According to the authors of Getting to Yes, many people waste valuable time and energy focusing on things that are totally irrelevant to their actual goals in a negotiation. They might attack other parties’ moral character or refuse to accept anything besides the exact solution they are envisioning, especially when they approach negotiations through the lens of positional bargaining. Such negotiators get too caught up in the game and lose sight of why they are playing it. While negotiations often turn into power struggles or referendums on personal morality, in reality, they are simply about two or more parties trying to fix certain problems—or satisfy certain interests—that may be common, differing, or directly opposed. By “separat[ing] the people from the problem” and “focus[ing] on interests, not positions,” principled negotiators learn to focus their time and energy on these concrete interests, rather than letting extraneous factors get in the way of a wise agreement. In other words, while they avoid personal conflict like soft negotiators, they approach the substance of a dispute like hard negotiators. While effective negotiation is by no means easy, it is straightforward: it merely requires people to come together, define their interests, develop a plan to satisfy them, and then implement that plan.
The authors of Getting to Yes define negotiation as a fundamental a tool for fulfilling interests, whether individual or collective. When the authors use the word “interests,” they are talking about the “needs, desires, concerns, and fears” that motivate people in a negotiation. Most often, these are fundamental necessities like security, belonging, recognition, and autonomy. The authors imply that all human actions are really about fulfilling these goals, and issues important enough to negotiate about are deeply intertwined with them. But negotiators also generally have multiple interests, often relating to different basic needs. And importantly, they almost always share at least some of these interests with the other side. For instance, both parties usually share an interest in building a strong ongoing relationship. Fulfilling these shared interests is often the easiest and most rewarding part of a negotiation, and this can serve as the foundation for a strong negotiated agreement.
In addition to understanding the importance of focusing on interests, of course, successful negotiators must clearly define their interests and understand those of everyone else at the negotiating table. The easiest way to identify everybody’s interests is to simply state one’s own and then ask everyone else about theirs. But this often does not happen because people are afraid or unsure about what their interests actually are. In such cases, people often open negotiations with a clearly defined position. But the authors argue that negotiators must identify the interests behind these positions that truly motivate people. They can do this by asking why the other side has chosen its positions, offering multiple, slightly different options to try and understand the other side’s motivations. Negotiators should then repeat their own understanding of the other side’s interests in order to create a mutual understanding and signal their commitment to fulfilling mutual interests where possible. One important reason to talk about interests instead of positions, identities, personal conflicts, or anything else is that interests can usually be fulfilled in multiple ways. So while it is usually impossible to combine everyone’s proposals, it is often possible to create a new proposal that fulfills everyone’s combined interests.
Reaching agreement in a negotiation is really just finding a way to meet as many of all sides’ interests as possible. This is the purpose of the authors’ third rule of effective negotiation: “invent options for mutual gain.” It is often possible to meet differing interests that are not necessarily opposed. For instance, the authors cite an anecdote about two men who cannot decide whether to open a window in the library. One wants fresh air, but the other is worried about a draft in the room, so the librarian resolves their dispute by opening the window in the next room over. In general, the authors argue that effective negotiators can actively brainstorm together in order to meet as many of their interests as possible without getting in each other’s way. Similarly, the authors argue that good negotiators actively take the other side’s interests into account and strive to fulfill those interests when they do not conflict with their own. Because such interests are not mutually exclusive, they are easy to agree on—and by making painless concessions on them, negotiators move the process forward. This ensures that everyone is at least getting something out of the negotiated agreement. Still, it can sometimes be difficult to keep negotiations focused on interests, rather than positions or people. This is why the authors propose negotiation jujitsu and the one-text procedure in the second half of the book: they are strategies that principled negotiators can use to prevent negotiations from collapsing into positional bargaining. For instance, when the other side insists on using positional bargaining, the authors advocate refusing to take the bait, insisting on asking why as much as possible, and calling in a third-party mediator to meet everyone’s needs if necessary. In short, when negotiations go wrong, the solution is always to bring them back to questions of interests—and, when interests truly are in conflict, to resolve that conflict fairly.
By definition, principled negotiation’s purpose is to make negotiations more effective, so it is only logical that the authors propose throwing personal animosity, biases, and egos out the window in order to hone in on the actual substance of a negotiation: the interests of everyone involved and the best way to achieve them. Trying to “win” by defeating the other side is ineffective. Instead, negotiators should first look for “win-win” solutions in which everyone benefits and nobody loses anything at all. And when they have to deal with genuinely competing interests, everyone involved should care about resolving them fairly. Indeed, in principled negotiation, if an agreement is not a “win” for everybody, it is really not a win for anybody.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Negotiation as the Pursuit of Interests ThemeTracker
Negotiation as the Pursuit of Interests Quotes in Getting to Yes
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.
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.)
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.
Interests define the problem. The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears. The parties may say:
“I am trying to get him to stop that real estate development next door.”
Or “We disagree. He wants $300,000 for the house. I won't pay a penny more than $250,000.”
But on a more basic level the problem is:
“He needs the cash; I want peace and quiet.”
Or “He needs at least $300,000 to pay off the mortgage and put 20 percent down on his new house. I told my family that I wouldn't pay more than $250,000 for a house.”
Such desires and concerns are interests. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
