Previous
Chapter 6
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
Sometimes, people insist upon positional bargaining, refuse to look for common ground or creative solutions, and rely on personal attacks instead of debating the merits of different proposals. The authors suggest three ways of responding to this kind of negotiator: first, people can try to make the negotiation about the merits using the strategies that the authors have outlined so far in the book. Second, they can use a strategy for responding to positional bargaining that the authors call negotiation jujitsu. Finally, they can involve a third party in the negotiation through tricks like one-text mediation.
Sticking to positional bargaining is a particularly attractive strategy for negotiators who know they have more power than the other side but would not get much of what they want in an agreement based on principles. However, in many situations positional bargaining is simply a reflex, and smart principled negotiators can counteract it to avoid escalating conflicts and ensure that conversations stay focused on the merits.
Active
Themes
The authors then explain negotiation jujitsu. When the other side opens by declaring and defending a position, people should simply refuse to give into the exhausting, inefficient back-and-forth of positional bargaining. They should not defend a position or react to the other side’s attacks. Like in actual jujitsu, the goal is to deflect the attack and redirect the other side’s strength toward elements of principled negotiation.
Positional bargaining is based on a cycle of action and reaction, or attack and counterattack, between the opposing sides in a dispute. This is why it is so easy to fall into but also why it is so ineffective as a negotiation strategy. Negotiation jujitsu is a way of breaking this cycle by simply refusing to participate in it and giving the positional bargainer an opportunity to switch to principled negotiation.
Active
Themes
First, when the other side defends their position, negotiation jujitsu calls for refusing to immediately accept or reject it, and instead analyzing it like any other option in a negotiation. People should figure out how the other side’s proposal serves their interests and determine what principles it is based on, and they should try to help the other side also give up on positions.
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.
By asking what would happen if their proposal were hypothetically accepted, negotiators can point out that it is not reasonable for them to accept the other side’s ideas. For instance, when the President of Egypt insisted that Israel withdraw from Egyptian territory in 1970, an American lawyer asked him how that would turn out for the Israeli Prime Minister, and this showed him that unilateral withdrawal was not a realistic proposal.
Active
Themes
Secondly, when positional bargainers go into attack mode, negotiation jujitsu calls for encouraging principled criticism, rather than fighting back. A talented negotiator asks the other side to explain their attacks and then analyzes their responses in order to understand their principles and interests. Again, it helps to make positional bargainers imagine switching positions, because this shows them that both sides have legitimate interests. This also provides a model of how to address interests on their own terms rather than in terms of the people who hold them.
Active
Themes
Finally, when the other side makes personal attacks, a smart negotiator lets them finish and listens closely. Then, they use negotiation jujitsu to reinterpret the personal attack in terms of the substantive problem that the two sides are trying to solve.
Active
Themes
There are two more key negotiation jujitsu techniques. First, negotiators should ask questions instead of making direct statements, since questions force the other side to explain and elaborate rather than resist and criticize. Secondly, negotiators should use silence to force the other side to reflect, especially when they say something unreasonable or fail to answer a question. Silence forces them to seriously think through what they have said, and people often respond to silences by giving a better answer or inventing a new idea.
Active
Themes
The authors then outline the one-text procedure for mediation with the help of a third party. Imagine a husband and wife who cannot agree on what they want in a house and become more stubborn the more they negotiate. To create a fair agreement, they need to call in a third party—but not anyone will do.
Active
Themes
Many mediators try to reconcile the two sides’ opposed positions by forcing them to make concessions. In contrast, in the one-text procedure, mediators make a joint list of both sides’ interests—for example, an architect could ask the husband and wife why they each want specific features in their house. After getting advice on this list from both parties, mediators invent a plan to fulfill it. They then consult the parties about the plan, modify it, and repeat this process of consultation and revision until they feel the plan can no longer be improved. Then, the main parties must decide whether to accept or reject this final plan.
Active
Themes
Parties can call in someone else to mediate using the one-text procedure, but sometimes there is a party who can easily mediate because their main interest is simply getting to an agreement in the first place. For instance, this is why the United States mediated the 1978 Camp David Summit between Israel and Egypt. Large organizations like the United Nations use the one-text procedure to make virtually all of their decisions, like in the Law of the Sea Conference. There is no need to explicitly agree on using the one-text procedure: negotiations can just start drafting a common agreement.
Active
Themes
The authors use a real-life negotiation as an example of how to deal with someone who resists principled negotiation. When a man named Frank Turnbull decides to move out of his apartment, he learns that his landlord, Mrs. Jones, has been illegally overcharging him $268 over the legal maximum every month. By using negotiation jujitsu, he gets the belligerent Mrs. Jones to eventually apologize and reimburse him for the illegal rent.
Active
Themes
“Please correct me if I’m wrong,” Turnbull begins before explaining that he has learned that his apartment is legally rent-controlled. This phrasing shows that Turnbull is open to be persuaded, but only based on concrete evidence. Rather than accusing Mrs. Jones of wrongdoing, Turnbull gives her a chance to explain the facts as she understands them. This can help prevent conflict and protect Turnbull in case he actually is wrong about the rent control.
Active
Themes
Next, Turnbull personally thanks Mrs. Jones for renting the apartment to him, which keeps the people separate from the problem. He emphasizes that he is not attacking her character and suggests that he cares about preserving an ongoing relationship with her. Turnbull explains that he is asking about the rent because he cares about the principle of fair pricing. While this shows that only principles will persuade him, it also clarifies that he is absolutely open to changing his mind.
Active
Themes
Mrs. Jones accuses Turnbull of trying to extort her. He responds by saying that he obviously could do that—or start an extended court battle—but he is choosing to put principles first. Accordingly, he says that he wants to “handle this problem fairly on the basis of some independent standard.” Although Turnbull is angry that Mrs. Jones rejects principled negotiation, he controls himself. By pointing out that he could act selfishly, he shows that he understands Mrs. Jones’s angry response. But then, he deflects her concern by explicitly stating that he only cares about fairness, which tilts the conversation back toward principles.
Next, Mrs. Jones accuses Turnbull of not trusting her, but he insists that trust is irrelevant. His point is simply “the principle: Did we pay more than we should have?” It is not enough to say that he trusts her, because she would use this to sidestep the question of the fair rent. When transitioning from the question of trust back to the question of principle, he carefully says “and” instead of “but” in order to reject her either-or logic. By returning to the principles time and time again, he avoids personal attacks and the messy question of trust.
Active
Themes
Instead of just stating that he was overpaying, Turnbull asks Mrs. Jones if he has the facts right. By using questions, he gives Mrs. Jones the chance to correct him and avoids sounding aggressive. When she confirms his suspicions, the pair now has “a foundation of agreed-upon facts” to work from.
Active
Themes
Next, Turnbull directly asks Mrs. Jones why she charged him $1,200 a month for rent (instead of the legal $968). But he does not accuse her of wrongdoing or assume bad intentions. Mrs. Jones cites apartment repairs as a justification for the higher rent and says that it was too much work to get the Rent Control Board to approve a corresponding increase. Turnbull says, “Let me see if I understand what you’re saying,” then rephrases her justification and repeats it back to her before asking, “Is there something I’ve missed or misunderstood?” Again, this builds up their base of common facts and turns the negotiation into a cooperative process.
Active
Themes
Turnbull tells Mrs. Jones that he is going to consult with his roommate and asks if he can follow up with her tomorrow. To make informed decisions, effective negotiators have to take time and space to think. They should always have an excuse for leaving the conversation and postponing the final agreement.
Active
Themes
When they resume their conversation, Turnbull tells Mrs. Jones, “Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning.” He has talked to the local Rent Control Examiner, who said that it would take $30,000 in improvements to increase the rent by $268. But Mrs. Jones didn’t seem to have spent that much, and she never fixed several problems with the apartment. Notably, he starts with the principle of what would justify an increase in the rent, so that he can show that his perspective is based on the relevant objective criteria.
Active
Themes
Turnbull next suggests that “one fair solution might be” for Mrs. Jones to reimburse him. He carefully presents this as one among many possible fair options, not as his position. He explains that he would be happy to move out if Mrs. Jones agrees to this option, but he can always follow the Rent Control Board’s advice: sue her and stay in the apartment rent-free until the case is resolved. He emphasizes that this is the Rent Control Board’s idea, so as not to seem personally combative. In reality, his BATNA is probably just to take the loss rather than dealing with a lawsuit, but mentioning that would be unwise.
Active
Themes
After Mrs. Jones agrees to pay Turnbull back, he promises to move out whenever is best for her, which ensures that she is also satisfying her interests and lets her save face. Finally, he thanks Mrs. Jones again at the end of the conversation to emphasize that their relationship will stay amicable. Ultimately, the authors conclude that this example shows how it is usually possible to turn positional bargaining into principled negotiation, with the right strategies.
Active
Themes
