Book Digest: Getting to Yes

Getting to Yes argues that negotiations shouldn’t be a contest of will in which both sides state extreme positions and then dig in their heels to move as little as possible. Instead, the authors advocate principled negotiation: using objective criteria to craft an agreement that meets the needs of both sides.

In their view, negotiation is about interests, not positions. By understanding your interests and those of the other side, you can devise creative solutions that expand the amount of value created by an agreement and ensure that both sides have a strong motivation to make a deal. This deeper understanding of the other side’s interests lays the foundation for a productive long-term business relationship.

Getting to Yes also provides suggestions for how to ensure that negotiations proceed on a principled basis even if your counterparty initially prefers traditional positional bargaining.

Introduction

• Negotiation is communication designed to reach an agreement when the parties have some interests that are shared, some that are different, and some that are opposed
• Principled negotiation is deciding issues on their merits rather than based on power. This means using fair standards independent of either side’s will.
• This book advocates principled negotiation rather than positional negotiation.

I. The Problem

1. Don’t Bargain Over Positions

• In positional bargaining, each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise. Positional bargaining is the wrong way to reach an agreement.
• A good method of negotiation should:
  • Produce a wise agreement
  • Be efficient
  • Improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties
• In positional bargaining the parties:
  • Lock themselves into their positions
  • Pay less attention to meeting the underlying concerns of the other parties
  • Are incentivised to stall agreement by taking an extreme position and making the smallest concessions possible to keep the negotiation going
  • Engage in a contest of wills that damages the relationship
• Being a friendly positional negotiator makes you vulnerable to hard positional negotiators
  • Don’t make concessions “for the relationship” because that will reward stubbornness  
• Every negotiation contains both a negotiation over the subject matter and also a negotiation over the form of the negotiation
• Principled negotiation (as opposed to positional negotiation) has four elements:
  • Separate the people from the problem
  • Focus on interests not positions
  • Invent multiple options designed to secure mutual gain before choosing one path
  • Insist that results be based on some objective standard
• The stages of principled negotiation:
  • Analysis
    • Identify your interests and those of the other side
    • Consider people issues like partisan perceptions, unclear communication, and hostile emotions
    • Note options already on the table
    • Identify criteria already suggested as a basis for agreement
  • Planning
    • Decide how to handle people problems
    • Rank your interests
    • Determine realistic objectives
    • Generate multiple options
  • Discussion
    • Understand the other side’s interests
    • Jointly generate options

II. The Method

2. Separate The People from the Problem

• Positional bargaining frames the negotiation as a contest of will, which conflates substantive and personal issues
• Principled negotiation disentangles the relationship from the substance by dealing directly with the people problem
• People problems come in three categories:
  • Perception
  • Emotion
  • Communication
• Overcoming people problems requires that you “try on” the views of the other side
  • Discuss your perceptions with them; make them explicit
  • Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
  • Give them ownership over the ideas; let them participate in the process
  • Participation -> acceptance
• Understand their emotions and yours
  • Threatening someone’s identity leads to negative emotions
  • Make your team’s emotions explicit; letting off steam makes it easier to talk rationally later
  • “Did I understand you correctly that….”
• Speak to be understood, not to win an argument
  • Speak about yourself, not them
  • Talk about impacts on you not about what they did: e.g., “I feel let down.”

3. Focus on Interests, Not Positions

• Example: Two sides disagree over whether to open a window. An interlocutor asks each side why they hold their position:
  • To let in fresh air
  • To avoid a draft
  • The interlocutor opens the window in the next room, reconciling the two interests in a way that would have been impossible by merely focusing on the two positions
• Identifying interests
  • Ask why: “What’s your basic concern?”
  • Each side has multiple interests
  • Each person on the other side may have different interests
  • Summarize their concerns and supporting examples and confirm that you’ve understood
  • State your reasons and examples before putting forward conclusions
• Enter a negotiation with multiple options in mind
• Attack the problem, not them
• Be tough in defining your interests but not in defining your position

4. Invent Options for Mutual Gain

• Expand the pie before dividing it
• There are four hurdles to doing this
  • Premature judgment
  • Searching for a single answer
  • Assuming a fixed pie
  • Thinking that solving their problem is their problem
• Avoiding premature judgment
  • Brainstorm – even with the other side. Focus on creating many options, not censoring them.
  • Invent both stronger and weaker versions of your position
  • Break the problem into smaller pieces
• Creating options for joint gain
  • Your interests may be compatible because they are different; you can each get what you want. Differences that lead to compatibility include:
    • Value placed on time
    • Forecasts about the future
    • Aversion to risk
    • Different desires
  • Look for items that are of low cost to you and high value to them and things that are of high value to you but low cost to them

5. Insist on Using Objective Criteria

• Trying to settle differences of position based on a contest of will (positional bargaining) has huge costs
• Negotiate on a basis that’s independent of the other side’s will: objective, principled criteria for what constitutes a fair outcome
• You need to:
  • Develop objective criteria
  • Use them in negotiating
• Developing objective criteria
  • Aim for practicality and legitimacy
  • Imagine what you would think of as fair if you had no interest in the outcome
• Using objective criteria in negotiations
  • Frame the issue as a search for an objective standard
  • Only yield to a better argument about what is fair
  • Ask the other side what their theory is for why their suggestion is fair
  • They will find it hard to avoid advancing some theory of fairness

III. Yes, But…

6. What if They Are More Powerful

• Your goals:
  • Protect yourself from making an agreement you should have rejected
  • Make the most of the assets you have in the negotiation
• Have a bottom line; a point past which you’d rather walk than make a deal
  • Be aware, however, that sometimes a bottom line can close your mind to creative options
• Develop and understand your BATNA; your best alternative to a negotiated agreement
  • Invent a list of actions you’d take if no deal is reached
  • Improve the most promising ideas
  • Tentatively select the alternative that seems best
• Consider the other side’s BATNA; if they see no need to negotiate, see if you can change their BATNA

7. What if they won’t play?

• If the other side wants to engage in positional bargaining, counter their moves in a way that directs their attention to the merits
• Look behind their positions
  • Don’t attack their position, look behind it and ask them to justify it
  • What interests lead them to that position?
  • What theory justifies their position?
  • Ask them to elaborate on what would happen if their positions were accepted; this may convince them that they need to improve the options on the table
• Don’t defend your ideas; invite them to criticize them
• Ask them for advice: What would you do in my position?
• Ask questions rather than make statements
• Use silence; if they make an unreasonable proposal, just say nothing
• Bring in a third party who is more amenable to a resolution on the merits
• Examples of statements that characterize an effort to return to principled negotiation:
  • Please correct me if I’m wrong
  • Could I ask you a few questions to be sure my facts are right
  • We appreciate what you’ve done for us
  • Our concern is fairness
  • We would like to settle this on the basis of independent standards, not who can do what to whom
  • Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning

8. What if They Use Dirty Tricks

• Three steps to changing the rules of the game if they use dirty tricks
  • Recognize the tactic
  • Raise the issue explicitly
  • Question the tactic’s legitimacy and negotiate over it
• Example: “I am finding the sun in my eyes quite distracting; unless we solve this problem, I may have to leave early to get some rest. Shall we change the schedule?”
• Ask why they commit themselves to extreme positions: Are you trying to avoid criticism? Is it in our mutual interest to both do this?
• Until you know you can trust someone, negotiate independent of trust. Trust is a separate issue.
• Authority issues
  • Don’t assume that the other side has full authority in the negotiation. They may use your concessions as a floor for negotiation.
  • Ask them “How much authority do you have in this negotiation?”
  • State that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
• Good faith doesn’t require full disclosure; it’s OK to keep some things to yourself
• Don’t make threats, but do issue warnings about what you have to do to protect your interests
  • If they claim you’re making a threat, ask “In our shoes, would you recommend a better way to safeguard our interests?”
• Responding to extreme demands
  • In response to extreme demands, ask them for a principled defense of their position. They may find that it looks ridiculous even to them.
  • They may try to lock themselves in by publicly announcing a position. Swat this aside by saying “We all have our goals, do you want to know what mine are?”

IV. Ten Questions People Ask About Getting to Yes

• Does positional bargaining ever make sense?
  • It’s easy and it works well enough for small, one-off issues
  • But the more complex the issues, the worse positional bargaining works. The greater the complexity, the more important it is to figure out where your interests dovetail with the other side’s.
  • If the other side is a valued client, you want to avoid positional bargaining because you care more about the relationship than the outcome of the deal
  • If it’s important to avoid an arbitrary outcome, as with the depth of the foundation for your house, principled negotiation works best
• What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
  • An agreement based on conflicting standards of fairness will still probably be better than one based on positional bargaining
  • Some standards are more persuasive than others, as when they are more tailored to the case at hand and more in line with modern business practice
• Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?
  • This book is about how to get what you’re entitled to while still getting along with the other side
  • Weigh the benefit of getting more than is fair against:
    • The chance that the result won’t last
    • The damage to other relationships
    • The damage to your reputation
    • Your conscience
  • What do I do if the people are the problem?
    • People’s propensity to be defensive and reactive scuttles many agreements
    • Making concessions as appeasement usually does not improve the relationship
    • Instead, disentangle the relationship issues from the substantive issues
    • Explain your perceptions and feelings and ask them about theirs; don’t judge them or question their motives
    • Don’t respond in kind, that usually produces more of the behavior you don’t want
    • Even apparently irrational behavior usually makes sense if you accept the other person’s perceptions; so try to trace their reasoning to its roots to produce change
• Should I negotiate with bad people? When does it make sense to not negotiate?
  • You should negotiate with terrorists; if you’re trying to influence their decisions, you are negotiating with them even if you’re not having discussions
  • Negotiating with Iran over our hostages benefitted both sides
  • It makes sense to avoid negotiating if you don’t think you can get a better result than your BATNA
  • But don’t assume your BATNA is better than it is; e.g., there is often no viable military option
• How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for different cultures personalities, etc.?
  • Adapt the book’s general advice to the specific situation
  • Pay attention to differences but don’t stereotype; there’s a lot of variation of behavior within any group
• How do I decide tactical questions like where should we meet, how should we communicate, who should make the first offer, and how high should I start?
  • The tactics depend on the specific situation, your goals and your concerns
  • Where should we meet?
    • Change the meeting place to address your concerns. If you’re worried about being interrupted, meet in a place that’s remote.
  • Who should make the first offer?
    • It’s usually best to explore each side’s interests before making an offer
    • Don’t measure the value of an item based on their first offer; do your own research into the market
  • How high should I start?
    • Don’t measure success by how far the other party moves
    • Start with the highest (or lowest) figure you can justify without embarrassment
    • You might not advance it as a firm position, but rather as an idea, so that when you back off of it it doesn’t damage your credibility
  • Strategy is a function of preparation.
    • If you are well prepared, a strategy will suggest itself
    • Strategy cannot compensate for a lack of preparation; be ready for the unexpected
• How do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
  • Think about closure at the outset: What issues need to be resolved? How will the other side sell and explain an agreement to their constituents?
  • Consider using a framework agreement; a template that has blank spaces for all the terms that the parties need to specify
  • Move toward commitment gradually
    • Try to narrow the range of disagreement if you can’t arrive at a specific number
    • When brainstorming, agree that all commitments are tentative
    • Be persistent in pursuing your interests but not in pursuing any specific solution
• How do I try these ideas without taking too much risk?
  • Start small
  • Make an investment
    • Good players recognize that they have to make an investment in a new approach
  • Review your performance
  • Prepare
    • Write out a list of your interests and the other side’s
    • Invent options that satisfy as many of these interests as possible
    • Look for external benchmarks that could persuade a reasonable third party of what to do
    • Consider what benchmarks your counterparty would find persuasive and what benchmarks his constituents would find persuasive
    • Decide what arguments you want to make and what facts you’ll need to make those arguments
    • Decide what commitments you would like each side to make and sketch out a possible framework deal
• Can the way I negotiate make a difference if the other side is more powerful? How do I enhance my negotiating power?
  • You should not expect success if you cannot make the other side an offer that they find more attractive than their BATNA
  • Work on improving your BATNA and on changing theirs
  • Resources are not the same as negotiation power
    • Power depends on the context; US nukes don’t help us free hostages
    • Find resources and potential allies that you can use to tilt the field in your favor
  • Sources of Power
    • Have a good BATNA
      • Develop both your macro-BATNA (what if there’s no deal) and your micro-BATNA: what if you don’t reach an agreement at this meeting
    • People
      • Good relationships make it easier for each side to trust each other and therefore to enter an agreement
    • Interests
      • Understanding your interests and the other side’s very effectively allows you to satisfy them with less cost to you
    • Options
      • The better your brainstorming, the more likely you are to be able to influence others
    • Objective criteria supporting your position
    • Commitment
      • There are three types of commitment:
        • Committing to what you will do, e.g., by making a firm offer
        • Committing to what you will not do
        • Clarifying what commitments you want the other side to make
      • Examples:
        • If you want someone to accept a job, make an offer; if you want someone to change behavior, tell them what they’ll get if they change
        • It can be useful to lock yourself in once you have explored the other side’s interests and brainstormed options
        • Tell the other side what you want them to do so they don’t do nothing because they don’t want to do more than necessary
    • Effective communication
      • Listening well increases the information you have about the other side’s goals and increases your ability to persuade them