PDF Summary:Getting to Yes, by Roger Fisher and William Ury

...

Whichever method people use, there’s a tension between getting along with people and getting what you want.

By contrast, principled negotiation combines elements of these approaches — there are times to be tough and times be lenient. In addition, the method aims to decide issues on their merits (facts and evidence), rather than on what’s acceptable/unacceptable to each side, and to look for mutual gains. Where interests conflict, results are based on fair, objective standards.

Principled negotiators avoid games. Each side’s goal is to get only what they’re entitled to while being civil and to be fair but avoid being taken advantage of. The process is transparent rather than dependent on hiding your real goal or strategy from the other side.

Part one of the book discusses problems created by the standard method of bargaining — positional bargaining. The next four parts describe the four key elements of the alternative method of principled bargaining. The remaining parts describe procedures and tactics and how to deal with challenges, including a power imbalance between the sides.

Anyone can use principled negotiation and it can be applied to any issue.

...

The greater the emphasis on positions, the less attention is paid to what each side really wants (the interests underlying their positions) and the less likely they are to reach a good agreement. Instead, the agreement will reflect a splitting of differences rather than addressing the valid interests of the parties. Both sides may end up dissatisfied and will have missed the opportunity for a good agreement.

2) Positional bargaining is inefficient: The give-and-take of standard negotiations, even when the parties aren’t hostile, is time-consuming. The process has built-in features that slow things down, such as starting with an unreasonable position and making incremental concessions. These common tactics work against a prompt settlement. Negotiation requires multiple individual decisions on offers, rejections, and concessions, each of which is an opportunity to stall. On top of that, negotiators can use deliberate delaying tactics and tricks such as threatening to walk out.

3) Positional bargaining undermines the ongoing relationship between the parties: When negotiations become a struggle of wills with each side trying to force its position on the other, anger and...

...

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. 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.

Psychological Problems

In the context of negotiation, human problems generally fall into three categories: perception, emotion, and communication.

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....

...

Reconciling interests works better than trying to compromise on positions because:

• For every shared interest, there are several positions that would satisfy it. But people often pick the most obvious position, and don’t move to another if it doesn’t work.
• Behind conflicting positions, there are more shared interests than conflicting ones.

You may neglect to look for shared interests because you assume that because the other side opposes your position, your interests and theirs are in opposition too. In reality, some underlying interests may be shared among all parties.

For example, if you have an interest in holding the line on your rent, you might think your landlord wants to raise it. However, the landlord may have a different, higher-priority interest, which you share: having a well-maintained property. A compromise might lie in keeping the rent down in exchange for the tenant making improvements to the apartment. A shared, complementary interest is the basis for an agreement.

How to Identify Interests

Identifying interests isn’t as clear-cut as presenting or understanding a position. While positions tend to be concrete, interests, whether yours or the...

...

How to Increase the Options

To invent creative options, separate the act of inventing from judging, broaden the options beyond a single answer, search for mutual gains, and make decisions easy.

Separate Inventing from Deciding

Since judgment gets in the way of imagination, set up a brainstorming session for your side to come up with creative ideas that can be winnowed and refined later.

• To get started with brainstorming: Establish your purpose: what do you want to leave the meeting with? Choose a small group of participants (five to eight). Choose a time and place conducive to creativity. Choose a facilitator to keep things on track.
• During brainstorming: Sit facing a whiteboard. Ban criticism and clarify other ground rules. Brainstorm — come up with a long list of ideas, approaching the topic from every angle. List the ideas on the whiteboard.
• After brainstorming: Identify the most promising ideas. Relax the no-criticism rule. Think of ways to improve on the best ideas and implement them. Set up a time to finalize the list, deciding which ideas to put on the table for negotiation.

**Brainstorming with people from the other side can...

...

Objective standards are:

• Independent of either side’s position.
• Applicable to both sides.
• Practical and credible.

Besides having fair standards, you must use fair procedures in applying them. The old childhood rule for dividing a cake (one cuts, the other chooses) is one example. A modified version would be for the parties to negotiate what they think is a fair agreement before deciding who will get what.

Other fair procedures include: taking turns, drawing straws, flipping a coin, or letting someone else decide. The point is that each side has equal opportunity under the procedure. For instance, heirs could take turns selecting items they want from a family estate.

In many disputes it’s common to turn to a third party for help: you could submit the dispute to binding arbitration, hire a mediator, or submit a question to an expert.

How to Negotiate with Fair Standards

When using objective standards, you should be firm but reasonable. Follow these guidelines:

• With each issue you discuss, consider objective criteria. Agree first on the standards to apply (the principles). You’ll be more persuasive if you can make your case using criteria...

...

• Many people are more comfortable asking tough questions on the phone than face-to-face.
• People pay closer attention to content when they don’t have visual or audio cues, such as tone of voice or facial expressions. Objections may have more impact when delivered in writing via email.
• Email allows time for reflection and research before answering.
• Emails and texts before the start of negotiations can create a personal connection before getting into substance. The connection may help promote cooperation and increase the chance of agreement.

However, beware of the potential drawbacks of non face-to-face communication:

• Results can vary depending on the method of communication. One study showed written interactions can lead to impasses.
• There’s a greater potential for misunderstanding or lying.
• Lack of visual cues can make messages more difficult to interpret and decrease our empathy.

To prevent problems with non face-to-face communication:

• Try to have an initial meeting in person or by phone, as well as periodic check-ins in-person or by phone.
• Reread your messages several times before sending them; make the context and your reasoning...

...

Human problems in negotiation can crop up around issues of personality, gender, or culture. While people share certain basic needs, such as being loved and respected, we differ on many other levels. Here are some guidelines for recognizing and adjusting to differences.

• Get in sync. Be aware of and adapt to the perceptions, values, customs or norms, and feelings of the people you’re dealing with. To influence them in negotiations you need to understand where they’re coming from. Differing preferences and styles may include: whether the atmosphere is relaxed or formal, how close to each other people sit, whether the conversation is direct or indirect, whether the relationship extends beyond business, and who serves as spokesperson for each side.
• Adapt this book’s general advice to your specific situation. Use the approach but adapt the principles to the context. For instance, consider where you are (environment, community, or country) and local or industry customs.
• Be aware of differing beliefs and customs, but don’t stereotype. Individuals’ attitudes and characteristics may differ from those of their group (for instance, not all Japanese prefer...