While negotiation is first and foremost a tool for fulfilling one’s interests, this does not mean that the personal relationships among negotiators are irrelevant. Actually, the fact that interests are more important actually makes building strong relationships easier and more fruitful. According to the authors of Getting to Yes, turning substantive negotiations into personal disputes is not just uncomfortable—it is also counterproductive. Bitterness and animosity often lead people to view a negotiation as a personal battle, preventing them from reaching mutually beneficial conclusions, even when there are obvious ways to meet the fundamental interests of both sides. And even more importantly, tense relationships set a poor precedent for future negotiations. Ultimately, the authors emphasize that negotiators should not just avoid personal attacks—they should actively strive to build amicable working relationships with the other parties in a negotiation, which leads to both better outcomes and a more favorable starting point for future negotiations.
Negotiations almost always involve emotions, which means that they usually get personal and affect the negotiators’ relationship, one way or another. In particular, negotiations raise emotions because people tend to end up negotiating about things that matter deeply to them—often their basic sense of security, belonging, or autonomy is at stake. Sometimes the very structure of a negotiation adds to a sense of threat. Regardless, in high-stakes negotiations, strong feelings almost always come into play. Such emotion can create personal problems that sabotage negotiations—for instance, the authors note that peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians are always unsuccessful because of strong emotions, and this is a common problem with positional bargaining (in which different parties instinctively see each other as enemies). This means that it is very dangerous to address emotions and personal conflicts badly in a negotiation—or, worse, to fail to address them at all. Even when negotiators are technically advocating for someone else's interests, they are still human beings, influenced by their feelings. While negotiators should try to be as objective as possible, they should also recognize that complete objectivity is an imaginary goal that nobody can fully reach. Accordingly, the authors emphasize that separating people from problems does not mean ignoring emotions. Many people in the worlds of business and politics instinctively interpret the phrase that way, but in reality, good negotiators are overly sensitive to emotions, not overly dismissive of them.
The authors argue that instead of trying to ignore personal issues or letting the circumstances of a negotiation create personal animosity, negotiators should actively try to build amicable, respectful, and productive working relationships. The most important way to do this is by closely managing and empathetically attending to the emotions that negotiations raise. The authors outline a wide range of tactics help achieve this, ranging from explicitly naming one’s feelings using “I” statements to letting the other side vent their negative feelings without reacting. The key is to prevent negotiations from turning into an instinctual cycle of emotional action and reaction, which entangles relationships with substance, eroding both in the process. Although small gestures can seem minor, they can make a huge difference. Some examples include offering sincere apologies that do not affect the substance of negotiations, making small talk before negotiations begin, and enthusiastically pursuing points that improve the deal for the other side, without worsening one’s own side. These gestures of goodwill are free, in the sense that they do not worsen the gesturer’s negotiating position. Accordingly, good negotiators use them generously to build rapport. Finally, effective negotiators address the other side’s basic emotional needs, like the need to feel active ownership over a solution and save face—or act consistently with their past positions and behaviors. Addressing these needs shows empathy and makes agreements far easier to reach.
Good working relationships are not only valuable because they help individual negotiations succeed—they are also desirable for their own sake. In some cases, the relationship is actually more important than the specific dispute in question during a negotiation. For instance, a shopkeeper probably cares more about keeping a regular customer than making a little more money, and married couples almost always view quarrels as important symptoms of an underlying relationship’s health, not as be-all and end-all referendums on the marriage. It would make no sense to let a dispute hijack and threaten these relationships, but this is what happens when negotiators get stuck on positional bargaining. When they instead choose principled negotiation, they can form strong relationships that substantially improve their prospects for the future. For instance, if a company and a city know that they will have to negotiate periodically over several years, it helps significantly if their negotiators are already acquainted and friendly with each other. In some cases, a solid relationship can totally change the very situation that is being negotiated about. For instance, when Egyptian president Anwar Sadat decided to visit Israel and initiate peace talks himself, he started building an alliance between the two warring countries that continues to this day, and he did this without sacrificing any of his political goals. This shows that building relationships can actually be the most important advantage of principled negotiation.
Although the authors of Getting to Yes do see substance as the objective side of negotiations and personal relationships as the subjective one, this does not mean that relationships are less important than substance. Rather, it means that people should be mindful of the fact that negotiations are inevitably emotional, and when possible they should use this fact to make negotiations more efficient and effective. In short, they should make other parties’ negotiators into friends, because it is always easier to negotiate, respectfully disagree, and move forward among friends than among enemies or strangers.
Related Themes from Other Texts
The Value of Working Relationships ThemeTracker
The Value of Working Relationships 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.)
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.
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 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.
