Previous
Chapter 7
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
The authors ask what negotiators should do when the other side tries to take advantage of them. Most people simply accept deceptive or unfair behavior as too costly to fix. Others fight fire with fire by using the same nefarious tactics as their opponents, but this does not work either. Indeed, dirty tricks are wrong precisely because they cannot be reciprocal: if one side uses them successfully, they get an advantage, but if both sides use them, negotiation becomes procedurally impossible. The best response to dirty tricks is “principled negotiation about the negotiating process.”
Just as people may insist on positional bargaining in order to try and keep a coercive upper hand in a negotiation, they often use dirty tricks to force concessions and manipulate the other side into accepting an unfair agreement. This particularly happens when someone knows that it would be disadvantageous for them to negotiate on the basis of principles. But these tricks do not work when negotiations are a question of principle, not a battle of will. Indeed, the fact that they only work when non-reciprocal—when their victims do not fight back—is a great advantage for principled negotiators, since it implies that a well-prepared negotiator will never let dirty tricks get the best of them.
Active
Themes
First, the authors ask, “How do you negotiate about the rules of the game?” It’s a three-step process. First, a negotiator has to recognize the other side’s dirty tactic. Then, they have to explicitly point it out, which shows the other party that the tactic is not working and gives them an opportunity to stop. Finally and most importantly, people should negotiate about procedure itself.
The process for negotiating “the rules of the game” is actually almost exactly the same as the process for negotiating interests: recognize them, communicate them, and then address them through a negotiated agreement. Like in Turnbull’s conversation with Mrs. Jones, in fighting dirty tricks, principled negotiation is a dominant strategy: it neutralizes power differences, personal feelings, and manipulative tactics. Simply sticking to principles is likely to save a strong negotiator from these tactics and, often, to bring the other side around.
Active
Themes
The rules of negotiating to produce a wise agreement about procedure are the same as the four basic rules of principled negotiation in general. Negotiators should “separate the people from the problem” by pointing out the issue with a tactic or situation, not the other side as people. When discussing tactics, they should prioritize interests instead of positions and create new procedural options that could be mutually beneficial. And they should settle procedural questions based on objective principles, like by pointing out how negotiations would collapse if everyone used the same dirty tricks. The BATNA to dirty procedural tricks is to walk out of the negotiation, which can be useful in an extreme situation.
Active
Themes
The authors then describe “some common tricky tactics,” which fall into three types. The first type is “deliberate deception.” This includes outright lying, which negotiators should preempt by never being too trusting and checking the facts presented by the other side.
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.
Some people work through the whole negotiation process, including agreeing on a final solution, before revealing that they do not actually have the authority to make the deal. Then, their boss shows up and starts pushing for more concessions beyond the initial agreement that was made. There is nothing wrong with explicitly asking the other side how much authority they have before the negotiation begins. And if the other side decides to keep negotiating on top of an explicit agreement, negotiators can do the same and continue proposing changes.
Active
Themes
Some people make agreements they never intend to follow, which is how negotiators can put compliance mechanisms in the agreement itself. For instance, if a wife doubts that the husband she is divorcing will pay child support, she can have him offer the house as collateral in the divorce settlement.
Active
Themes
But the authors warn that withholding information is not the same as outright lying. Negotiators should recognize that sometimes certain information (like the highest price the other party is willing to pay) cannot be disclosed in order for a negotiation to succeed.
Active
Themes
The second category of dirty tricks is “psychological warfare.” The physical environment where a negotiation takes place can have a significant impact. As common wisdom knows, people are more comfortable on their own turf—although being more comfortable does not always make one a better negotiator. In some cases, negotiators deliberately make an environment stressful—noisy, too hot or cold, too public or intimate, and so on—in order to pressure the other side into agreeing to a quick but unsatisfactory resolution. In these instances, there is nothing wrong with proposing a change of scenery.
Active
Themes
Dishonest negotiators also often make personal comments, purposefully show off their authority, and send subtle cues (like refusing eye contact) in order to make the other side uncomfortable. But stopping these tactics is as simple as pointing them out.
Active
Themes
Another common technique is the famous “good-guy/bad-guy routine.” This doesn’t just happen in police interrogations: two negotiators on the same side often act out a conflict and then pretend that their offer to the other side is a reasonable compromise—even when it isn’t. The solution is to always insist on principles.
Active
Themes
Threats seldom work in a negotiation. Instead of leading to an agreement, threats destroy relationships and make others close ranks. A better alternative is a warning—or simply pointing out the negative implications of the other side’s actions. Negotiators should explain their future courses of action as ways of protecting their own interests, never as ways to punish the other side.
There are many effective ways to respond to threats. Some can be ignored, and some can be stopped by stopping the means of communication (like by recording incoming phone calls). Ultimately, the best response to threats is to explicitly point them out and insist on returning the negotiation to questions of principle. However, people should be prepared to respond if the other side does carry out its threats.
Active
Themes
The third and final category of dirty tricks comprises “positional pressure tactics.” One side can simply refuse to negotiate, like the Iranian government did during the Iranian hostage crisis. It is important to see that this is part of the negotiation—namely, it is a way to pressure the other side to make concessions.
Active
Themes
When faced with positional pressure tactics, negotiators should ask what interests the other side fulfills by not negotiating and then look for ways to negotiate without sacrificing those interests. For instance, if the other side stops negotiating because their constituents might see them as weak, one can propose continuing the negotiation in secret. Returning to principles, negotiators can always point out what would happen if everyone played dirty.
Active
Themes
Negotiators sometime start with exaggerated demands (like offering $175,000 for a house listed at $300,000) in order to manipulate the other side’s expectations and create negotiating room. This also doesn’t work. First, this only works if everyone is planning to split the difference through positional bargaining. Secondly, this tactic makes others question their credibility. If the other side makes an offer like this, a good negotiator asks them to justify it through principles.
Active
Themes
Some negotiators gradually increase their demands over time, for instance by introducing new issues or reopening settled ones. It can help to call for a break and debate the new demand on principles, rather than hastily agreeing to it.
Active
Themes
Other negotiators use “lock-in tactics” like publicly declaring that they will accept nothing less than some particular outcome. This strategy is dangerous and counterproductive. Defeating it simply requires openly refusing to take it seriously. This sends the message that the lock-in announcement will not affect the negotiations, but it also makes it clear that the other wide will be able to take back their announced commitment when they decide to come back to the negotiating table.
Active
Themes
Similarly, when two negotiators are working together, sometimes one of them will insist that they cannot accept a certain agreement because of their “hardhearted partner.” This is easy to spot, and one effective response is to get the agreement in writing before taking it directly to the “hardhearted partner.”
Active
Themes
Negotiators sometimes try to use time to put pressure on the other side, such as by intentionally running up against a deadline. This is risky. For instance, during a labor dispute, the workers get more leverage if they refuse to negotiate until the last hours before a strike deadline. But once the strike starts, it is better for management to wait until the strikers lose momentum. In addition to openly pointing out and negotiating about such delay tactics, people can also give the other side incentives not to delay. For instance, they can start looking for other buyers or negotiating with another company.
Active
Themes
Finally, there is no real problem with most fixed “take it or leave it” offers, but sometimes they are tricks to seem stubborn and force quick agreement rather than a genuine “final offer.” It can help to point out the consequences of not making an agreement and help the other side save face while continuing to negotiate.
Active
Themes
In conclusion, the authors insist, “Don’t be a victim.” There is no hard-and-fast line dividing honest negotiation from bad faith. In fact, that distinction largely depends upon people’s individual values. But negotiators should reflect on whether both sides are genuinely trying to come to a wise agreement. When the other side wants to use stubbornness and deception to their own advantage, negotiators should never let them do it.
Active
Themes
