Getting to Yes: Chapter 7 Summary & Analysis

This negotiation jujitsu strategy depends on refusing to acknowledge the other side’s ownership over the proposal they have presented. By analyzing the proposal’s merits, the jujitsu practitioner take it seriously as an option, challenging the positional bargainer’s assumption that the other side will always resist anything he or she proposes. And by refusing to see the position as the other side’s personal property, the jujitsu practitioner gives the positional bargainer a chance to abandon their position and switch to principled negotiation whenever they are ready.

This questioning strategy is a way to force the other side to empathize when they might not ordinarily be willing to do so. While they might not realistically understand the other side’s interests in the process, at least they can see why positional bargaining will not be a viable strategy under the circumstances.

Again, this jujitsu tactic goes against the positional bargainer’s expectations and draws them toward principled negotiation. While the positional bargainer expects the other side to respond in kind with attacks on their position, instead the jujitsu practitioner does the unthinkable: they take the criticism seriously and then search for the true meaning behind it (principles and interests). In doing so, they break the cycle of action and reaction, then try to replace it with a practice of reasoned, respectful, constructive criticism.

Since personal attacks are mostly divorced from the substance of a negotiation, the best way to address them is the same as the best way to address angry emotional rants: by only addressing whatever part of them actually does have implications for substance.

Although these techniques are subtle, it is difficult to understate their benefits in a negotiation. Asking questions shows openness and gives the other party a sense of control, while also modeling effective communication and eliciting more information from them than simple statements would. Silence is a way of making the other side accountable: it forces them to reexamine things that they say in the heat of the moment and reflect on their actual implications for the negotiation. In other words, it helps them momentarily break out of the positional bargaining mindset and examine their tactics from the more objective, less spiteful perspective of a principled negotiator.

Most readers instinctively know that mediators can help reach agreements in situations where different parties cannot reasonably negotiate on their own. The one-text procedure is essentially just an actionable formula for mediation. In the context of principled negotiation, it serves as a kind of last resort strategy that negotiators can use to escape positional bargaining. It works because the third party who is brought in to mediate will not have emotional or substantive conflicts of interest in the actual negotiation.

Of course, simply having a mediator is not enough—rather, the mediator must actively reshape the negotiations into a principled negotiation. By combining everyone’s interests into one single list, the mediator eliminates the presumption of conflict that often keeps negotiations stuck in positional bargaining and instead forces the different parties to see themselves as collaborators. By constantly asking for criticism and revising the plan, the mediator shows that they are taking everyone’s interests seriously. This process also builds up momentum because each revision feels like a concrete step toward a mutually satisfactory solution. At the same time, it does not make sense for the parties to criticize elements of the proposal that might fill the other side’s needs but not affect their own side at all. Conversely, under positional bargaining, these divergent (but not opposed) interests get held hostage and never fulfilled.

While a mediator must be neutral, they do not need to be completely removed from the situation—on the contrary, the one-text procedure works far better when both parties trust the mediator and recognize their investment in reaching a fair outcome. Notably, like with many other principled negotiation tactics, the one-text procedure is principally a way to break the cycle of positional bargaining, which means that only one party needs to choose and initiate it.

The example negotiation between Turnbull and Mrs. Jones is a template for how to overcome apparent power differences and turn positional bargaining into principled negotiation. At the beginning of the conversation, Mrs. Jones has the upper hand—she already has Turnbull’s money, and she probably thinks that nothing will happen to her if she refuses to pay it back. (In other words, she thinks that her BATNA is strong.) Accordingly, she sticks to positional bargaining, as she does not have any reason to reach an agreement rather than walk away—indeed, she probably knows that she will end up losing money in a fair agreement. In contrast, Turnbull knows that he has been overcharged in a way that is objective and demonstrable, so he wants to negotiate on principles rather than positions. His challenge is convincing Mrs. Jones to open-mindedly engage with him.

Although Turnbull is absolutely certain that his apartment is rent-controlled, he still presents the information as a question and emphasizes his own fallibility. This open-minded commitment to settling negotiations on objective standards is a key element of principled negotiation: Turnbull does not let his background research tempt him into opening with positional bargaining.

Turnbull is already implementing all four of the rules of principled negotiation. By separating the people from the problem, he preemptively shows that the dispute is not at all personal and he has no animosity for Mrs. Jones. He focuses on interests, rather than positions, by explaining that he is looking for a fair deal rather than immediately demanding the compensation he considers just. Similarly, he opens the door for creative new options by flexibly presenting the rent dispute as a problem for him and Mrs. Jones to solve together. Finally, he frames the central question of the rent—on which he and Mrs. Jones have directly opposed interests—solely in terms of objective criteria.

Mrs. Jones’s response is an attempt to bait Turnbull back into positional bargaining’s cycle of attack and defense, action and reaction. Turnbull’s reaction is an example of negotiation jujitsu. First, he points out that Mrs. Jones’s logic is actually a point in his favor, objectively speaking—if he simply wanted to scam her, he easily could. In other words, Mrs. Jones’s BATNA is not as good as she thinks. Then, Turnbull emphasizes his commitment to principled negotiation “on the basis of some independent standard” in order to draw Mrs. Jones into a principled negotiation mindset. In the process, Turnbull also has to recognize and manage his own emotions, which shows how effective principled negotiators need to be highly aware of and sensitive to emotions in order to effectively separate them from substance.

A soft negotiator might try to affirm their trust for Mrs. Jones in order to build a positive relationship, in the hopes of moving toward resolution. But Turnbull recognizes that this tactic would risk holding the substance of the negotiation hostage to the relationship, so he tries to entirely avoid the personal questions instead. He explicitly tells Mrs. Jones that he wants to separate the people from the straightforward question of objective principle, which is just whether “we pa[id] more than we should have.”

Again, Turnbull uses questions rather than statements both to prevent conflict and to get Mrs. Jones to actively commit herself to the basic fact that he was overpaying. By creating “a foundation of agreed-upon facts,” they limit the chances that one of them will backtrack or question the basic facts in the future. 

By presenting the payment dispute as an open-ended question, Turnbull makes it as easy as possible for Mrs. Jones to keep her personal feelings separate from the question of principle. He also protects himself, in case Mrs. Jones actually turns out to have a fair explanation for the rent increase. By using language like, “Let me see if I understand what you’re saying,” and “Is there something I’ve missed or misunderstood?” Turnbull ensures that he and Mrs. Jones are fully on the same page, so that he can move forward confidently without risking unintended changes in his and Mrs. Jones’s basic understanding of the issues later on. (For instance, Mrs. Jones might try to backtrack and deny these claims in order to return the discussion to positional bargaining.) Turnbull also makes it clear that he wants to empathize with Mrs. Jones’s perspective, and he takes a personal interest in ensuring that the negotiation process is fair for her as well.

This strategic pause attests to the importance of preparation and reflection in negotiations, especially during the process of negotiating a final agreement. By taking time to think and do research, Turnbull assures himself that he is deciding based on the merits and not on momentary whims, emotions, or desire for immediate closure.

Turnbull again keeps his feelings separate from the substance and presents the objective dispute over the improvements in terms of a reasonable legal standard—the Rent Control Examiner’s guidelines for raising the rent of a rent-controlled property. If he were to state a position or conclusion before these objective principles, he would likely undermine his own principled negotiation—Mrs. Jones would hear a proposal that sounds unrealistic to her and stop listening before Turnbull even gets to the reasoning behind it. Accordingly, while it may seem like a minor detail, the order in which Turnbull presents his information is actually very significant.

When presenting his “one fair solution,” Turnbull carefully guides the conversation toward an open-ended consideration of possible resolutions, which ensures that Mrs. Jones remains a free and equal negotiating partner. In other words, he does not try to coerce her into agreeing to his proposal, which would likely backfire later on. He does, however, mislead her about his BATNA in order to increase his bargaining power and force Mrs. Jones to take his proposal seriously.

Turnbull and Mrs. Jones resolve their dispute in an amicable way—and although Turnbull might genuinely feel deceived by Mrs. Jones, he recognizes that it would be inappropriate to bring his emotions into the discussion. Instead, he ensures that she feels ownership over the resolution and gives her control over a factor that likely matters far more to her than to him (when he will move out). By preserving an amicable relationship, Turnbull and Mrs. Jones ensure that they will be able to work fruitfully together in the future, if necessary. In short, this negotiation shows how principled negotiators should use negotiation jujitsu tactics to counteract power imbalances.