Important Information from Fisher & Ury
Getting to a Yes
People often see negotiations either as soft or hard.
There is a third way Principled negotiation: mutual gains, where your interests conflict, you should
insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. Hard on
the merits, soft on the people.
I The Problem
Methods of negotiation can be judged by 3 criteria:
1. It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible
2. It should be efficient
3. it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties
Positional bargaining fails to meet the basic criteria of producing a wise agreement, people lock
themselves. The more you defend & clarify your position, the more you committed you become. The
more attention to positions, the less attention to underlying concerns.
Arguing over positions = inefficient (takes a lot of time) + endangers relationships (contest of will,
bitter feelings).
Additionally The more people involved in a negotiation, the more serious the drawbacks to
positional bargaining.
Some people think being softer and nicer will be the solution. However, when caring for the
relationship to much, an agreement might not be as effective as possible.
Hard game player dominates the soft one.
The differences:
Negotiations are about the substance (topic of negotiation) and the procedure to handle the
substance (the negotiation method).
Should you use hard positional bargaining or soft? NEITHER! Luckily, there is an alternative
principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits
, Key aspects:
People Separate the people from the problem.
Interests Focus on interests, not positions.
Options Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
Criteria Insist that the result be based on some objective standard
Stages of a negotiation process:
Analysis Think about & diagnose the situation, consider the aspects of the situation.
Planning Planning & deciding what to do and how to do it.
Discussion Discuss options with the other person, try to understand the side of the other.
II Separate the people from the problem
Keep in mind: you are not dealing with abstract representatives of the "other side," but with human
beings. Failing to deal with others sensitively as human beings prone to human reactions can be
disastrous for a negotiation.
Apart from wanting an agreement about the substance, a negotiator has an interest in a good
relationship as well the ongoing relationship is important (think about long-term clients, family or
foreign nations).
Problem: parties' relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance.
Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict.
How to deal with it?
Base relationship on accurate perceptions and deal with the people problem directly (clear
communication, use psychological knowledge to manage relationship).
3 important categories: perception, emotion & communication. And keep in mind that the
mentioned techniques apply as well to you as to your counterpart.
Perception
Keep in mind: differences are defined by the difference between your thinking and theirs. People
often think they need to gain more knowledge about the topic or the object they negotiate about,
when in fact they need try to understand the way their counterpart thinks. 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.
What to do?
Put yourself in their shoes
If you want to influence them, you also need to understand empathetically the power of
their point of view and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in it.
How to do this? try to withhold judgement for a while as you try on their views. And
remind that understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it.
Don't deduce their intentions from your fears.
Don't blame them for your problem is counterproductive.
When discussing the problem separate the symptoms from the person with whom you
are talking.
Discuss each other’s perceptions
In a honest manner without blaming the other person for their point of view. People tend not
to speak about the things that are not in the way of getting to an agreement. When you do
agree on a certain point, mention it! The counterpart likes to hear it and it might be a good
investment.
Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
Getting to a Yes
People often see negotiations either as soft or hard.
There is a third way Principled negotiation: mutual gains, where your interests conflict, you should
insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. Hard on
the merits, soft on the people.
I The Problem
Methods of negotiation can be judged by 3 criteria:
1. It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible
2. It should be efficient
3. it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties
Positional bargaining fails to meet the basic criteria of producing a wise agreement, people lock
themselves. The more you defend & clarify your position, the more you committed you become. The
more attention to positions, the less attention to underlying concerns.
Arguing over positions = inefficient (takes a lot of time) + endangers relationships (contest of will,
bitter feelings).
Additionally The more people involved in a negotiation, the more serious the drawbacks to
positional bargaining.
Some people think being softer and nicer will be the solution. However, when caring for the
relationship to much, an agreement might not be as effective as possible.
Hard game player dominates the soft one.
The differences:
Negotiations are about the substance (topic of negotiation) and the procedure to handle the
substance (the negotiation method).
Should you use hard positional bargaining or soft? NEITHER! Luckily, there is an alternative
principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits
, Key aspects:
People Separate the people from the problem.
Interests Focus on interests, not positions.
Options Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
Criteria Insist that the result be based on some objective standard
Stages of a negotiation process:
Analysis Think about & diagnose the situation, consider the aspects of the situation.
Planning Planning & deciding what to do and how to do it.
Discussion Discuss options with the other person, try to understand the side of the other.
II Separate the people from the problem
Keep in mind: you are not dealing with abstract representatives of the "other side," but with human
beings. Failing to deal with others sensitively as human beings prone to human reactions can be
disastrous for a negotiation.
Apart from wanting an agreement about the substance, a negotiator has an interest in a good
relationship as well the ongoing relationship is important (think about long-term clients, family or
foreign nations).
Problem: parties' relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance.
Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict.
How to deal with it?
Base relationship on accurate perceptions and deal with the people problem directly (clear
communication, use psychological knowledge to manage relationship).
3 important categories: perception, emotion & communication. And keep in mind that the
mentioned techniques apply as well to you as to your counterpart.
Perception
Keep in mind: differences are defined by the difference between your thinking and theirs. People
often think they need to gain more knowledge about the topic or the object they negotiate about,
when in fact they need try to understand the way their counterpart thinks. 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.
What to do?
Put yourself in their shoes
If you want to influence them, you also need to understand empathetically the power of
their point of view and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in it.
How to do this? try to withhold judgement for a while as you try on their views. And
remind that understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it.
Don't deduce their intentions from your fears.
Don't blame them for your problem is counterproductive.
When discussing the problem separate the symptoms from the person with whom you
are talking.
Discuss each other’s perceptions
In a honest manner without blaming the other person for their point of view. People tend not
to speak about the things that are not in the way of getting to an agreement. When you do
agree on a certain point, mention it! The counterpart likes to hear it and it might be a good
investment.
Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
