Negotiation getting to yes

Negotiation - Getting to Yes Tong Ka Io 2011.07.19

Roger Fisher and William Ury. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In . 2 nd ed. Random House Business Books

Negotiation It is back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed

提綱討價還價按原則的談判實力和茅招總結

Like it or not, you are a negotiator Negotiation is a fact of life Everyone negotiates something every day Negotiation is a basic mean of getting what you want from others People differ, and they use negotiation to handle their differences

Positional bargaining Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise Depends upon successively taking – and then giving up – a sequence of positions

Soft Hard Participants are friends Participants are adversaries The goal is agreement The goal is victory Make concessions to cultivate the relationship Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship Be soft on the people and the problem Be hard on the problem and the people Trust others Distrust others Change your position easily Dig in to your position Make offers Make threats Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line Accept one-sided losses to reach agreement Demand one-sided gains as the price of agreement Search for the single answer: the one they will accept Search for the single answer: the one you will accept Insist on agreement Insist on your position Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will Yield to pressure Apply pressure

Orange experiment 你是高級餐廳大廚正準備一重要晚宴二廚和三廚負責的菜色都需要一個橙但頂級的橙只剩一個二廚和三廚爭得面紅耳赤來找你……

Solution? 切開一人一半重要性 / 優先性輪流抽籤 …… 授權

真相二廚做的橙汁豆腐，需要一個橙的汁三廚做的是蜜橙皮，需要一個橙的皮

Three criteria of successful negotiation Produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible Be efficient Improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties

Wise agreement Meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible Resolves conflicting interests fairly Is durable Takes community interests into account

Soft negotiator Wants to avoid personal conflict and so makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement Wants an amicable resolution Often ends up exploited and feeling bitter

Hard negotiator Sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme positions and holds out longer fares better Wants to win Often ends up producing an equally hard response which exhausts him and his resources and harms his relationship with the other side

Arguing over positions Produces unwise agreements Is inefficient Endangers an ongoing relationship Is even worse when there are many parties Being nice is no answer

1) Produces unwise agreements Locking into positions and “saving face” Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of difference

2) Is inefficient Requires a large number of individual decisions Creates incentives that stall settlement Starting with an extreme position, stubbornly holding to it, deceiving the other party as to your true views Dragging one’s feet, threatening to walk out, stonewalling

3) Endangers an ongoing relationship Become a battle Anger and resentment often result as one side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go unaddressed

4) Is even worse when there are many parties Reciprocal concessions are difficult Leads to the formation of coalitions, often more symbolic than substantive Becomes more difficult to develop a common position, and worse, much harder to change it

5) Being nice is no answer Runs the risk of producing a sloppy agreement Makes you vulnerable to someone who plays a hard game

An alternative Change the game Principled negotiation Developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project A method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably Can be boiled down to four basic points: people, interests, options, criteria

Four basic points Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem Focus on INTERESTS , Not Positions Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA

1. Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem Before working on the substantive problem, the “people problem” should be disentangled from it and dealt with separately Participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other

2. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions Position = something you have decided upon Interests = what caused you to so decide = desires and concerns To satisfy people’s underlying interests

3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain Setting aside a designated time within which to think up a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests

4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA Insisting that single say-so is not enough and that the agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side

Be soft on the people, hard on the problem Positional Bargaining Principled Negotiation Soft Hard Participants are friends Participants are adversaries Participants are problem-solvers The goal is agreement The goal is victory The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably Make concessions to cultivate the relationship Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship Separate the people from the problem Be soft on the people and the problem Be hard on the problem and the people Be soft on the people, hard on the problem Trust others Distrust others Proceed independent of trust Change your position easily Dig in to your position Focus on interests, not positions Make offers Make threats Explore interests Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line Avoid having a bottom line Accept one-sided losses to reach agreement Demand one-sided gains as the price of agreement Invent options for mutual gain Search for the single answer: the one they will accept Search for the single answer: the one you will accept Develop multiple options to choose from; decide later Insist on agreement Insist on your position Insist on using objective criteria Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will Try to reach a result based on standards independent of will Yield to pressure Apply pressure Reason and be open to reasons; yield to principle, not pressure

1. Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem Negotiators are people first Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem

People Substance People Substance

1.1. Separate the relationship from the substance Dealing with a substantive problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits Base the relationship on accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotions, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook Deal with people problems directly; don’t try to solve them with substantive concessions

1.2. Deal directly with the people problem To deal with psychological problems, use psychological techniques To find your way through the jungle of people problem, it is useful to think in terms of three basic categories: perception , emotion , and communication

1.2.1. Perception Put yourself in their shoes Don’t deduce their intentions from your fear Don’t blame them for your problem ; even if blaming is justified, it is usually counterproductive; separate the symptoms from the person Discuss each other’s perceptions Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values

1.2.2. Emotion First recognize and understand 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 Adopt the rule that only one person could get angry at a time Use symbolic gestures

1.2.3. Communication Three big problems: not be talking to each other ; forget to listen ; misinterpret Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said Speak to be understood Reduce distracting effect Speak about yourself, not about them Speak for a purpose

1.2.4. Prevention works best Build a working relationship Face the problem, not the people It helps to sit literally on the same side of a table and to have in front of you the contract, the map, the blank pad of paper, or whatever else depicts the problem

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance

2. Focus on INTEREST, Not Positions For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions How do you identify interests? Talking about interests

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance Position Interests People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance Position Interests

2.1. For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions Interests define the problem For every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones

2.2. How do you identify interests? Ask “ Why? ” – Put yourself in their shoes Ask “ Why not? ” – Think about their choice Realize that each side has multiple interests The most powerful interests are basic human needs Make a list

2.3. Talking about interests Make your interests come alive Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem Put the problem before your answer Look forward, not back Be concrete but flexible Be hard on the problem, soft on the people

Be hard on the problem, soft on the people It is wise to commit yourself to your interests Attack the problem without blaming the people Give positive support to the human being on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem Be both firm and open

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance Position Interests Procedure - Principled People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance Position Interests Procedure - Positional

3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain The ability to invent solutions advantageous to both is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have

People usually believe that they know the right answer

ZOPA = Zone of Possible Agreement Often you are negotiating along a single dimension and see the choice as one between winning and losing

Prescription Separate inventing from deciding Broaden your options Look for mutual gain Make their decision easy

3.1. Separate inventing from deciding Before brainstorming During brainstorming After brainstorming Consider brainstorming with the other side

3.2. Broaden your options Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The Circle Chart Look through the eyes of different experts Invent agreements of different strengths Change the scope of a proposed agreement

3.3. Look for mutual gain Identify shared interests Dovetail differing interests Ask for their preferences

3.4. Make their decision easy Whose shoes? What decision? Making threats is not enough

4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA Developing objective criteria Negotiating with objective criteria

4.1. Developing objective criteria Fair standards Fair procedures

4.2. Negotiating with objective criteria Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria “ What’s your theory? ” Reason and be open to reason Never yield to pressure

Pressure Bribe Threat Manipulative appeal to trust Simply refusal to budge

What If They Are More Powerful?

Power ≠ Resource People think of negotiating power as being determined by resources like wealth, political connections, physical strength, friends, and military might In fact, the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement (BATNA)

Some things you can’t get The best negotiator in the world will not be able to buy the White House You should not expect success in negotiation unless you are able to make the other side an offer they find more attractive than their BATNA

2 objectives in response to power Protecting yourself Know your BATNA Formulate a trip wire Making the most of your assets Develop your BATNA Consider the other side’s BATNA

BATNA ≠ bottom line “ Bottom line” = worst acceptable outcome established in advance Arbitrarily selected, likely to be set too high Limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation Inhibits imagination to invent a tailor-made solution which would reconcile differing interests in a way more advantageous for both

BATNA Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement Ex. Instead of selling a house at an agreed price, you may rent it The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement

Developing your BATNA Inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached Improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives Selecting, tentatively, the one option that seems best

How you negotiate makes a big difference Don’t ask, “Who’s more powerful?” There are many sources of negotiation power Make the most of your potential power

Enhance your negotiation power Developing a good working relationship between the people negotiating Understanding interests Inventing an elegant option Using external standards of legitimacy Developing a good BATNA To worsen the other side’s BATNA Making a carefully crafted commitment

Negotiation power is not a zero-sum phenomenon . You will often benefit from the other side’s increasing ability to influence you The more clearly you understand the other side’s concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy them at minimum cost to yourself Convincing the other side that you are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments you can make

Micro-BATNA – if no agreement is reached at this meeting, what is the best outcome? Use each source of power in harmony with other sources Believe what you say and say what you believe

What If They Won’t Play? What you can do Principled negotiation What they may do Negotiation jujitsu What a third party can do One-text mediation procedure

Negotiation jujitsu 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 Ask question and pause

One-text procedure Mediator asks parties about their interests Develops a list of interests and needs and asks parties to criticize and suggest improvements Prepares sequential drafts and asks for criticism until no more improvement can be made

Stock phrases Please correct me if I’m wrong We appreciate what you’ve done for us Our concern is fairness We would like to settle this on the basis not of selfish interest and power but of principle Trust is a separate issue Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right What’s the principle behind your action Let me see if I understand what you’re saying Let me get back to you Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning One fair solution might be …… If we agree …… If we disagree …… We’d be happy to see if we can leave when it’s most convenient for you It’s been a pleasure dealing with you

What If They Use Dirty Tricks?

Dirty Tricks Tricky tactics are illegitimate because they fail the test of reciprocity Negotiate about the rules of game Don’t be a victim

Negotiate about the rules of game Recognize the tactic Raise the issue explicitly Question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability Negotiate over it Separate the people from the problem Focus on interests, not positions Invent options for mutual gain Insist on using objective criteria

Common tricky tactics Deliberate deception Phony facts Ambiguous authority Dubious intentions

Responses to deliberate deception Unless you have good reason to trust somebody, don’t, making the negotiation proceed independent of trust Verifying factual assertions Do not assume that the other side has full authority Make the problem explicit and use their protestations to get a guarantee

Psychological warfare Stressful situations : physical circumstances Personal attacks : comment on you, making you wait, interrupting, refuse to listen, make you repeat, refuse to make eye contact …… The good-guy / bad-guy routine Threats

Responses to psychological warfare If you find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so Recognizing the tactic and bringing it up What is your principle? Ignore threats, to be principled

Positional pressure tactics: structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions Refusal to negotiate Extreme demands Escalating demands Lock-in tactics Hardhearted partner A calculated delay “ Take it or leave it”

Responses to positional pressure tactics Recognize the tactics as a possible negotiating ploy; talk about that, find out their interests and suggest some options; insist on using principles Ask for principled justification Call it to their attention and take a break to consider Interpret lock-ins as goal and resist on principle Get his agreement to the principle involved and speak directly with the “hardhearted partner” Create a fading opportunity Look for a face-saving way

Don’t be a victim Is this an approach I would use in dealing with a good friend or a member of my family? I want to know the rules of the game we’re going to play. Are we both trying to reach a wise agreement as quickly and with as little effort as possible? Or are we going to play hard bargaining where the more stubborn fellow wins? It is easier to defend principle than an illegitimate tactic

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance Position Interests Procedure - Principled People - Perception - Emotion - Communication Substance Position Interests Procedure - Positional - Dirty tricks Tong KI 2011

Conclusion You knew it all the time Learn from doing “ Winning” Better process for dealing with differences Getting what you deserve Being decent

Q1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense? In virtually every case, the outcome will be better for both sides with principled negotiation. The issue is whether it is worth the extra effort How important is it to avoid an arbitrary outcome? How complex are the issues? How important is it to maintain a good working relationship? What are the other side’s expectations, and how hard would they be to change? Where are you in the negotiation?

In single-issue negotiations among strangers where the transaction costs of exploring interests would be high and where each side is protected by competitive opportunities, simple haggling over positions may work fine

Q2: What if the other side believes in a different standard or fairness? In most negotiation there will be no one “right” or “fairest” answer Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another Agreement on the “best” standard is not necessary, the parties can explore tradeoffs or resort to fair procedures to settle the remaining differences

Q3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be? How much is the difference worth to you? Will the unfair result be durable? What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationships? Will your conscience bother you?

Q4: What do I do if the people are the problem? People problems often require more attention than substantive ones. The human propensity for defensive and reactive behavior is one reason so many negotiations fail Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement Negotiate the relationship Distinguish how you treat them from how they treat you Deal rationally with apparent irrationality

A good working relationship is one that can cope with differences. Such a relationship cannot be bought by making substantive concessions or by pretending that disagreements do not exist. Making an unjustified concession now is unlikely to make it easier to deal with future differences

There is no need to emulate unconstructive behavior. Doing so may indeed “teach them a lesson”, but often not the lesson we would like. In most cases responding in kind reinforces the behavior we dislike. Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer, and to avoid any reward for the behavior we dislike

Recognize that while people often do not negotiate rationally, it is worth trying to yourself – in a mental hospital, we do not want crazy doctors Question your assumption that others are acting irrationally. These people are reacting rationally to the world as they see it. In quire emphatically, taking their feelings seriously and trying to trace their reasoning to its roots

Q5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists, or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate? However unsavory the other side, unless you have a better BATNA, the question you face is not whether to negotiate, but how We should negotiate if negotiation holds the promise of achieving an outcome that, all things considered, meets our interests better than our BATNA If your BATNA is fine and negotiation looks unpromising, there is no reason to invest much time in negotiation

Q6: How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? Get in step Adapt our general advice to the specific situation Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, but avoid stereotyping individuals Question your assumptions; listen actively

Q7: What about practical questions like, “where should we meet?” “Who should make the first offer?” and “How high should I start?” We have no all-purpose medicines. Good tactical advice requires knowledge of specific circumstance To explore interests, options, and criteria for a while before making an offer To start with the highest figure that you would try to persuade a neutral third party was fair To put out a standard and a figure without committing to it at all Strategy depends on preparation

Q8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments? Think about closure from the beginning Consider crafting a framework agreement Move toward commitment gradually Be persistent in pursuing your interests, but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution Make an offer Be generous at the end

Q9: What is the best way to try out these ideas without taking too much risk? Start small Make an investment Review your performance Prepare – negotiation power requires hard work in advance

Q10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference, if the other side is more powerful? And, How do I enhance my negotiating power? Some things you can’t get How you negotiate makes a big difference “ Resources” are not the same as “negotiation power” Don’t ask, “Who’s more powerful?” There are many sources of negotiation power Make the most of your potential power

Negotiation power Developing a good working relationship between the people negotiating Understanding interests Inventing an elegant option Using external standards of legitimacy Developing a good BATNA Making a carefully crafted commitment

Negotiation power is not a zero-sum phenomenon. You will often benefit from the other side’s increasing ability to influence you The more clearly you understand the other side’s concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy them at minimum cost to yourself Convincing the other side that you are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments you can make

Negotiation getting to yes

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Negotiation getting to yes

More from Aman Tong

Recently uploaded

Negotiation getting to yes