Summary of Getting to yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in by Fisher a.o. - 3rd edition

What is the 'negotiation revolution’?

About 25 years ago, decision making was mostly a hierarchical process. The people at the top would make the decisions and the people at the bottom would follow their orders. There has been a lot of change since then due to flatter organizations, innovations, and the Internet. Now, to accomplish what we want or need, we are forced to negotiate with many individuals and organizations. The pyramids of power have changed into networks of negotiation. This shift is being called the ‘negotiation revolution’.

How has the meaning of the term negotiation changed?

Previously, the term negotiation was more associated with specialized activities in business or diplomacy. Negotiation was not always a pleasant activity to look forward to as it usually involved someone losing and someone winning. Nowadays, negotiation is used constantly in a more informal sense. It is recognized that there are cooperative ways of negotiation and the goal is usually a win-win solution or an equal agreement.

Why should we not want to eliminate conflict?

Conflict is an inevitable and useful part of life that can lead to change and new insights. Many injustices would have been unaddressed if it had not been for conflicts. The best decisions do not come from a superficial consensus, but from exploring different points of view and creative solutions. Also within businesses and organizations, conflicts can bring prosperity. The goal should not be to eliminate conflicts, but to transform them so that we are able to deal with them together.

What is meant by 'conflict is a growth industry'?

More and more occasions require negotiation nowadays. Fewer people are willing to accept decisions that are dictated by someone else and more people want to participate in decisions that affect them. In many areas in business, government, and family, people reach decisions through negotiation. It is a basic means of getting what you want from others, a back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement.

Which three ways to negotiate are distinguished?

The first two ways are soft and hard. A soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and tends to make concessions easily to reach an agreement. They prefer an amicable resolution, though often end up exploited and bitter themselves. A hard negotiator wants to win and tends to take a more extreme position and hold out longer. They often give out a very hard response that causes harm to the relationship with the other side. The third way to negotiate is called principled negotiation and is mainly what this book is about. It refers to looking for mutual gains whenever possible. It insists that the results are based on fair standards independent of the will of either side.

Why is it better to separate the people from the problem?

Negotiators are human beings with emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints. Humans are prone to cognitive biases, partisan perceptions, and unpredictability. The human aspect of negotiation can be good or bad. In a negotiation where it is good there can be trust, understanding, and respect, and negotiations can be smooth and efficient. In a negotiation where it is bad, people can be angry, fearful, frustrated, and offended. There may be misinterpretations and prejudices and a vicious circle of counter reactions that causes negotiations to fail.

What role does an ongoing relationship between the participants play in a negotiation?

Negotiators have an interest in the substance, but also often in the relationship with the other. Most negotiations take place in the context of an ongoing relationship where it is important not to hinder future relations and negotiations. However, the relationship often becomes entangled with the problem and the participants tend to treat the people and the problem as one. Ego becomes involved and anger over a situation may lead to anger to the human being associated with the problem. Especially positional bargaining puts relationships in conflict and makes it more difficult to separate the people from the problem.

How to separate the people from the negotiation?

Both the substance of the negotiation and the ongoing relationship can be worked on, but participants should be committed to dealing with both these aspects separately. The problem of the people should not be solved with substantive concessions. Most people problems fall into one of these three categories: perception, emotion, and communication. The relationship between the participants should be based on mutually understood perspectives, two-way communication, and expressing emotions without blame. These three categories and their influence on the negotiation will be discussed further now.

What role does perception play in dealing with the people problem?

Looking for an objective reality can be very useful, but it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation. Even when facts are established, they may not help in any way to solve the problem. Each participant's perceptions are probably one-sided and people tend to focus on what confirms their own perceptions and disregard that what questions their perceptions. This hinders coming to a wise agreement.

What techniques with regards to perception can be used to better deal with the people problem and improve the negotiation?

The following are recommendations with regards to perception and the positive effects they may have on dealing with the people problem:

• See the situation as the other side sees it. Understanding another's point of view is not the same as agreeing with it. It simply allows you to reduce the area of conflict by understanding empathetically the power of the point of view of the other and the emotional force with which they believe in it.
• Do not deduce the other's intentions from your fears. People tend to assume that whatever it is they fear, the other side intends to do. Suspicious interpretations often follow naturally from one's existing perceptions, but they stand in the way of dealing with the people problem. It disregards new ideas in the direction of agreement and causes subtle changes of position to be ignored.
• Do not use blame. Even if blaming is justified, it is counterproductive and tends to entangle even more the people with the problem.
• Discuss each other's perceptions in a frank and honest manner without using blame.
• Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with the other's perceptions. A good way of changing someone's perceptions is to act in a way that the other does not expect.
• All participants should be included in the process. Even if an outcome seems favorable, it is less likely to be accepted by the other side if they were not involved in drafting it. They may be suspicious or upset about having been excluded. Both sides should have a feeling of participation, making the process of negotiation stronger and the personal attachment to the solution greater.
• Face-saving. Face-saving has a negative connotation, when actually it simply reflects people's need to reconcile the stand taken in a negotiation with their existing principles and past words and actions. Sometimes it is better to rephrase or re-conceptualize an idea so that it sounds consistent with the values of the participants, even though internally it does not change much.

What role does emotion play in dealing with the people problem?

Emotions play a very big role in dealing with the people problem. When people are angry they are more prepared to fight than to cooperatively negotiate. The stakes can be high and people may feel threatened. Emotions on one side often lead to more emotions on the other side and can quickly bring a negotiation to its end, without even proper addressing the substance of the negotiation.

What techniques with regards to emotion can be used to better deal with the people problem and improve the negotiation?

• Recognize and understand the emotions of both sides. It may be useful to write the emotions down. There may be issues that are sensitive. The causes of the emotions should be investigated (for example why someone is feeling angry, are they feeling threatened in some way?).
• Many emotions in a negotiation are driven by a core set of five concerns. Damage to these core concerns tends to cause strong negative emotions and needs to be attended to. The core concerns are autonomy (the desire to make your own choices), appreciation (the desire to be recognized and valued), affiliation (the desire to belong as an accepted member of a group), role (the desire to have a meaningful purpose), and status (the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged).
• Consider the role of identity. A perceived threat to identity can also cause strong negative emotions.
• Make emotions explicit and legitimize them. This will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem, but also make the negotiation less reactive.
• Let the other let off steam and do not react to emotional outbursts with another emotional reaction. Through recounting their grievances to an attentive audience they may obtain psychological release. Encouraging the speaker to let it out leaves no emotions to fester.
• Use symbolic gestures. Acts that produce a constructive emotional impact on the other side often cost very little or nothing at all and may improve a hostile emotional situation. Think of a note of sympathy, a handshake, a hug, or a dinner.

What role does communication play in dealing with the people problem?

Negotiation is a process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision. There are three big problems in communication. Firstly, participants may not be talking to each other (they may have given up on each other and are basically talking to third parties). Secondly, the participants may not be hearing each other (they are not paying attention to each other). Thirdly, the participants may misunderstand each other. Without good communication, there may not be any negotiation and a wise agreement may not be reached.

What techniques with regards to communication can be used to better deal with the people problem and improve the negotiation?

• Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said. Pay close attention, ask the other to explain clearly what they mean, and if necessary repeat what they have just said. It enables you to understand the other's perceptions and emotions, and gives the other the satisfaction of being heard and understood.
• Speak to be understood without assigning blame or raising your voice. It may be more comfortable sometimes to meet in a more private place. Also, the less people that are involved, the better.
• Speak about yourself, not the other. Making a statement that the other believes to be untrue may cause negative emotions in the other. However, a statement about how you or your side feels is difficult to challenge. It conveys the same information without provoking a defensive reaction that will prevent the other side from taking it in.
• Before making a significant statement, you should know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose that information will serve. Sometimes too much is being said and it may hinder the negotiation.

What can be done to prevent people's problems from becoming a big problem?

A few recommendations are made to prevent people's problems from becoming a mayor issue that could endanger reaching an agreement:

• Build a personal and organizational relationship between the participants that is strong enough to deal with the negotiation.
• Structuring the negotiating game in a way that disentangles the substantive problem from the relationship and protects people's egos.

Why is inventing options an important skill for a good negotiator?

Negotiations often happen along a single dimension, such as the price of a car, the length of a contract, or an amount of territory. All the available options appear to lay along a straight line between the options of the participants. The quarrel is usually about where to split the difference and the participants fail to reach an agreement that satisfies them all. Even if they reach an agreement, it is often not the agreement that would have been best for both sides. In these cases a skill at inventing options is very important. It can be illustrated by the expression of 'expanding the pie before dividing it'.

What are the four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of options?

• Premature (self) criticism. Judgement hinders imagination. Especially under the pressure of a negotiation, it is difficult not to be too critical of yourself and the options that are coming to mind. Also, there is a fear that by inventing options and telling them to the other side, you may disclose information that could jeopardize your bargaining position.
• Premature closure. By looking for the single best answer, you may skip past a wiser decision-making process in which you select from a large number of possible options.
• Seeing a situation as an either/or situation.
• Thinking that 'solving their problem is their problem'. People have a psychological reluctance to accord legitimacy to the views of the other side. Shortsighted self-concern leads to partisan positions and arguments, and one-sided solutions.

How to invent creative options in a negotiation?

Four actions are described that help with inventing creative options in a negotiation. First, separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them. Second, broaden the options on the table instead of looking for a single answer. Third, search for mutual gains. Fourth, invent ways of making their decisions easy.

How to separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them?

To begin you need to separate the process of inventing options from the process of selecting between them. It can be helpful to brainstorm. Brainstorming is designed to produce as many ideas as possible and postpone all criticism and evaluation of ideas. It concerns inventing ideas without considering whether they are good or bad, or realistic or unrealistic. It is recommended to brainstorm without the other side present, so as not to worry about disclosing confidential information.

Which guidelines are offered for running a brainstorming session?

The brainstorming session can be organized in three phases: before, during, and after brainstorming.

• Before brainstorming it is recommended to define your purpose, choose a few participants, change the environment, design an informal atmosphere, and choose a facilitator.
• During the brainstorming it is recommended to seat the participants side by side (physically sitting side by side can reinforce the mental attitude of tackling a common problem together), clarify the ground rules (including the no-criticism rule), brainstorm, and record the ideas.
• After brainstorming it is recommended to start choosing the most promising ideas, invent improvements for those ideas, and to set up a time to evaluate the ideas and decide which ideas can be used in the negotiation.

What are the pros and cons of brainstorming with the other side?

The risk of brainstorming with the other side is that you may disclose confidential information inadvertently, or that the other side may mistake one of your given options as an offer. The pros are that ideas may be produced that take into account the interests of all those involved. It also creates a climate of cooperative problem-solving, and of informing each side about the concerns of the other.

How to broaden the options instead of looking for one single answer?

Brainstorming generates space within which later can be negotiated. By having a substantial number of different ideas, the negotiation can start and the sides can together choose what is the best way to go. One way of using one good idea to generate others is by using 'The Circle Chart'. It can also be helpful to examine the problem from the perspective of different professions and disciplines (how would each expert diagnose the situation, what kind of approaches would they suggest, and what practical suggestions would follow). It may be necessary to change the scope of the proposed agreement, for example by coming to a partial agreement, involving less parties, or only addressing a limited period of time.

What is 'The Circle Chart'?

'The Circle Chart' illustrates the four different types of thinking that are involved in the task of inventing options. The four different types of thinking are:

• Identify the problem: what is wrong and what are the current symptoms?
• Descriptive analysis: diagnose the problem by sorting the symptoms into categories, suggest causes, observe what is lacking, and identify existing barriers for resolving the problem.
• Create different approaches and generate broad ideas of what might be done.
• Come up with specific and feasible suggestions for action.

How to look for mutual gain?

Besides a shared interest in averting losses on both sides, there is almost always the possibility of mutual gain. One way of finding mutual gain is by identifying shared interests. Shared interests may not be immediately obvious, but they are normally always there. They have to be viewed as opportunities, be made explicit, and be formulated as a shared goal. Putting emphasis on the shared interests can make the negotiations smoother and more amicable. Mutual gain can also be found by matching the differing interests (what is of low cost to you and of high benefit to the other).

Which kind of differences lend themselves best to dovetailing?

Some agreements are made on the basis of the two sides actually wanting different things. The kinds of differences that best lend themselves to dovetailing are:

• Differences in interest (form or substance, economic or political, immediate or later, prestige or results, etc.).
• Differences in beliefs. If both parties believe they are in the right, they can choose to let an impartial third party settle the case (as they are both convinced they are right, neither of them should worry about that course of action).
• Differences in the value placed on time. Some may care more about the present while another cares more about the future. Installment plans may work well in these cases.
• Differences in forecasts. Some may expect a bigger result than another, in which case the payout could be relative to the result and neither have to worry.
• Differences in aversion to risk. Risk can be traded for revenue.

Why (and how to) make the decision of the other side easy?

If you want to be successful in a negotiation, you need the other side to make a decision that you want. You can assist that by making their decision as easy as possible. It is important to be aware of who you are trying to convince. If you can understand well their problem, you may also understand the options that could solve it and would be easily acceptable to them. Another way to make the decision easier for the other side is to legitimize the option. The other side is more likely to accept a solution if it seems like the right thing to do, perhaps because it is fair, honorable, legal, or there is precedent.

How can negotiation methods be used when the other side is more powerful?

In some negotiations exist realities that are hard or impossible to change. Skillful negotiation cannot overcome all differences. The most any method of negotiation can do in a situation where the other side has more power is to protect you against making an agreement that you should reject, and help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will also satisfy your interests in the best way possible. In the case that the other side has more power, the recommendation is to develop your BATNA. BATNA stands for Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.

What is a bottom line?

The bottom line refers to the established worst acceptable outcome. Negotiators often use the bottom line to protect themselves against making an agreement that they would have been better off rejecting. There are certainly pros to using a bottom line. It makes it easier to resist pressure and temptations of the moment. Also, when there is more than one person on one side, establishing a bottom line ensures that no one will indicate to the other side that you may settle for less.

What are the cons of using a bottom line?

There are also high costs associated with having a bottom line. It limits the ability to benefit from what you learn during a negotiation, as it is a position that cannot be changed. It also limits the imagination by reducing the incentive to invent a special solution that would reconcile differing interests in a way that is more advantageous for both sides.

How to develop your BATNA?

BATNA is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. It can protect you from accepting an agreement that is too unfavorable and from rejecting an agreement that would be good to accept. It has the advantage of being flexible enough to permit the exploration of creative solutions. Whether you should or should not agree during a negotiation depends upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative. You can generate BATNAs with these steps:

• Invent a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached.
• Improve the more promising ideas and convert them into practical alternatives.
• Select the one alternative that seems best.

How does having a BATNA increase your relative negotiating power?

The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching an agreement. The better your BATNA, the greater your ability to improve the terms of any negotiated agreement. By knowing what you are going to do in case you do not reach an agreement, you will be more confident in the negotiation and it is easier to break off the negotiation in case that is necessary. The greater your willingness to break off the negotiation, the better you can present your interests.

Should you disclose your BATNA to the other side?

This depends on the attractiveness of your BATNA and your evaluation of the other side's thinking. If your BATNA is very attractive to you, it is in your interest to let the other side know. If the other side thinks that you don´t have a good BATNA when actually you do have one, it is better to let them know. The only situation in which you may not want to let the other side know about your BATNA is when your BATNA is worse for you than the other side thinks. In that case, informing them of your BATNA will weaken your side.

How can exploring the other side's BATNAs help you in your negotiation?

The more you can learn about the alternatives of the other side, the better prepared you are for negotiation. The other side may be too optimistic about their alternatives, in which case you may want to help them think through whether or not their expectations are realistic. It is also possible that the other side has alternatives that are much better for them than reaching any kind of agreement with you. In that case, you can try to change their alternatives so they do not have them anymore or they do not have the same value to them. Finally, if both sides have attractive BATNAs, it may be better to call off the negotiation as the best outcome may well be not reaching an agreement.

What are the negative consequences of not having your BATNA?

Without establishing a BATNA, you may be too optimistic and assume that you have many other choices in case you do not reach an agreement. Psychologically, people tend to aggregate their alternatives. They think of the sum of all their alternatives and find that more attractive than a certain agreement. However, upon failing to reach an agreement, they do not receive the aggregate of all the alternatives, they will only receive one of the alternatives.

What is meant with 'trip wire'?

'Trip wire' refers to an agreement that is just slightly better than your BATNA. It is another test that can give you an early warning that the content of a possible agreement is beginning to run the risk of being too unattractive, but it provides you with some margin in reserve. Before accepting an agreement worse than the 'trip wire', you should take a break and reexamine the situation.

What is tricky bargaining?

Tricky bargaining refers to tactics someone may use to try and take advantage of the other in order to help the user “win” some substantive gain in an unprincipled contest of will. They range from lies and psychological abuse to various forms of pressure tactics, and can be illegal and unethical. Most people respond by hoping for the best and keeping quiet. Other people respond in kind and start to use these tactics in return. This is an ineffective response, as tricky bargaining is designed to be used only by one side. They do not work if the other side knows that they are being used against them. The best way to counter them is to engage in principled negotiation about the negotiation process.

How to use principled negotiation about the negotiation process?

There are three steps in using principled negotiation about the negotiation process where one side is using tricky bargaining:

• Recognize the tactic (learn to spot particular ploys that indicate deception).
• Raise the issue explicitly. Discussing the tactic makes it less effective and may cause the other side to worry about alienating you.
• Question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability.

How to produce a wise agreement about procedure in an efficient and amicable way?

Even though this negotiation focuses on the procedure instead of the substance, the method of principled negotiation remains the same:

• Separate the people from the problem (question the tactic, not their personal integrity). It is easier to change the negotiation process than to reform the person you are dealing with.
• Focus on interests, not on positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain (for example by suggesting alternative games to play).
• Insist on using objective criteria (for example by reciprocity or by framing the principle behind each tactic as a proposed rule for the negotiation).

How can your BATNA contribute to creating a fair negotiation?

If none of the abovementioned tactics help to produce a wise agreement about procedure, you can use your BATNA as a last resort and walk out. You can make it clear that you do not believe the other side is interested in a negotiation that you both believe will produce results, and tell them that you are available in the future. When you walk out on legitimate grounds, and they are genuinely interested in an agreement, they are quite likely to want to re-negotiate with you.

What are the tricky tactics?

The tricky tactics can be divided into three categories, namely deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure tactics. These tactics will be discussed further and also how principled negotiation may be used to counter it.

What is deliberate deception?

Deliberate deception regards misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions. It is the most common form of tricky tactics. A distinction needs to be made between less than full disclosure and deception. Good and honest negotiation does not require total disclosure. If neither side wants to give full disclosure to the other side, it may be helpful to disclose their thinking to a trustworthy third party who can then tell whether there is a possibility for potential agreement. These are examples of deliberate deception:

• Phony facts.
• Ambiguous authority.
• Dubious intentions. In some negotiations the other side may say they will comply with the agreement, when actually their intentions are not to. It is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement.

How can you protect yourself again the other side using phony facts?

The best way to protect yourself against the other side using knowingly false statements is by disentangling the people from the problem. You should separate the negotiation from trust: you cannot trust the other side, unless you have a good reason to do so. It is also acceptable to verify factual assertions to reduce the incentive for deception and the risk of being cheated.

How can you protect yourself against the other side's ambiguous authority?

The person you are negotiating with may let you to believe that they have full authority to compromise when actually they do not. It is possible that once you have reached an agreement, they inform you that they now need someone else's approval. You cannot assume the other side has full authority without verifying this. A good way to protect yourself against this tactic is to clarify early in the negotiation that any effort to reopen one issue automatically reopens all issues. This prevents what you thought was an agreement to be used as a base for further negotiation.

What is psychological warfare?

Psychological warfare regards tactics that are designed to make you feel uncomfortable, so that you will have a subconscious desire to end the negotiation as soon as possible. These are examples of psychological warfare tactics:

• Stressful physical environment.
• Personal attacks.
• Good-guy/bad-guy routine.
• Threats.

How can a stressful situation influence the negotiation?

If you allow the other side to choose the physical environment, you should be aware of what they are choosing and what effects it may have. You should also be aware that it may have been deliberately designed to make you want to end negotiations quickly. Sometimes, it may be advantageous to meet in the other side´s environment. It may make them more comfortable and more open to your suggestions. It will also be easier for you to walk out.

How can personal attacks influence the negotiation?

The other side may use verbal and nonverbal communication to make you feel uncomfortable. Think of comments on your appearance, disrespecting your status by making you wait, interrupting you or your other negotiations, refusing to listen to you, or refusing to look at you. Recognizing the tactic and talking about it will nullify its effect and probably prevent them from doing it again.

How can threats influence a negotiation and how to deal with them?

A threat can be defined as a proposition that issues demands and warns of the costs of noncompliance. Threats can easily destroy a negotiation as they lead to counter threats in an escalating spiral. The effectiveness of a threat depends on the credibility of its communication. A threat does not work if you have not heard or understood it. There are several ways to interfere with the communication process of threats: you can ignore them, you can take them as unauthorized, you can view them as irrelevant, or you can make it risky to communicate them. The best response is to be principled and make it clear that you only negotiate on merits and do not respond to threats.

Why is it better to use warnings instead of threats?

A better way to communicate the same information as threats is via warnings. Warnings outline the consequences of the other side's actions, suggesting those that will occur independently of your will rather than those you could choose to make happen. You can warn the other side about what you may do in the event of no agreement, as long as you can show that those actions will be done to protect your interests, not to coerce or to punish the other side. Warnings are much more legitimate than threats and are less vulnerable to counter threats.

What are positional pressure tactics?

Positional pressure tactics are designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions. These are examples of positional pressure tactics:

• Refusing to negotiate.
• Extreme demands. When the other side uses extreme demands you can bring it to their attention and ask for justification, as it will even look ridiculous to them.
• Escalating demands.
• Lock-in tactics.
• Hardhearted partner. If the other negotiator says that he personally would not have any objection to yielding to your request, but unfortunately his hardhearted partner would, you simply request to deal directly with the hardhearted partner.
• A calculated delay. If the other tries to postpone coming to an agreement until a time that is more favorable for them, you can try and create a fading opportunity for them, or look for objective conditions that can be used to establish credible deadlines.
• “Take it or leave it."

What can you do when the other refuses to negotiate?

First you need to recognize the tactic that is being used. The other side is attempting to use their participating in the negotiation as a bargaining chip to obtain some concession on substance. One variant of this ploy is to set preconditions for negotiations. Once you have recognized the tactic you should talk about their refusal to negotiate and find out what their interests are in not negotiating. You could suggest other options, like using letters or negotiating through a third party. If they are not interested, you can insist on using principles.

Why would someone escalate their demands and how should you respond?

Someone may raise one of his demands for every concession he makes, or reopen issues that have already been settled. They may do this firstly because it may decrease the overall concession, and secondly because of the psychological effect of making you want to agree quickly before he raises any more demands. If this happens it may be best to call for a break to avoid making impulsive decisions. You can bring the tactic to their attention and insist on principle.

What are lock-in tactics?

Lock-in tactics are communication strategies that force the other to make concessions or make it impossible for the other to yield. It is an attempt of the other to solidify (or lock in) their position, forcing you to be the one to give in for the negotiation to continue. However, lock-in tactics are gambles, and as they call your bluff and you do not give in, they may have to make concessions anyway and have to explain this to the rest of their side. This can be embarrassing for them and can threaten reaching an agreement. Like with threats, this strategy relies on communication. You can try to weaken their statements, or just not take it seriously. Most importantly, do not make the commitment a big deal. By deemphasizing it, it will be easier for them to back down.

How to respond to “take it or leave it”?

Confronting someone with a firm choice is not inherently wrong. It works quite efficiently in business, but it is not interactive decision-making or a negotiation. The best may be to ignore it at first by talking as if you did not hear it, changing the subject, or introducing other solutions. You can also bring up the tactic specifically and let them know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached. You may want to offer them a face-saving way to get out of the situation.

What are the pros of using positional bargaining compared to using principled negotiation?

Positional bargaining is easy compared to principled negotiation. First of all it does not require much preparation. It is also universally understood. It is possible to engage in positional bargaining even when you do not speak the same language. Finally, it does not require much of the activities that are used in principled negotiation, such as looking behind positions for interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and finding and using objective criteria.

In which contexts could you use positional bargaining instead of principled negotiation?

To begin with, you need to consider how much the subject matters to you. Depending on how much the subject is worth to you, it may be too costly to start principled negotiation. Secondly you want to look at the complexity of the subject matter. A very complex subject requires careful analysis of interests and creative dovetailing. Thirdly you need to evaluate how important it is to maintain a good working relationship. Maintaining a good working relationship may be more important than the outcome of any one agreement.

In a negotiation where two sides have different beliefs with regards to fairness, what are the pros of using external standards?

Using external standards improves the negotiation in three ways. Firstly, it is easier to agree to follow an external standard than to give in to the other side's positional demand, and so the costs of backing down are reduced. Secondly, any outcome that is informed, even by conflicting standards of fairness, is likely to be wiser than an arbitrary result. Thirdly, some standards are more persuasive than others, unlike arbitrary positions.

Why can it be useful to explore how conflicting standards have developed?

Most of the time one standard is more persuasive than another. It may be more on point, more widely accepted, or more immediately relevant in terms of time, place, and circumstance. However, there may be occasions where it is not that obvious. It may then be useful to investigate how and why conflicting standards have developed. By understanding the history and logic of how certain standards have developed, you can better argue which standards are more appropriate in your negotiation.

Is it essential to agree on the standards that are to be used in the negotiation?

Using external standards help to expand the area of potential agreement. However, it is simply one of the tools that can help in reaching an agreement. If the parties cannot agree on which standards to use, there are other possibilities of reaching an agreement. The parties can explore trade-offs, use an arbitrator, split the difference, etc.

Why should you carefully consider accepting an agreement in which you are receiving more than you believe would be fair?

If an agreement is presented to you in which you are receiving more than you believe is fair, you should carefully consider it. Besides your moral self-definition, there are other factors to take into account. The other side may be believing to be doing you a favor and wanting something in return later, or they may later conclude that the agreement is unfair and be unwilling to carry it out. You should also consider where you are in the negotiation. If you have not yet reached the end, the other side may believe you are taking advantage of them and consider you untrustworthy and not want to continue the negotiation to the end. A good reputation for fair dealing opens up the possibility of future creative agreements that would otherwise be impossible.

How to deal with a negotiation where the people are the problem?

When people are the main focus of a negotiation, the following is recommended:

• Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement.
• Negotiate the relationship.
• Distinguish how you threat the other from how they treat you.
• Deal rationally with irrationality.

How can you build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement?

Substantive issues need to be disentangled from relationship and process issues. Substantive issues can be terms, conditions, dates, prices, liabilities, numbers, etc. Relationship issues refer to the balance of emotion and reason, the degree of trust and reliability, the ease of communication, attitude of acceptance or rejection, the degree of mutual understanding, and relative emphasis on persuasion or coercion. There does not have to be a trade-off between these issues. In general, a good working relationship makes it easier to get good substantive outcomes, and good substantive outcomes tend to make a good relationship better.

How to negotiate a difficult relationship with the other side?

People problems can prove to be too big despite your efforts to create a good working relationship and negotiate substantive differences on their merits. In that case you need to negotiate the relationship on their merits with principled negotiation. You should find out the underlying interests, propose external standards on how to deal with each other, and not give in to pressure tactics. Try not to look back too much and do not use blame. Try to focus on the future and make it easy for the other side to change their approach. Finally, have your BATNA prepared so you can back out if you need to and the other side may consider to negotiate with you in another way.

How to be rational when the other side is acting irrationally?

Some negotiations can involve many human emotions (anger, fear, frustration) that make people act impulsively or irrationally. Even if the other side appears to be acting irrationally, you yourself should try to act rationally if you want to fulfill your purpose. You should also consider that what appears to be irrational to you, may not be irrational to them. They may value things differently, they may have traumatic experiences that cause their behavior, there may be communication failures, etc. By tracing the other's reasoning to its underlying motives you may be able to establish change.

Should you negotiate with people committing illegal action?

In some situations it may seem better not to negotiate at all, for example when dealing with terrorists or dictators. Negotiating with such people may imply that you are giving status and reward to their illegal actions. However, unless you have a better BATNA, the question is not if you should negotiate, but how you should negotiate. Negotiating is not the same as giving in. Communication can be the way to change by learning about underlying interests. If a war occurs, it can be seen as a move within a negotiation. The violence is intended to change the other side's BATNA so that they are more likely to agree to terms of peace.

Can you negotiate with people that are acting out of religious conviction?

People's religions are unlikely to be changed through negotiation. However, you may be able to change their actions through negotiation. It may be possible to find pragmatic agreements that are of mutual interests.

How to accommodate people's similarities and differences in negotiating with different people?

In a negotiation you should be aware of people's values, perceptions, norms, concerns, behaviors, and mood of those that you are negotiating with. You will be more likely to work out an agreement. In general the advice is as following:

• Adapt all the general advice that has been given here to the specific negotiation.
• Do not stereotype individuals, but simply pay attention to the differences in beliefs and customs. Every person is affected by their environment, upbringing, culture, group identity, etc., but not in an individually predictable way.
• Listen actively and question your assumptions.

What kind of differences should you pay attention to in a negotiation?

Everybody is different, but some common differences that you could look at quite easily to assist you in improving your negotiation are:

• Does the other like to negotiate at a fast or a slow pace?
• Is there a high or a low degree of formality?
• Does the other prefer a close or a distant physical proximity?
• Is there a short or a long time frame?
• Is the relationship all-encompassing or only business?
• Which kind of agreement would be more binding and inclusive (oral or written)?
• Will the negotiation be private or public?
• Will the agreement be flexible or rigid?

In what way can the location of the meeting influence the negotiation?

When organizing a meeting, there are many aspects of the location that have influence on the negotiation. You need to be aware of possible interruptions, if you need staff support, where both sides will be comfortable, and if you need the facilities of a conference room.

How does the way of communication influence the negotiation?

Many negotiations are conducted by telephone, email, or text messaging. These interactions are very different from face-to-face meetings. For example:

• Texting increases the likelihood of unintended misunderstandings due to the short length and abbreviations.
• Empathy and sense of human connection with the other are reduced due to not having the other in front of us, which reduces the impact of mirror neurons in our brains.
• It is harder to hear and interpret the emotional undertones of communication due to the lack of audio and visual cues in texts and emails.

How can you optimize the form of communication you are using to benefit the negotiation?

There are occasions in which using the phone or email are preferred. It can be easier to ask tougher questions on the phone, and many people find it easier to be less accommodating when they are not facing the other. Using email gives you time for reflection and research, and helps you not to react impulsively. However, difficult issues, such as those that involve emotions or relationship issues, are best negotiated face-to-face. When using email or text messaging, try to create a personal connection before starting the negotiation about the substance.

What can be said about the relationship between strategy and preparation?

In almost every negotiation, strategy is a function of preparation. If you are well prepared for a negotiation, a strategy normally suggests itself. By analyzing your own and the other's interests and the standards to use, it will become clear which strategy to use. Also, if you have your BATNA prepared, you will know when to stop the negotiation. On the other hand, even if you have a well developed strategy, but you have not considered other aspects of the negotiation, you may get trapped in the negotiation. You cannot know for sure what the strategy of the other will be, and so you should consider different options.

How do you go from inventing options to making the agreement?

The following guidelines will help you in moving from inventing options to making concrete commitments:

• Think about the agreement from the beginning. Envisioning what the agreement might look like will help you analyze which issues should be dealt with and what may be necessary to resolve them.
• Craft a framework agreement. A framework agreement is a document in the form of an agreement with blank spaces for each term to be resolved by the negotiation. It serves as a starting point and an agenda for the negotiation.
• Move towards agreement gradually. Even if you are not able to agree on everything immediately, you can try to narrow the options under consideration, and move on to another issue until later. You can go through the agenda several times and difficult issues can be revisited more than once.
• Agree to tentative commitments. Tentative commitments give you a sense of progress, but they are not final until the end.
• Be persistent with your interests, but not with any one solution.
• Make an offer. An offer should be the natural result of the negotiation and should not be unexpected.

What is negotiation power?

Negotiation power is the ability to persuade someone to do something. The power will depend on the context, on who you are trying to persuade, and what you want them to do. A lot can be done to increase your negotiation power even when the power seems to be one-sided. There are almost always resources and potential allies that can be exploited.

What are the sources of negotiation power?

There are seven sources of negotiation power. The four elements of principled negotiation are the first four sources (people, interests, options, objective criteria). The fifth source is your BATNA. The sixth source is the power of commitment. The seventh source is the power of effective communication (including process management).

How can the trustworthy reputation of the other increase your negotiation power?

If both sides have trustworthy reputations they are better able to influence each other, compared to when both sides have a reputation of dishonesty. Even if just the other side has a trustworthy reputation, it means you can benefit from that. It means that you can have a good working relationship and you can safely enter into an agreement that will benefit all sides.

How can effective communication increase your negotiation power?

Good communication can help the other side understand your thinking, reduce their fears and misperceptions, and promote joint problem-solving. When you know that the other side has understood you, they cannot dismiss your disagreement as a lack of understanding. Good listening can also increase your negotiation power as it increases the information you have about the other side's interests and possible options for agreement. It also makes the other feel heard and they will be more willing to listen to you as well.

How can understanding the other's underlying interests increase your negotiation power?

The better you understand the other side's underlying interests, the better you will be able to satisfy them at a minimum cost for yourself. For example, there may be a concrete interest of money, but you could ask the other side what the money will be used for. There may be an underlying interest that is compatible with your own.

How can creating good options increase your negotiation power?

If you are able to identify the true underlying interests of the other side, you may be able to develop creative options to dovetail the interests of both sides. Successful brainstorming increases your ability to influence the other.

How can using external standards increase your negotiation power?

External standards of legitimacy can be used to increase the legitimacy of your offer, as well as protect you from illegitimate offers from the other side. It can help you resist pressure to give in too easily. By finding precedents, principles, and other legitimate external criteria of fairness, you can enhance your negotiation power, as asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments you can make.

How can a well developed BATNA increase your negotiation power?

If you have a good BATNA you can use that as an argument with which to persuade the other side of the need to offer more. You can also draft a micro-BATNA (a BATNA only referring to the current meeting and what you can do if the meeting is inconclusive). Worsening the other side's BATNA is another way to increase your negotiation power. This tactic can be used to either coerce or exploit the other, but you can also use it to ensure a fair outcome.

How can the power of commitment increase your negotiation power?

There are three ways in which you can use a commitment to enhance your negotiation power:

• Commit to what you will do, for example by making a firm offer. Making a firm offer provides an option to the other that you will accept. You lose the opportunity to haggle about better terms, but you gain simplifying the other side's choice and making it easier for them to commit.
• Commit to what you will not do. Locking into a position has high costs. If you do it too early it limits communication and may damage the relationship. However, if you are clear about the other's interests and have explored the options, you can provide legitimate reasons independent of your personal will that justify your rigidity.
• Clarify what you want the other to do. By being clear about what you want the other to do you avoid messy commitments that leave out crucial information and are not operational. It also avoids giving the other the opportunity of not doing more than they have to if you give them that freedom.

How can you redirect the negotiation by reframing?

You can change a negotiation from positional bargaining to principled negotiation by moving the focus from position to interests, options, standards, or your BATNA. In reframing to interests you could ask them what their reasons are for what it is that they are saying. In reframing to options you could accept what they are saying as simply one option, and suggest a brainstorming session. In reframing to standards you could accept what they are saying and ask on what standards they are basing their statements. Finally, if none of the above work, you could reframe to your BATNA and tell the other side it may be wise to take a break and see whether or not it is actually possible for you both to reach an agreement.