Getting to Yes Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In - April 30, 1992 by William L. Ury, Roger Fisher, Bruce M. Patton Don t Bargain over positions: Principled negotiation as an alternative to a battle of wills
Step 1: Separate the people from the problem Every negotiation has two kinds of interests: In the substance In the relationship Deal with the relationship issues directly not through the substance: Keep in mind that the best time for handling people problems is before they become problems. That means building personal and organizational working relationship. Be hard on the problem soft on the people
Interests in the Relationship Perception: put yourself in their shoes, avoid blame (even if justified), recognize that people have emotions, values, different backgrounds/viewpoints, are unpredictable, and first and foremost, recognize that it is the same for you. Emotion: first recognize emotions (theirs and yours); make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate; allow the other side to let off steam; don t react to emotional outbursts Communication: talk to each other; not to impress third parties or your own constituency; Listen, don t just think about what you are going to say next or how you will frame your next argument; Misunderstanding can be a source of the problem and/or can compound the problem listen actively and acknowledge what is being said
Step 2: Focus on interests, not positions Because a problem appears to be a conflict of positions people reach an impasse and become entrenched in their positions. In fact it is the underlying interests behind the positions that matter. The conflict is not between positions but between each side s needs, desires, concerns, and fears. Your position is what you have decided, your interests are what caused you to so decide. Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones To identify interests ask why; realize that each side has multiple interests; make a list; acknowledge each other s interests Look forward not back; be concrete but flexible
Step 3: Invent options for mutual gain Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process Make your proposal consistent w/their values (explain how each option is consistent w/principle, law, precedent) Common mistakes in inventing options: making premature judgments (no bad suggestions in the list of options); searching for the single answer; assuming there is a fixed-sum game; thinking that solving their problem is their problem Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them Search for mutual gains Invent ways to make their decision easier.
Step 4: Insist on using objective criteria You will almost always face the situation of interests that conflict Deciding on the basis of will is costly: people tend to negotiate one of two ways soft or hard; the soft negotiator makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement, but often ends up exploited and feeling bitter; the hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme position and holds out longer wins. The method here is neither hard nor soft, it is principles, based on independently objective criteria Try putting yourselves in the role of two judges trying to reach agreement on how to decide a case
Objective Criteria I.e.: Market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, moral standards or agreed upon foundational values, equality, tradition, reciprocity, etc. Could alternatively be agreed upon fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests: mediator, court, vote, etc. Must be independent of each side s will Negotiate over objective criteria
What if the people are the problem? The human propensity for defensive and reactive behavior is one reason so many negotiations fail when agreement would otherwise make sense (go to the balcony as if you are watching a play DON T REACT) Explain your perceptions and feelings and inquire into theirs. Propose external standards or fair principles to determine how you should deal with each other and decline to give in to pressure tactics. Frame your discussion as looking forward, not back BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
BATNA Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement Your time prior to a negotiation is often best spent on determining and improving your BATNA A party should generally not accept a worse resolution than its BATNA Care should be taken, however, to ensure that deals are accurately valued, taking into account all considerations, such as: Relationship value Time Money Likelihood that the other party will live up to their side of the bargain These other considerations are often difficult to value, since they are frequently based on uncertain or qualitative considerations, rather than easily measurable and quantifiable factors. The BATNA is often seen by negotiators not as a safety net, but rather as a point of leverage in negotiations (what do you think I will do if we cannot reach an agreement?)
Negotiation topics Right to work (Government and NGO) Alternatives to Detention (Director of Immigration Center and NGO) Advocating on behalf of a particular refugee to get access to a particular hospital (Hospital administrator, NGO) Advocating on behalf of a particular refugee to get access to a particular school (School principal, NGO) Advocating to bring Syrians through resettlement to your country (Prime Minister s office, NGO) Is it time to promote voluntary repatriation for Burmese refugees (E.U. Donor, NGO)