Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Getting to Yes - Roger Fisher - Coggle Diagram
Getting to Yes - Roger Fisher
1: THE PROBLEM
1. Don't bargain over positions
Arguing over positions endangers ongoing relationships
each side through power of will attempts to force the other to change its position
anger and resentment often results
becomes a contest of wills
Many parties make positional bargaining even worse
more positions more egos etc.
all the drawbacks are magnified
Arguing over positions is inefficient
creates incentives that stall agreements
requires a large number of individual decisions
decisions are hard
increased time cost and probability that no agreement is reached
Being nice is no answer
will produce a 1 sided agreement
makes you vulnerable to a hard approach as you try and find an amicable solution
2 general positions -
Hard or Soft
Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements
tend to lock into positions
ego becomes identified with position
saving face makes agreement less likely
positions override original concerns of parties
agreements are frequently less than satisfactory
The alternative is
Principled negotiation or negotiation on merits
2: Focus in interests not positions
3: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do
1: Separate the people from the problem
4: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard
3 stages
1: Analysis
2: Planning
3: Discussion
2: Separate the people from the problem
Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship
The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem
we tend to treat the people and problem as one
egos tend to become involved in substantive positions
people often treat comments on substance as facts about the other persons intentions and attitudes towards them(incorrect unfounded inferences)
unless careful this process is almost automatic - we are seldom aware that any other explanation may be equally as valid
Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict
framing a negotiation as a battle of wills aggravates the entangling process
positional bargaining generally means trading relationship with interest
for example if the relationship is more important than the substance of the negotiation then you may concede or you may pay hard ball and break the relationship or threaten to if the opposite is true
giving in on a substantive point though may buy no friendship but may just convince the other side that you can be taken for a ride
often the ongoing relationship is more important than the outcome of the negotiation
Separate the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem
Emotion
Recognize and understand emotions - theirs and yours
ask what is producing the emotions
remember that everyone is a human and they all have hopes dreams fears etc.
write down your emotions & theirs
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
talk about your own
making emotions an explicit focus of discussion will not only clarify the seriousness of the problem and make the negotiation more pro active
talk with the people on the other side about their emotions
freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions people will become more likely to work on the problem
Allow the other side to let off steam
let the other side air their grievances
respond calmly and don't interrupt
let the speaker talk themselves out don't reply to their anger
Don't react to emotional outbursts
control your emotions and don't react with emotion against emotion
use the 1 angry person at a time rule
Use symbolic gestures
an apology can defuse emotions effectively even if it does not accept resposibility
may be one of the least costly most rewarding investments you can make
Communication
Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said
pay close attention, ask them to clarify, ask to repeat if there is confusion or ambiguity
attempt to understand them as they see themselves
interrupt occasionally and confirm back their point to them
repeat back what you have understood them to have said
phrase it positively from their point of view
Speak to be understood
A negotiation is not a debate or a trial
you are 2 judges trying to come to a joint decision
recognize that they may see the situation differently, move forward as 2 people with a joint problem
Speak about yourself not them
rather than condemn the actions and motivations of the other side
talk in terms of your feelings
if you make a statement about them that they feel is not true they will get angry or ignore you
a statement about how you feel is very difficult to dispute
you convey the same information but without provoking a defense reaction
Speak for purpose
before making a statement know what you want to communicate or find out and know what purpose this information will serve
Perception
put yourself in their shoes
how you see the world depends on where you sit
people tend to see what they want to see
people tend to pick and focus on facts that confirm their points of view and ignore those that brings their views into question -
confirmation bias
understanding their point of view may lead to a revision of your own views but it is not a cost it is a benefit. it reduces the area of conflict.
don't deduce their intentions from your fears - people tend to assume that whatever they fear the other side intends to do
don't blame them for your problems - even if justified blaming is often unproductive, under attack the other side will become defensive and will resist what you have to say
separate the people from the problem
discuss each other's perceptions
deal with differing perceptions by making them explicit and discussing them with the other side
don't treat the concerns of the other side that you don't stand in the way of the deal as unimportant
it is ultimately the perceived reality of each side rather than the objective reality that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and must be addressed
look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
the best way to change their perception is to send them a message different from what they expect
face saving: make your proposals consistent with their values
often people will hold out not because the proposal is unacceptable but because they don't want to feel like they backed down
if the substance is then phrased or conceptualized differently so that it seems fair then they will accept
face saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self image of the negotiators - it's important and should not be underestimated
give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process
if they are not involved in the process they are unlikely to approve the product eg. if you dont ask an employee if he wants an assignment with responsibility dont be surprised if he resents it
even if terms of an agreement seem favorable the other side might reject them simply out of suspicion born out of lack of involvement in from drafting them
agreement becomes easier if both parties feel ownership of the ideas
get the other side involved early - ask their advice, give credit for ideas
participation in the process is perhaps the single most important factor in determining whether a negotiator accepts a proposal
Negotiators are people first
people have emotions values beliefs and are unpredictable
always ask:
Am i paying enough attention to the people problem?
Prevention works best
build a personal and organisational relationship with the other side
structure the game so that the problem is separated from the people & egos are protected
Build a working relationship
develop relationship before the negotiation begins
knowing the other side personally really does help
Face the problem not the people
think if yourself as partners with the other side in the search for a fair agreement advantageous for each
say : we are both businessmen unless we try and satisfy your interests we are unlikely to reach an agreement that satisfies mine and vice versa. Lets look at this problem of how to satisfy our collective interests
sit on the same side of the table
deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits
5: Insist on using objective criteria
Deciding on the basis of will is costly
generally negotiators try to resolve conflicts based on positional bargaining - what they are willing or unwilling to accept
no negotiation is likely to be efficient or amicable if you pit your will against theirs
solution is to decide based on something independent of the will of either side
Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently
the more you bring standards of fairness efficiency or scientific merit to a problem the more likely you are to produce a final package the is wise and fair
the more you refer to precedent and community practice the more chance of benefiting from past experience
an agreement consistent with precedent is less vulnerable to attack
a constant battle for dominance threatens relationships, principles negotiation protects it
objective criteria reduces the no. of commitments that each side must make and unmake to get to an agreement
independent standards are even more important when multiple parties are involved
Developing objective criteria
Fair procedures
mediation can be one method
may use taking turns or drawing lots or letting someone else decide
The simple procedure of 1 cuts and the other chooses can be modified and applied to complex negotiations
Fair standards
You will usually find more than 1 objective criteria method
objective criteria needs to be independent of both parties will
should be legitimate and practical
should apply to both sides
The case for objective criteria
Commit yourself to reaching an agreement based on principle not pressure
concentrate on the merits of the problem not the mettle of the parties
be open to reason but closed to threats
Negotiating with objective criteria
2: Reason and be open to reason
it should not be only the objective criteria that you suggest
you should behave like a judge although biased to your own side - look for an objective basis for deciding between differing standards
come to the table with an open mind, don't use precedent and objective criteria as arguments in support of a position
the question of which standard to apply should also not be based on will
if 2 standards deliver differing results but both seem equally legitimate then you could split the difference or ask a third party to decide
3: Never yield to pressure only to principle
You now face the decision of take it or leave it - before you leave it see if you can find some objective criteria that makes their offer a fair one. If you can find one and you would rather have an agreement on that basis do so
if there is no give in their position and you find no principled basis for accepting it then decide what you might gain by accepting rather than going to your best alternative.
If the other side will not advance a persuasive basis for their position then there is no further negotiation.
Invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria that you think may apply and refuse to budge except on this basis. Never yield to pressure only to principle!!
1: Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria
Agree first on principles - before even considering terms you may want to agree on standards to apply
Ask what's your theory
if they suggest the standard then it is easier to agree to it
7. What if they won't play
1: Concentrate on merits
2: Focus on what they may do - negotiation jujitsu
3: focus on what a third party can do - one text mediation method
Negotiation jujitsu
instead of pushing back against their attacks sidestep
Dont attack their position look behind it
Dont defend your ideas invite criticism and advice
Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem
Ask questions and pause
Consider the one text procedure
Become the mediator or have a mediator listen to both sides then come up with a draft agreement and ask for critisicm from both sides - repeat
once the best plan has been found according to the mediator ask if both would like to go ahead
if u cannot change the process to one of seeking a solution perhaps a third party can
separate the people from the problem direct discussion to the interests and options & suggest an impartial for resolving differences
separate inventing from decision making reduce the number of decisions requires and help parties know what they will get when they decide
6: What if they are more powerful
In response to power the most any method of negotiation can do is 2 objectives - 1: protect you against making an agreement you should reject, 2: make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible
1: Protecting yourself (Develop your BATNA - best alternative to a negotiated agreement)
- there is a major danger of becoming too accommodating to the views of the other side , too quick to go along and may end up with a deal you should have rejected
Know your BATNA
the reason to negotiate is to get something better than the result of not negotiation
So the BATNA is the standard against any agreement should be measured
BATNA is flexible enough to permit exploration of imaginative solutions, you can compare any proposed solution to your BATNA to see if it better satisfies your interests
is the only standard that can protect you fro accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in you interest to accept
The insecurity of an unknown BATNA
if you havent thought about what you will do with no agreement then you are negotiating with your eyes closed
one frequent mistake is to see all the alternatives in the aggregate rather than just the best one, you can only have 1 alternative not all at once
the greater likely danger is to be over committed to reaching an agreement. you are overly pessimistic about what would happen if negotiations broke off
if you should or should agree to a proposal depends entirely upon the attractiveness of the best available alternative
The cost of using a bottom line
negotiators often try to protect themselves against a deal they should have rejected by establishing the worst possible outcome eg. the most you would pay or the least you would sell for
limits your ability to your ability to benefit from what you learn in the negotiation - it is a position not to be changed, means that nothing the other party says can cause you to change
it inhibits imagination and reduces the incentive to invent a tailor made solution that is more beneficial to both parties
also likely to be set too high if selling or could be set too low
while bottom line saves you from very bad agreements it may keep you from inventing and agreeing to a better solution - an arbitrary invented figure is no measure of what you should accept
Formulate a trip wire
in order to give you early warning that an agreement is becoming too unattractive it is helpful to come up with a far from perfect agreement that is better than your BATNA
if you get to your tripwire then you should take a break and reexamine the situation
it also leaves you some further room for maneuver
2: Making the most of your assets
Develop you BATNA
- generating possible BATNAS requires 3 operations
Exploration of what you will do if no agreement is reached can greatly strengthen your hand - attractive alternatives are not just sitting there you usually have to develop them
1: inventing a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached
inventing a list of actions and a timescale
2: improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives
adding some meat to the bones of your best alternatives and starting to plan or take action on the best alternatives
3: selecting tentatively the one option that seems best
coming to a preliminary decision as to which option you would like to take
With BATNA in hand judge every offer against it, the better your BATNA the greater you r ability to improve the terms of an agreement. gives greater confidence in negotiation, easier to break off and allows u to more forcefully present your interests
Consider the other side's BATNA
you should think about the other sides BATNA, they may be too optimistic, perhaps under the influence of cumulative totals
the more u can learn of their options the better prepared u will be, if they appear to overestimate their BATNA you will want to lower their expectations
their BATNA might actually be better for them than any fair solution you can imagine
if both sides have an attractive BATNA the best outcome of the negotiation for both parties may be to not reach an agreement. in such cases a successful negotiation is where you and they amicably and efficiently discover that the best way to advance your interests is to look elsewhere and not to try and reach further agreement
The better you BATNA the greater you power
the relative negotiation power of 2 parties depends upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching an agreement
someone with a greater or better BATNA will have the most power in the negotiation
When the other side is powerful
the stronger u are the more u benefit from negotiating on the merits
the larger a role you can establish for principle the better
Having a good BATNA can help u negotiate on merits
your BATNA enables u to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement but likely raises that minimum
3: Focus on interests not positions
For a wise solution reconcile interests not positions
Focus on the why behind the position - the underlying interests
Interests define the problem
the basic problem in negotiation lies not in conflicting positions but in the conflict between each sides needs desires concerns and fears
your positions are something you decided upon
your interests are what caused you to decide
for every interest there are usually a no. of positions that can satisfy it
People often choose the most obvious position - you can often find an alternative position which meets not only your interests but theirs also
behind positions lie many more interests than opposing ones
Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests as well as conflicting ones
we tend to assume that because the other sides positions are opposed to ours then so are their interests
looking more closely will reveal that they have many more shared interests
agreements are often reached because you have opposing interests
How do you identify interests
Ask why not?
ask yourself why the other side has not made that decision that you want them to make
to change their minds you must first figure out where their minds are currently
whose decision do i want to affect
what decision do the other side think you are asking them to make
analyse the consequences as the other side might see them of agreeing or refusing to make the decision you are asking them for
Ask why?
put yourself in their shoes
just ask them why there are taking that position
Realize each side has multiple interests
each side will likely have many interests not just one
each side will have a group of people of whom their interests he is sensitive to eg. boss wife board members etc.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs
in searching for interests look first for the bedrock needs which motivate all people eg.
security
economic well being
sense of belonging
recognition
control over own life
write a list of interests for every negotiation
Talking about interests
the purpose of negotiations is to serve your interests, you are more likely to do this if the other side knows what they are.
Make your interests come alive
explain exactly how important and legitimate your interests are
BE SPECIFIC
invite the other side to correct me if you are wrong
convinve them of the legitmacy of your concerns but take care not ti make their interests seem unimportant
Acknowledge their interests as part of the overall problem to solve
appreciate their interests
listen and summarize their interests back to them
Put the problem before your answer
give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later
Look forward not back
you will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than where you have come from
instead of arguing about the past talk about what you would like to happen in the future
focus on who should do what tomorrow
Be hard on the problem soft on the people
it is wise to commit yourself to your interests
spend your aggression on your interests
strongly advocating for your interests can bring about the most mutually beneficial outcomes
Remember to separate the people from the problem and attack only the problem
support the people, listen with respect, show courtesy, express appreciation - show them that you are only attacking the problem
give positive support to the opposing people in equal proportion to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem
this combo of support and attack creates cognitive dissonance which may aid in getting the other side to join in attacking the problem rather than sticking to their position
take their interests into account and discuss the options be open to their suggestions
successful negotiation requires being both firm and open
4: Invent options for mutual gain
Diagnosis
generally there are 4 major obstacles that inhibit inventing options
2: Searching for the single answer
since the end product is a single decision there is fear that creating a large number of options will only confuse everything
premature closure, looking for the single best answer from the outset short circuits the wiser decision making process where you select from a large number of possible answers
3: The assumption of a fixed pie
often each side sees the situation as either / or - a zero sum game
therefore why bother to invent any other options if the options are obvious and I can only satisfy you at my own expense
1: Premature judgement
inventing options does not come naturally, not inventing is the norm
judgment hinders imagination
4: Thinking that solving their problem is their problem
each side may concern itself with only it's own immediate interests
for a negotiator to reach an agreement that is satisfactory he must develop a solution that meets the self interest of the other side as well
there is often an emotional reluctance to give credence to the ideas of the other side
its seems disloyal to think up options to satisfy the other side
this leads to partisan thinking and one sided solutions
Prescription
4 steps to to invent creative options
2: Broaden the options
Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general - The Circle Chart
The task of inventing options involves 4 types of thinking
4: Actionables - what might be done, what specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem?
3: Approaches - what are possible strategies, what are some theoretical cures, general broad ideas about what might be done
1: Thinking about a specific problem - what's wrong, what are the current symptoms, what are disliked facts compared to a preferred solution
2: Descriptive analysis - diagnose the problem, sort symptoms into categories, suggest causes, observe what is lacking, note barriers to resolving the problem
Look through the eyes of different experts
another way to generate multiple options is to look at the problem from the perspective of different professions or disciplines
look at problem from perspective of doctor or lawyer etc.
also try to use the circle theory above with this method
Invent agreements of different strengths
think of weaker solutions in case best solution cannot be reached
eg, arbitration or provisional agreement
if you cannot reach 1st order agreement at least can reach 2nd order - agree on what you disagree
Change the scope of the proposed agreement
consider the possibility of changing the scope
perhaps segment the problem into smaller more manageable chunks
3: Search for mutual gains
- assumption of a fixed pie is often wrong, not a zero sum game usually there can be mutual gain
Dovetail differing interests
Often satisfactory agreement is only possible because each side wants different things
Agreement is often based on disagreement
In differences lies the potential for a bargain for both sides
Identify shared interests
Shared interests lie latent in every negotiation - not always obvious, ask shared interest in preserving relationship, opportuntities ahead for mutual benefit, costs if negotiations failed, common shared principles like fair pricing
Shared interests are opportunities not god sends
you need to make use of them
helps to make them explicit and frame them as a shared goal
Stressing shared interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable
Ask for their preferences
invent a number of equally acceptable solutions and ask which they prefer
take that option and improve it and present 2 more options and ask for their preference - repeat until you have a plan with no more joint gains
look for items that are low cost to you and high benefit to them and vice versa
1: Separate inventing from deciding
judgment hinders imagination so separate the creative act from the critical one
invent first decide later
do a brainstorming session with colleagues
no criticism
crazy ideas are encouraged
invent ideas without evaluation
Before brainstorming
1: define your purpose
2: choose a few participants - large enough for stimulating exchange small enough to encourage participation 5 - 8
3: change the environment from a normal meeting place to encourage suspension of judgement
4: design an informal atmosphere
5: choose a facilitator - someone to keep it on track, ensure ground rules, ask questions
During brainstorming
1: seat participants side by side facing the problem in semi circle facing a board
2: clarify the ground rules including no criticism rule - start with introductions and outlaw criticism
3: Brainstorm - let your imaginations fly, come up with a list of ideas from every angle
4: Record the ideas in full view - on a whiteboard or a3 sheets
After brainstorming
1: star the most promising ideas - mark the ideas that the group thinks are the best
2: Invent improvements for promising ideas - make the idea as attractive as you can
3: Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide - create an improved list of ideas and set a time for deciding which ideas to advance
Consider brainstorming with the other side
4: Invent ways of making their decisions easy
Making threats is not enough
we often try to influence others by threats and warnings of what would happen if they don't follow our decision, but offers are usually more effective
consider the consequences for the other side of following that decision
to evaluate options from the other sides perspective consider how they would be critiscised if they adopted it
final test of an option is to write it out in the form of a yesable proposal. draft it so that they can respond only with the word yes, it would be sufficient, realistic and operational.
Whose shoes?
Rather than focus on an entity or group attempt to see the negotiation through the eyes of one person on the other side
your job is to help one person on the other side to convince everyone else
If you place yourself in the shoes of your opposite number you will understand their problems and what options will solve them
What Decision?
its easier to refrain from something not being done than to stop action already underway. it is easier to cease something than to take a new course of action.
legitimacy is also an effective persuasion device, develop solutions that will seem legitimate to the other side such as fair legal honorable etc,
try to come up with options that will be easy for them to agree to
try and make options that have precedent things they have done before etc.
What do I want to achieve?
improve at my job
not get angry when having discussions
how can i get better agreements
how can i get better at negotiations
8: What if they use dirty tricks
(Taming the hard bargainer)
3 steps in negotiating thr rules of the game where the other side is using tricky tactics
1:Recognize the tactics
2: Raise the issue explicitly
3: question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability - negotiate over it