Previous
Introduction
Themes
and Colors
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Getting to Yes, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Effective Negotiation
Negotiation as the Pursuit of Interests
The Value of Working Relationships
Power Imbalance
Preparation and Flexibility
Summary
Analysis
Negotiations usually involve positional bargaining. This means that both sides choose a position to defend and end up at something in the middle, like when a shopkeeper quotes a price and a customer bargains them down. Effective negotiation strategies have three traits: they lead to wise agreements, they are efficient, and they do not worsen the negotiating parties’ relationship. While positional bargaining lets people clearly communicate their interests in a negotiation, it usually does not lead to wise agreements.
“Positional bargaining” is just a more technical term for what people usually think of when they hear the word “negotiation”: two or more parties come together, declare what they want to do, and fight until they reach some midpoint they can agree on. Everyone has a preferred proposal, but at the end of the day, nobody gets the proposal they wanted. While this might make sense when haggling over prices, in virtually every other situation it is too black-and-white. It is a fight over pre-established plans, not a collaborative search for a solution to everyone’s needs. But in reality, negotiators should care about the results of a negotiated agreement more than who originally proposed the agreement.
Active
Themes
The first problem with positional bargaining is that “arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes.” People often irrationally stick to their initial positions in order to “save face.”
Although a negotiator may think that the best way to get what they want is to openly propose and defend a plan, the other side will probably never agree to simply follow this plan—just like a negotiator will almost never agree to the other side’s opening proposal. Positional bargainers forget that there are several possible ways to get what they want, and it is counterproductive and childish to insist on getting their way rather than someone else’s—even if their own plan produces a worse outcome for everyone.
Active
Themes
For instance, talks about nuclear inspections between the United States and the Soviet Union broke down because each side refused to change the initial number inspections it asked for. But they never ever got to discussing how the inspections would work.
Active
Themes
Similarly, Iraq’s national oil company wanted to take land from a group of farmers, which led to a standoff. A negotiator resolved this by pointing out that the farmers could harvest their yearly crop, then share the land with the oil company.
Active
Themes
Get the entire Getting to Yes LitChart as a printable PDF.
"My students can't get enough of your charts and their results have gone through the roof." -Graham S.
These examples show why positional bargaining actually prevents parties from getting what they really want. Instead of choosing the average between the two sides’ positions, it is often possible to find solutions that give everyone most of what they want.
Active
Themes
Next, the authors explain that “arguing over positions is inefficient.” Whether parties reach an agreement or eventually give up, positional bargaining takes much longer than the alternative. It incentivizes people to stick with their initial extreme positions and yield as little as possible over time. Moreover, it forces people to decide individually what offers and concessions they are willing to make. Positional bargainers also often delay the negotiation process to exhaust their opponents. Ultimately, these factors make negotiations slow, inefficient, and unlikely to produce wise agreements.
Active
Themes
The authors note that “arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship.” People often see the process of positional bargaining as a battle, and they try to force the other person to give up or give in. This creates anger and bitterness, unnecessarily ruining relationships in the process.
Active
Themes
The authors then explain that “when there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse.” In reality, most negotiations involve more than two parties—but this makes positional bargaining less and less effective. The more numerous the parties, the less it works. For instance, this tactic would never work in the United Nations, where hundreds of different delegations have to cooperate and must all reach some common agreement.
Active
Themes
Next, the authors argue that “Being nice is no answer” to the difficulties posed by positional bargaining. In a table, they contrast hard and soft negotiation. Hard negotiators treat other parties as enemies to defeat through demands, threats, and lies. Meanwhile, soft negotiators view other parties as friends and value reaching agreements, so they make concessions, offer their trust, and prioritize the other party’s needs. This avoids conflict and leads to quick agreements, but it forces the soft negotiator to cede control and sacrifice their goals. Accordingly, hard negotiators easily take advantage of soft negotiators.
Active
Themes
The authors promise that “there is an alternative.” They explain that all negotiations involve two levels. The first is the substantive negotiation of whatever is at stake. But the second is an implicit procedural negotiation of the rules of the substantive negotiation. In other words, every move in the negotiation also affects the very rules of the negotiation—for instance, whether it is hard or soft. Negotiators can choose hard or soft negotiating principles, but they can always also choose to change the rules of the negotiation itself.
Active
Themes
As an alternative to soft and hard negotiation, the authors have developed the principled negotiation method (also called “negotiation on the merits”). It has four main principles, which deal with people, interests, options, and criteria. First, negotiators should view themselves as a team in order to prevent egos and emotions from getting in the way of finding a solution. In other words, they should “separate the people from the problem.” Secondly, negotiators should “focus on interests, not positions.” Thirdly, because pressure and conflict stifle people’s creativity, negotiating parties should “invent options for mutual gain” before they decide on a final solution to their problems. Finally, the best antidote to stubborn hard negotiators is to “insist on using objective criteria” (like experts, laws, or markets).
Active
Themes
The process of negotiation has three stages, all of which force negotiators to deal with people, interests, options, and criteria. Analysis involves understanding the situation, including the negotiators’ feelings and interests. Planning requires exploring and evaluating possible solutions, not only to fulfill people’s interests but also to resolve interpersonal problems. Finally, discussion involves working through differences and building mutual understanding in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement. In summary, principled negotiation leads to wise agreements, is more efficient than positional bargaining, and also preserves amicable relationships.
Active
Themes
