Getting to Yes, an influential guide to successful negotiation by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, begins by noting that negotiations are everywhere in modern life. While the word “negotiation” might remind readers of heated business meetings or formal legal disputes, the authors of this book propose a much wider view of the concept. According to them, a negotiation is any situation in which multiple people have to work together and find a solution to fill their needs, whether those needs are shared or divergent. From everyday relationship quarrels to treaty debates on the floor of the United Nations, negotiations are far more common than most people realize—and most people are also approaching them wrong. According to the authors, the conventional approach to negotiation, positional bargaining, fosters conflict rather than cooperation. Instead, Getting to Yes proposes principled negotiation (or “negotiation on the merits”), a strategy that the authors argue saves time and energy, fosters better working relationships among negotiating parties, and leads to better, wiser agreements.
The authors begin the book by noting that most people view negotiations as a practice of positional bargaining, in which both sides declare a specific stance and then bitterly defend it. The classic example of positional bargaining is haggling over something’s price: the buyer will name a low price and the seller a high one, and then both the buyer and the seller will try to budge as little as possible until they reluctantly agree on a price. Ultimately, positional bargaining is based on the assumption that the two sides are enemies and that their interests are zero-sum. In other words, positional bargainers assume that one side’s victory is always another side’s loss, and they think that making unilateral concessions is the only way to reach agreement.
Positional bargaining is counterproductive because it undermines personal relationships, the negotiation process, and the very agreements that negotiators reach. Positional bargaining turns negotiations into battles and destroys negotiators’ personal relationships. When the relationship is more important than the specific dispute—like in a marriage or a longtime business partnership—this is devastating. In positional bargaining, winning means getting the other side to yield, so negotiators often use personal attacks and underhanded tactics to try and get their way. One of these underhanded tactics is delaying to exhaust the opposition, which is one of several reasons that positional bargaining is slow and inefficient. On the whole, positional bargaining incentivizes stubbornness, not collaboration, because it views making concessions as the only way to move toward agreement. This also makes it produce unwise agreements. The authors argue that an agreement is wise if, in addition to maximally satisfying everyone’s interests, it is equitable, durable, and fair to the community. But positional bargaining prevents parties from satisfying interests that are not directly in opposition, often forces one side to concede more than the other, and considers nothing more than the initial demands of both sides. As a result, agreements reached through positional bargaining tend to be far from ideal—sometimes they can be unsatisfactory to everyone involved.
Getting to Yes defends principled negotiation as a superior approach. Whereas positional bargainers fight for their self-serving proposals, principled negotiators seek agreements that fairly fulfill everyone’s interests. Principled negotiation has four key rules: first, people should “separate the people from the problem,” which means taking active steps to build a strong working relationship and approach the substantive dispute from a collaborative perspective. Second, “focus on interests, not positions,” which means centering the negotiation on the parties’ actual goals, rather than the pre-formed proposals that parties debate in positional bargaining. Third, “invent options for mutual gain,” which means looking beyond initial positions and brainstorming creative win-win proposals that can fulfill everybody’s needs. And finally, “insist on using objective criteria” in cases where interests truly are opposed. These rules clearly contrast with the practices of positional bargaining, and principled negotiation follows them in order to achieve fair, respectful, and productive resolutions to conflicts.
Ultimately, principled negotiation solves the three major problems with positional bargaining. First, principled negotiation preserves relationships by turning negotiators into partners and allowing them to peacefully disagree. Positional bargaining forces negotiators to see each other as enemies and choose between maintaining a relationship and achieving a desirable result. This usually leads to personal resentment either way. In contrast, principled negotiation helps negotiators develop a strong working relationship by using their natural desire to get along as a catalyst for creating better substantive solutions. Even when negotiations fail, principled negotiators take collective ownership for that failure rather than pointing fingers. Second, principled negotiation is also more efficient. Whereas positional bargaining frames the process of reaching agreement as a gradual retreat from one’s original position and therefore encourages negotiators to budge as little as possible, principled negotiation is based on a mutual willingness to build better solutions and treats compromise as a win, not a defeat. Finally, principled negotiation creates wiser agreements because it forces negotiators to actually address their real, motivating interests—and take the other side’s interests seriously, too. The proposals presented in positional bargaining tend to satisfy all of one’s own interests and none of the other side’s, while principled negotiation starts by emphasizing that some of these interests are shared, and others can be satisfied without affecting the other side. Ultimately, whereas the agreements produced in positional bargaining simply reflect who better coerced the other side into giving in, agreements produced through principled negotiation actually address everyone’s needs in a rational and fair way.
While Getting to Yes remains best known for its four concrete, practical rules for negotiation, the book really proposes rethinking the very nature of negotiation itself. The authors ask their readers to expand their vision of what counts as a negotiation and then stop assuming that all negotiations must involve rigid, antagonistic, zero-sum positional bargaining. Instead, they envision a world where people default to cooperation rather than conflict, then strive to resolve their conflicts in the wisest, least destructive way possible.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Effective Negotiation ThemeTracker
Effective Negotiation Quotes in Getting to Yes
Like it or not, you are a negotiator. Negotiation is a fact of life.
There is a third way to negotiate, a way neither hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft. The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won't do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness.
Principled negotiation is an all-purpose strategy. Unlike almost all other strategies, if the other side learns this one, it does not become more difficult to use; it becomes easier. If they read this book, all the better.
Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.)
A basic fact about negotiation, easy to forget in corporate and international transactions, is that you are dealing not with abstract representatives of the “other side,” but with human beings. They have emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints; and they are unpredictable. They are prone to cognitive biases, partisan perceptions, blind spots, and leaps of illogic. So are we.
This human aspect of negotiation can be either helpful or disastrous.
Positional bargaining deals with a negotiator's interests both in substance and in a good relationship by trading one off against the other. If what counts in the long run for your company is its relationship with the insurance commissioner, then you will probably let this matter drop. Yet giving in on a substantive point may buy no friendship; it may do nothing more than convince the other side that you can be taken for a ride. Or, if you care more about a favorable solution than being respected or liked by the other side, you can try to extract concessions by holding the relationship hostage. “If you won't go along with me on this point, then so much for you. This will be the last time we meet.” While you may extract a concession this way, this strategy often results in lousy substance and a damaged relationship.
The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. It is not enough to know that they see things differently. If you want to influence them, you also need to understand empathetically the power of their point of view and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in it. It is not enough to study them like beetles under a microscope; you need to know what it feels like to be a beetle. To accomplish this task you should be prepared to withhold judgment for a while as you “try on” their views. They may well believe that their views are “right” as strongly as you believe yours are. You may see on the table a glass half full of cool water. Your spouse may see a dirty, half-empty glass about to cause a ring on the mahogany finish.
Many emotions in negotiation are driven by a core set of five interests: autonomy, the desire to make your own choices and control your own fate; appreciation, the desire to be recognized and valued; affiliation, the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer group; role, the desire to have a meaningful purpose; and status, the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged. Trampling on these interests tends to generate strong negative emotions. Attending to them can build rapport and a positive climate for problem-solving negotiation.
Build a working relationship. Knowing the other side personally really does help. It is much easier to attribute diabolical intentions to an unknown abstraction called the “other side” than to someone you know personally. Dealing with a classmate, a colleague, a friend, or even a friend of a friend is quite different from dealing with a stranger. The more quickly you can turn a stranger into someone you know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become. You have less difficulty understanding where they are coming from. You have a foundation of trust to build upon in a difficult negotiation. You have smooth, familiar communication routines. It is easier to defuse tension with a joke or an informal aside.
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. If we have an interest in defending ourselves, then they must want to attack us. If we have an interest in minimizing the rent, then their interest must be to maximize it. In many negotiations, however, a close examination of the underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that are shared or compatible than ones that are opposed.
How can you move from identifying interests to developing specific options and still remain flexible with regard to those options? To convert your interests into concrete options, ask yourself, “If tomorrow the other side agrees to go along with me, what do I now think I would like them to go along with?” To keep your flexibility, treat each option you formulate as simply illustrative. Think in terms of more than one option that meets your interests. “Illustrative specificity” is the key concept.
Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. You can be just as hard in talking about your interests as any negotiator can be in talking about their position. In fact, it is usually advisable to be hard. It may not be wise to commit yourself to your position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests. This is the place in a negotiation to spend your aggressive energies. The other side, being concerned with their own interests, will tend to have overly optimistic expectations of the range of possible agreements. Often the wisest solutions, those that produce the maximum gain for you at the minimum cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests. Two negotiators, each pushing hard for their interests, will often stimulate each other's creativity in thinking up mutually advantageous solutions.
As valuable as it is to have many options, people involved in a negotiation rarely sense a need for them. In a dispute, people usually believe that they know the right answer—their view should prevail. In a contract negotiation they are equally likely to believe that their offer is reasonable and should be adopted, perhaps with some adjustment in the price. All available answers appear to lie along a straight line between their position and yours. Often the only creative thinking shown is to suggest splitting the difference.
Dovetail differing interests. Consider once again the two children quarreling over an orange. Each child wanted the orange, so they split it, failing to realize that one wanted only the fruit to eat and the other only the peel for baking. In this case as in many others, a satisfactory agreement is made possible because each side wants different things. This is genuinely startling if you think about it. People generally assume that differences between two parties create the problem. Yet differences can also lead to a solution.
However well you understand the interests of the other side, however ingeniously you invent ways of reconciling interests, however highly you value an ongoing relationship, you will almost always face the harsh reality of interests that conflict. No talk of “win-win” strategies can conceal that fact. You want the rent to be lower; the landlord wants it to be higher. You want the goods delivered tomorrow; the supplier would rather deliver them next week. You definitely prefer the large office with the view; so does your partner. Such differences cannot be swept under the rug.
Pressure can take many forms: a bribe, a threat, a manipulative appeal to trust, or a simple refusal to budge. In all these cases, the principled response is the same: invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria you think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.
Who will prevail? In any given case it is impossible to say, but in general you will have an edge. For in addition to your willpower, you also 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. A refusal to yield except in response to sound reasons is an easier position to defend—publicly and privately—than is a refusal to yield combined with a refusal to advance sound reasons.
If the other side has big guns, you do not want to turn a negotiation into a gunfight. 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.
Having a good BATNA can help you negotiate on the merits. You can convert such resources as you have into effective negotiating power by developing and improving your BATNA. Apply knowledge, time, money, people, connections, and wits into devising the best solution for you independent of the other side's assent. The more easily and happily you can walk away from a negotiation, the greater your capacity to affect its outcome.
If pushing back does not work, what does? How can you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? 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. As in the Oriental martial arts of judo and jujitsu, avoid pitting your strength against theirs directly; instead, use your skill to step aside and turn their strength to your ends. Rather than resisting their force, channel it into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent standards.
I must not be making myself clear. Of course it would be nice if Paul and I got some money. Of course we could try and stay here in the apartment until you got us evicted. But that’s not the point, Mrs. Jones.
More important to us than making a few dollars here or there is the feeling of being treated fairly. No one likes to feel cheated. And if we made this a matter of who’s got the power and refused to move, we'd have to go to court, waste a lot of time and money, and end up with a big headache. You would too. Who wants that?
No, Mrs. Jones, we want to handle this problem fairly on the basis of some independent standard, rather than who can do what to whom.
Such tricky tactics are illegitimate because they fail the test of reciprocity. They are designed to be used by only one side; the other side is not supposed to know the tactics or is expected to tolerate them knowingly. Earlier we argued that an effective counter to a one-sided substantive proposal is to examine the legitimacy of the principle that the proposal reflects. Tricky bargaining tactics are in effect one-sided proposals about negotiating procedure, about the negotiating game that the parties are going to play. To counter them, you will want to engage in principled negotiation about the negotiating process.
Good negotiators rarely resort to threats. They do not need to; there are other ways to communicate the same information.
