Getting to YES: Neogitating Agreeement Without Giving In - Roger Fisher, William Ury
Don’t bargain over positions
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.
Separate the people from the problem.
Focus on interests, not positions.
Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain.
Separate the people from the problem
Negotiators are people first
Failing to deal with others sensitively as human beings prone to human reactions can be disastrous for a negotiation. Whatever else you are doing at any point during a negotiation, from preparation to follow-up, it is worth asking yourself, “Am I paying enough attention to the people problem?”
Every negotiator has two kinds of Interests: In the substance and In the relationship
Anger over a situation may lead you to express anger toward some human being associated with it in your mind. Egos tend to become involved in substantive positions.
To find your way through the jungle of people problems, it is useful to think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication. The various people problems all fall into one of these three baskets.
Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people’s heads.
As useful as looking for objective reality can be, it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution.
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process.
If you want the other side to accept a disagreeable conclusion, it is crucial that you involve them in the proces of reaching that conclusion.
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate.
Allow the other side to let off steam.
People obtain psychological release through the simple process of recounting their grievances.
Don’t react to emotional outbursts. Releasing emotions can prove risky if it leads to an emotional reaction. If not controlled, it can result in a violen quarrel.
Understanding is not agreeing. One can at the same time understand perfectly and disagree completely with what the other side is saying.
Speak about yourself, not about them. In many negotiations, each side explains and condemns at great length the motivations and intentions of the other side. It is more persuasive, however, to describe a problem in terms of its impact on you than in terms of what they did or why
If you make a statement about them that they believe is untrue, they will ignore you or get angry; they will not focus on your concern. But a statement about how you feel is difficult to challenge. You convey the same information without provoking a defensive reaction taht will prevent them from taking it in.
Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve.
Focus on Interests, not Positions
For a wise solution reoconcile interests, not positions
Interest define the problem. The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s needs, desires, concerns, and fears.
You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from.
In most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options" (1) premature judgment; (2) searching for the single answer; (3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and (4) thinking that “solving their problem is their problem.”
To invent creative options, then, you will need (1) to separate the act of inventing options from the act of juding them; (2) to broaden the options on the talbe rather than look for a single answer; (3) to search for mutual gains; and (4) to invent ways of making their decisions easy.
Agree first on principle. Before even considering possible terms, you may want to agree on the standard or standards to apply.
In response to power, the most any method of negotiation cna do is to meet two objectives: first, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible.
Don’t attack their position, look behind it.
Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice.
Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem
The first is to use questions instead of statements. Statements generate resistance, whereas questions generate answers.
Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word.
If you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient answer, just wait. People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence, particularly if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said.
Some of the most efective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking.
Making yourself open to correction and persuasion is a pillar in the strategy of principled negotiation. You can convince the other side to be open to the principles and objective facts you suggest only if you show yourself open to the ones they suggest.