attention toward improving the options on the table, discuss with them hypothetically what would happen if one of their positions was accepted.
111
7. What if they won’t play? - 1. negotiation jujitsu - don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice
Ask them what’s wrong with an idea. “What concerns of yours would this proposal fail to take into account?” Examine their negative judgments to find out their underlying interests and to improve your ideas from their point of view. Rework your ideas in light of what you learn from them, and thus turn criticism from an obstacle in the process of working toward agreement into an essential ingredient of that process.
Another way to channel criticism in a constructive direction is to turn the situation around and ask for their advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in your position.
112
7. What if they won’t play? - 1. negotiation jujitsu - recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem
When the other side attacks you personally, resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them. Instead, sit back and allow them to let off steam. Listen to them, show you understand what they are saying, and when they have finished, recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem
113
7. What if they won’t play? - 1. negotiation jujitsu - ask questions and pause
Use questions instead of statements. Questions generate answers. Questions allow the other side to get their points across and let you understand them. They pose challenges and can be used to lead the other side to confront the problem. Questions offer them no target to strike at, no position to attack. Questions do not criticize.
Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or if you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient answer, just wait. People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence, particularly if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said. Don’t take them off the hook
114
7. What if they won’t play? - 2. consider the one-text procedure
115
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull
116
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Please correct me if I’m wrong”
117
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Please correct me if I’m wrong” - analysis
118
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “We appreciate what you’ve done for us”
119
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “We appreciate what you’ve done for us” - analysis
120
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Our concern is fairness”
121
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Our concern is fairness” - analysis
122
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “We would like to settle this on the basis of an independent standards, not of who can do what to whom”
123
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “We would like to settle this on the basis of an independent standards, not of who can do what to whom” - analysis
124
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Trust is a separate issue”
125
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Trust is a separate issue” - analysis
126
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?”
127
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?” - analysis
128
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “What’s the principle behind your action?”
129
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “What’s the principle behind your action?” - analysis
130
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Let me see if I understand what you’re saying”
131
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Let me see if I understand what you’re saying” - analysis
132
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Let me get back to you”
133
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Let me get back to you” - analysis
134
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Let me show you where I have trouble following some of you reasoning”
135
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “Let me show you where I have trouble following some of you reasoning” - analysis
136
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “One fair solution might be …”
137
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “One fair solution might be …” - analysis
138
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “If we agree … if we disagree …”
139
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “If we agree … if we disagree …” - analysis
140
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “We’d be happy to see if we can leave when it’s most convenient for you”
141
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “We’d be happy to see if we can leave when it’s most convenient for you” - analysis
142
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “It’s been a pleasure dealing with you”
143
7. What if they won’t play? - 3. getting them to play: the case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull - “It’s been a pleasure dealing with you” - analysis
144
8. What if they use dirty tricks?
145
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 1. how do you negotiate about the rules of the game?
146
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 1. how do you negotiate about the rules of the game? - separate the people from the problem
147
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 1. how do you negotiate about the rules of the game? - focus on interests, not positions
148
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 1. how do you negotiate about the rules of the game? - invent options for mutual gain
149
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 1. how do you negotiate about the rules of the game? - insist on using objective criteria
150
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 2. some common tricky tactics
151
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 3. deliberate deception - phony facts
152
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 3. deliberate deception - ambiguous authority
153
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 3. deliberate deception - dubious intentions
154
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 3. deliberate deception - less than full disclosure is not the same as deception
155
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 4. psychological warfare - stressful situations
156
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 4. psychological warfare - personal attacks
157
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 4. psychological warfare - the good-gut/bad-guy routine
158
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 4. psychological warfare - threats
159
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - refusal to negotiate
160
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - extreme demands
161
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - escalating demands
162
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - lock-in tactics
163
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - hardhearted partner
164
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - a calculated delay
165
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 5. positional pressure tactics - “Take it or leave it.”
166
8. What if they use dirty tricks? - 6. don’t be a victim
167
9. In conclusion - 1. three points, you knew it all the time
168
9. In conclusion - 2. learn from doing
169
9. In conclusion - 3. “Winning”
170
Question 1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense?
171
Question 1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense? - how important is it to avoid an arbitrary outcome?
172
Question 1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense? - how complex are the issues?
173
Question 1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense? - how important is it to maintain a good working relationship?
174
Question 1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense? - what are the other side’s expectations, and how hard would they be to change?
175
Question 1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense? - where are you in the negotiation?
176
Question 2: What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
177
Question 2: What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness? - explore how conflicting standards have developed
178
Question 2: What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness? - agreement on the ‘best’ standards is not necessary
179
Question 3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?
180
Question 3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be? - how much is the difference worth to you?
181
Question 3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be? - will tge unfair result be durable?
182
Question 3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be? - what danage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationships?
183
Question 3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be? - will your conscience bother you?
184
Question 4: What do I do if the people are the problem?
185
Question 4: What do I do if the people are the problem? - build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement
186
Question 4: What do I do if the people are the problem? - negotiate the relationship
187
Question 4: What do I do if the people are the problem? - distinguish how you treat them from how they treat you
188
Question 4: What do I do if the people are the problem? - deal rationally with apparent irrationality
189
Question 5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?
190
Question 5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate? - negotiate with terrorists?
191
Question 5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate? - negotiate with someone like Hitler?
192
Question 5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate? - negotiate when people are acting out of religious conviction?
193
Question 5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate? - when does it make sense *not* to negotiate?
194
Question 6: How should I ajust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on?
195
Question 6: How should I ajust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? - get in step
196
Question 6: How should I ajust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? - adapt your general advice to the specific situation
197
Question 6: How should I ajust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? - pay attention to differences of belief and custom, but avoid stereotyping individuals
198
Question 6: How should I ajust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? - question your assumptions; listen actively
199
Question 7: How do I decide things like ‘Where should we meet?’, ‘How should we communicate?’, ‘Who should make the first offer’ and ‘How high should I start?’
200
Question 7: How do I decide things like ‘Where should we meet?’
201
Question 7: How do I decide things like ‘How should we communicate?’
202
Question 7: How do I decide things like ‘Who should make the first offer’
203
Question 7: How do I decide things like ‘How high should I start?’
204
Question 7: strategy depends on preparation
205
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
206
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? - think about closure from the beginning
207
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? - consider crafting a framework agreement
208
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? - move towards commitment gradually
209
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? - be persistent in pursuing your interests but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution
210
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? - make an offer
211
Question 8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? - be generous at the end
212
Question 9: How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
213
Question 9: How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk? - start small
214
Question 9: How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk? - make an investment
215
Question 9: How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk? - review your performance
216
Question 9: How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk? - prepare !
217
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power?
218
Question 10: 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
219
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - how you negotiate makes a big difference
220
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - ‘resources’ are not the same as ‘negotiation power’
221
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - don’t ask ‘Who is more powerful’
222
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power
223
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in developing a good working relationship between the people negotiating
224
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in effective communication
225
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in understanding interests
226
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in inventing an elegant option
227
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in using external standards of legitimacy
228
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in developing a good BATNA
229
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - there are many sources of negotiation power - there is power in making a carefully crafted commitment
230
Question 10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And how do I enhance my negotiating power? - make the most of your potential power
