This article is an excerpt from the Shortform summary of "Getting to Yes" by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Shortform has the world's best summaries of books you should be reading.
Like this article? Sign up for a free trial here .
In times of conflict, it’s natural to look for someone to blame. But are people really the problem? How can you separate the people from the problem? And why should you?
In negotiation, or any conflict, it’s vital to separate the people from the problem. Use this guide to separate a person’s perceptions, emotions, and words from the real issue at hand, and learn how this can help you negotiate successfully.
Why Separate the People From the Problem?
In negotiations, it’s crucial that you separate the people from the problem. People are not the problem, and if you approach an issue as if they are, you likely won’t get anywhere.
Handling people sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for successful negotiation. Continually ask yourself whether you’re separating the people from the problem and learning to effectively deal with both.
Separating Substance From Relationship
Negotiators are always dealing with two issues: the substance of the negotiations and the relationship between the two sides. Both issues are important. For instance, a store owner wants to make a profit on a sale (substance), but also create a return customer by sending her away happy the first time (relationship). If he overcharges, he may make a profit, but he’ll damage his relationship with the customer and she may not return.
Obviously, people and their emotions are driving factors in the relationship issue. But you should separate the people from the problem because the relationship issue is separate from the substance.
Most negotiations involve a long-term relationship that’s important to maintain. For instance, union members and bosses must be able to work together for a strong company bottom line and job stability. In some instances, the relationship may be more important than the immediate negotiated results. This is another good reason to separate the people from the problem.
Because the relationship involves people and their emotions, it gets intertwined with the substance of the negotiations. For example, you may think you’re simply pointing out a problem (“The warehouse is a mess”), but someone on the other side may take it as a personal attack or blaming. Or, when people hear comments on substance, they may infer something negative about the speaker’s attitude toward them. We often conflate problems and people without realizing we’re doing it. This is dangerous. If you don’t separate the people from the problem, you end up being offended (or offending someone else) rather than finding a mutually advantageous solution.
Positional bargaining tends to pit people against each other — someone’s tough position can be taken to mean she doesn’t care about the relationship or the other person.
However, dealing with differences of substance needn’t conflict with having a good relationship if the parties are committed to treating substance and relationship separately, each on its merits, and separating the people from the problem. For instance, deal with hurt feelings or anger directly rather than trying to appease the aggrieved person by making a concession on substance. Use psychological techniques, such as testing assumptions, educating, giving people an opportunity to vent, and improving communications.
Dealing with People Problems
In the context of negotiation, human problems generally fall into three categories: perception, emotion, and communication. All three cause us to conflate “people problems” with the actual issue at hand, keeping us from separating the people from the problem. Before dealing with the problem, you need to deal with the perceptions, emotions, and communications of the people.
Perception: Understanding the Other Side’s Thinking
When people or nations are in conflict, they usually focus on something concrete: an object (a disputed possession, for instance) or an event (like a car accident). They focus on getting more information about the item or occurrence, but the facts aren’t the problem — it’s the parties’ beliefs or perceptions about the facts. For instance, if one person lost a watch and another found it, they may agree on the facts or circumstances, but not on who should get it. To sort out the problem, you need to first separate the people from the problem and sort out people’s differing perceptions.
Differing perceptions of an issue present a problem in negotiations initially, but also an opportunity for a solution if people can understand each other’s perceptions and even revise their own. Here are a few tips for understanding another’s perceptions:
See the issue through the other person’s eyes: How you see things depends on your vantage point. People see what they want to see, selecting facts that support their preconceived notions, and discarding contrary facts. The ability to see things from the other side’s perspective is a key negotiating skill. This is one way you can separate the people from the problem.
To be able to influence them, you must understand their view, not just in the abstract but empathetically. Make yourself withhold judgment while putting yourself in their shoes. You don’t need to agree with their view, just to understand it. If you do end up revising your own view as a result, that’s a plus because you’ve reduced the scope of your dispute.
Don’t make assumptions about the other side’s intentions. We often make assumptions about what other people intend based on our own biases and fears. For instance, consider the assumptions you’d make in this scenario: A man at a bar offers a woman a ride home, but he takes an unfamiliar route, which he says is a shortcut. Your likely assumption (based on your fears) is that he intends to harm her, but he could indeed be taking a shortcut that gets her home earlier than expected. When we interpret whatever the other side says or does negatively based on our existing perceptions, we overlook new ideas or changes the other side is making in their position.
Don’t blame the other person for a problem. Even if justified, blaming the other side is counterproductive. It provokes a counterattack or defensive response. It also means you’ve both stopped listening. To talk about a problem, describe the symptoms rather than assigning personal blame.
———End of Preview———
Like what you just read? Read the rest of the world's best summary of "Getting to Yes" at Shortform . Learn the book's critical concepts in 20 minutes or less .
Here's what you'll find in our full Getting to yes summary :
- Why the standard way of negotiating is completely wrong
- How to find outcomes that are wins for both sides
- How to protect yourself against aggressive negotiators
