2
Getting to Yes – A Summary
Negotiating Agreement without Giving In
Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce M. Patton
Key Points
•
Any negotiation where the relationship is the primary concern runs the risk of producing
a shabby agreement.
•
Separate the people from the problem.
•
"Focus on interests, not positions."
•
Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
•
Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.
•
Determine your BATNA - the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.
•
Your power in negotiations is tied directly to the quality of your BATNA, not resources
such as wealth, physical strength or political connections.
•
Use questions instead of statements, and use silence as a weapon.
•
Ask questions, then pause. You are doing some of your most effective negotiating when
you are not talking.
•
When all else fails, call in a third party mediator.
Judging Negotiation Styles: Hard vs. Soft
The most common form of negotiation involves successively taking on and giving up positions.
The two sides bargain over positions and lock themselves into their individual stances. In its
standard form, this kind of positional bargaining requires many separate decisions (what to
offer, what to reject, how big a concession to make). The process is difficult and tedious. Tactics
such as stonewalling or threatening to walk out become common. Positional bargaining
increases the time and cost of reaching an agreement and the risk that none will be produced at
all. The contest of wills strains and shatters relationships. Bitter feelings may last a lifetime.
Many people recognize the risk of hard positional bargaining and take a softer approach. They
treat the other side as friends and emphasize agreement as their goal, rather than victory. It is
standard to make offers and concessions, to be amiable and trust the other side, and to yield to
avoid confrontation. Much negotiating within families and among friends takes place this way.
This is efficient in producing agreements quickly, but the agreements may not be wise ones that
take each party’s underlying interests into account. Any negotiation where the relationship is the
primary concern runs the risk of producing a shabby agreement. Those who pursue soft,
friendly positional bargaining are vulnerable to a negotiator who plays hard.
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
3
“Principled negotiation will produce over the long run substantive outcomes
as good or better than you are likely to obtain using any other negotiation
strategy. In addition, it should prove efficient and less costly to relationships.”
Change the Game
Should you use soft or hard positional bargaining? Neither. Instead, "change the game." The
Harvard Negotiation Project developed an alternative: "Principled Negotiation" or "negotiation on
the merits," which has four basic points:
1. People - Human beings don’t communicate clearly and they mix their egos with their
positions. Attack the problem instead of the people
2. Interests - Pay attention to interest areas to overcome the flaw of concentrating on
stated positions. "Focus on interests not positions." Work to satisfy the underlying
interests that led the parties to adopt their positions in the first place.
3. Options - Designing optimal solutions while under pressure is hard. Having to make
decisions in the presence of your adversary narrows your vision. If you have a lot at
stake, or spend all your time searching for one perfect solution, you may inhibit your
creativity. To offset these barriers, set a designated time for generating possible
solutions and options that advance shared interests and creatively settle differences.
4. Criteria - Some negotiators can get what they want simply by being stubborn. Counter
such a negotiator by insisting that a single voice is not enough. Demand that the
agreement reflect a fair "objective criteria," independent of each side’s mere desires.
Base the terms on unbiased standards such as market value, expert opinion, custom or
law. No one has to give in. Both sides can work together for a fair solution.
“Separating the people from the problem allows you to deal directly and
empathetically with the other negotiator as a human being, thus making
possible an amicable agreement.”
Can these principles work if the other side has a stronger bargaining position or is richer or
better connected? What use is talking about interests, options or standards in that case? Every
negotiation has inflexible realities. What if, while you are attacking the problem on its merits,
they attack you? No method can succeed if the other side has all the leverage. The most any
negotiating method can do is protect you from accepting an agreement you should reject and
help you make the most of the assets you have. While talking about interests, options and
standards is wise, efficient and genial, have a strategy if the other side won’t play. Try to change
the game back to a "principled negotiation."
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
4
Using a "Bottom Line"
One way negotiators try to protect themselves from a bad outcome is by establishing a worst
acceptable outcome, or "bottom line," to help them resist the pressures and temptations of the
moment. But, this protection involves high costs. If you decide in advance that nothing the other
side says could make you change your bottom line, you limit your ability to use what you learn
during the negotiation. The bottom line is almost guaranteed to be too rigid. It inhibits
imagination and undermines the incentive to create a custom-made solution.
“The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how
attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement.”
Know Your BATNA
A bottom line may protect you from a very bad agreement, but it may also keep you from
devising a solution it would be wise to accept. The alternative to a bottom line is to identify your
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Measure any proposed agreement
against this standard. It will protect you from accepting a very bad agreement and keep you
from rejecting an agreement that is in your interest. A BATNA is flexible enough to allow the
investigation of creative solutions. Compare your proposal to your BATNA to see which better
satisfies your interests.
“What is true for negotiations between individuals is equally true for
negotiations between organizations.”
If you do not think carefully about your BATNA, you are negotiating with your eyes closed. You
may be too optimistic, thinking that you have many other choices. Even if your alternative is
fixed, without thinking carefully about it you may not appreciate the consequences of activating
that alternative (a lawsuit, contested divorce or strike). Being too committed to reaching an
agreement is an even greater danger. Having a tentative answer to, "What happens if
negotiations break down?" is essential if you plan to conduct negotiations wisely. Your power in
negotiations is tied to the quality of your BATNA, not to resources such as wealth, physical
strength or political connections. Wealth can even weaken the negotiating position of someone
trying to get a lower price. Relative negotiating power depends upon how attractive the option of
not reaching agreement is to each party.
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
5
“The relative negotiating power of a large industry and a small town is
determined not by the relative size of their respective budgets, or their
political clout, but by each side’s best alternative.”
Generating Your BATNA
Follow these three distinct operations to generating possible BATNAs. First, invent a list of
actions you might take if no agreement is reached. Then improve the ideas with the most
potential and convert them into practical alternatives. Finally, tentatively select the best
alternative. This is your BATNA. Improving the terms of any negotiated agreement is easier with
a good BATNA. Knowing where you are going will give you the confidence to break off
negotiations. Willingness to stop negotiating lets you present your interests more forcefully.
“Developing your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) thus
not only enables you to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement,
it will probably raise that minimum.”
Reflect on the Other Side’s BATNA
Considering the other side’s BATNA can better prepare you for negotiation. Knowing their
alternatives lets you estimate what to expect during negotiation. If their BATNA is so good that
they won’t need to negotiate on the merits, consider what you can do to change their BATNA. If
a power plant is polluting a local area with noxious gases and their BATNA is to ignore protests
and continue business as usual, perhaps you will have to file an injunction to stop their
operations. That makes their BATNA less attractive than it was. When both sides have attractive
BATNAs, the best outcome may well be not to reach agreement. In such a case, a successful
negotiation may be one where you amicably, efficiently decide to look elsewhere rather than
reaching agreement.
“The first thing you are trying to win is a better way to negotiate - a way that
avoids your having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what you
deserve and of being decent. You can have both.”
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
6
Negotiation Jujitsu
If the BATNA approach fails, you could resort to a strategy focused on what the other side may
do. This involves countering the basic moves of positional bargaining to redirect their attention
to the merits of the case. This is called, "negotiation jujitsu." When you play the positional
bargaining game, defending your position locks you in and attacking their position locks them in.
A lot of time and energy is wasted in a useless push-pull cycle of attack and defense. So what
can you do if pushing back does not work? Don’t push back. When they attack, don’t defend.
Break the cycle by refusing to react. Just as in the martial arts of judo and jujitsu you avoid
directly pitting your strength against your opposition, instead use your skill to step aside, using
their strength against them. In practice, negotiation jujitsu deals with the three typical attack
maneuvers:
1. The forceful assertion of their position.
2. The attack on your ideas.
3. The personal attack.
The forceful assertion of their position
When the other side presents their opinion, do not attack it; treat it as one possible option. Think
about ways to improve it. Discover the interests that lie below the surface of their position.
Assume that every position is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side.
Ask how the position addresses the problem at hand. Examine their position and the extent that
it meets the interests of all parties, or how it might be improved to do so. To direct attention
toward improving the options hypothetically discuss what would happen if their position was
accepted. When they understand what an unrealistic option that is to your side, they may
become more willing to accept alternatives
“If your response to sustained, hard positional bargaining is soft positional
bargaining, you will probably lose your shirt.”
The attack on your ideas
When your ideas are attacked, don’t defend them. Invite criticism and advice. Don’t ask for your
idea to be accepted or rejected; ask what’s wrong with it. By examining their negative
judgments, you can find their underlying interests and improve your ideas from their point of
view. Turn criticism from an obstacle into an essential ingredient of the process. Ask for their
advice. Put them in your position and ask what they would do. This leads them to confront your
half of the problem. Perhaps they will be able to devise a solution that meets your concerns.
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
7
The personal attack
Resist the temptation to defend yourself when the attacks become personal. Sit back and allow
the other negotiator to blow off steam. Listen and show you understand what they are saying.
When they have finished recast the personal attack as an attack on the problem.
Remember two key tools when employing the negotiation jujitsu strategy: use questions instead
of statements, and use silence as a weapon. Questions generate answers while statements
create resistance. Questions allow the other side to illustrate its points. Queries can lead the
other side to confront the problem. Questions educate instead of criticize. Silence creates the
perception of a stalemate. If you ask an honest question and receive an insufficient answer,
wait. When people have doubts about what they just said, silence can become quite
uncomfortable. Often the other side will feel compelled to break the silence by answering your
question in more detail or coming up with a new suggestion. Ask questions, then pause. You are
doing some of your most effective negotiating when you are not talking.
One-Text Procedure: Call in a Mediator
When all else fails the last resort is to call in a third party. Mediators can separate the people
from the problem more easily and direct the discussion to interests and options. They can often
suggest some impartial basis for decision-making and reduce the number of decisions needed
to reach agreement.
The "one-text procedure" is designed to enable mediators to achieve these goals. To begin,
mediators ask not what the negotiators want, but why they want it. They make it clear that they
are not asking either side to give up a position. They are merely investigating the possibility that
they may be able to make a recommendation - and even that is undetermined at this point.
Mediators use this information to make a list of interest and needs. They then ask each side to
criticize the list and make improvements. Criticizing is easier than making concessions.
Mediators use this criticism to create a rough draft of an agreement. They acknowledge that the
agreement has many faults, but they want each side’s input before continuing.
This input is used to create a second draft, still incomplete, but better than the first. The process
continues through a third, fourth and fifth plan. The mediators continue until they feel they can
improve the draft no more. At this point, they present the plan to both parties. Now each party
has only one decision to make: yes or no. The one-text procedure shifts the game away from
positional bargaining and simplifies the process of creating options and deciding jointly on one.
This procedure is almost essential for large multilateral negotiations.
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
8
“Developing your BATNA is perhaps the most effective course of action you
can take in dealing with a more powerful negotiator.”
About the Authors
•
Roger Fisher teaches negotiation at Harvard Law School and is director of the Harvard Negotiation Project.
He was the originator and executive editor of the award-winning television series, The Advocates. He
consults through Conflict Management, Inc., and the Conflict Management Group of Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
•
William L. Ury is the author of Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation.
•
Bruce M. Patton is a co-author of Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most.
HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL | STORYTELLING & PERSUASION | Prof Robert A. Hamwee
FOR COURSE USE ONLY | NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE COURSE
THE FOUR HEADS DAM
Clean energy or environmental disaster?
The Project
The government of Stachonia (an imaginary country!) has decided to build a new dam across the Gentze
River. The construction of the 4 Heads Dam is the pivotal project to bring electricity to 5 million people,
particularly in rural areas where most of the population live below the poverty line and have no access to
electricity. The dam will be 2.3 km long and 185 metres tall, making it the largest in the world, 5 times larger
than the Hoover Dam in the US. The dam is forecast to generate an average of 18 gigawatts per annum with
a maximum generating capacity of 22.5 gigawatts per annum, which will cater for over 10% of the country's
needs. The costs have been estimated at around US$ 37bn. (approx. 148bn in local currency). The dam will
take 17 years to build but will generate billions in revenue.
Additionally, the government has decided against the construction of 3 additional nuclear power stations in
favour of this project as it supports the government's initiative to provide greener energy relying less on fossil
fuels and reducing the need for equally environmentally unfriendly nuclear energy. The government is also
funding the construction of very extensive solar power fields.
However, the project comes with a number of considerations the government should take into account.
Building the dam would require flooding over 600 square kilometres containing many villages and towns,
thousands of archaeological sites, among the most notable are relics of the ancient Ba people, who lived in
the region some 4,000 years ago as well as unique landscapes and habitats. More than 1.3 million people (at
a cost to the economy and cost to rehome them) will be displaced, although that figure is strongly disputed
and is probably significantly higher. Hundreds of species will be endangered, including the extinction of the
Stachonian river dolphin. The construction will require 200 tonnes of explosives (enough to demolish 400 tenstorey buildings!) and will need 16 million cubic meters of concrete. That said, the dam is expected to block
an estimated ten million tons of plastic bags, bottles, animal corpses, trees, and other detritus that otherwise
would flow out to sea.
Continued on next page
SCENARIO
You have to negotiate what the best solution to the above plans are based on the information
you have, plus any other information you can bring to the table to support your case. There
would be a number of people holding different roles who would sit around the negotiation table
as follows:
Representatives of the Stachonian Government - For the plan
1.Minister of Planning
2.Energy Secretary
3.Minister of Finance
Representatives of the people and NGOs (Non-Government Organisations) - Against the plan
1.CEO of "Save the Planet"
2.Director of Stachonian National Heritage, responsible for the upkeep and preservation
of natural, historical and archaeological sites
3.Stachonian Non-Urban Residents Representative - A non-profit organisation that
represents the interests of the Stachonian people, particularly those in non-urban
locations, most of whom will be severely affected by the project.
4.Director of Operations of AltEn - An alternative energy company who can bring subject
matter expertise to the negotiations.
ASSIGNMENT (maximum 800 words)
To complete this assignment you must read the following (on myCourses):
•
Getting to Yes, Fisher & Ury (1991) Summary
Based on your reading of Getting to Yes! And looking at the situation from both perspectives,
write a short brief to explain the following:
1.
What BATNA do you think each side could prepare? (We are assuming that this is a
negotiation and that the government won’t simply ignore the other party and carry out the
plan in a dictatorial fashion) – Be creative but practical in the way you explore options.
Imagine you are at the negotiation table.
2.
Give examples of how the 4 elements of Principled Negotiation may present themselves
and how would you manage these.
3.
Explain how the tactics of Negotiation Jujitsu may be used, by whom mostly and what
could the other side do to manage these.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment