Getting to Yes

“Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.)”

The authors set forth the three minimum requirements for a successful negotiation. The section in parentheses further defines requirements: A deal won’t work unless both sides are reasonably happy, don’t feel cheated, and can present the agreement successfully to their people. Above all, a wise agreement produces good results for both sides, not just one or the other.

“Each side tries through sheer willpower to force the other to change its position. ‘I’m not going to give in. If you want to go to the movies with me, it’s Avatar or nothing.’ 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.”

Positional bargaining, where each party takes a stand and defies the other to make them budge, not only fails to address everyone’s needs—it makes everything worse. Standing tall may seem like the righteous way to win, but the acrimonious result is a destructive way to settle conflicts. The authors, in using the contemporary example of the film Avatar, aim to make their text relatable.

“A basic fact about negotiation, easy to forget in corporate and international transactions, is that you are dealing not with abstract representatives of the ‘other side,’ but with human beings.”

Negotiators aren’t machines; they’re people. Part of the challenge of bargaining is to discover everyone’s real wants and needs and find ways past arbitrary beliefs that interfere with a settlement. Often the official positions on each side obscure underlying motives; accepting interests, and searching for ways to fulfill them, is vital to a successful negotiation.

“Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different.”

People have varying ways of seeing the world. Their culture, experience, wants, and needs are not necessarily in line with those of the people with whom they’re in a negotiation. The way they view a situation may be vastly different from that of the other side, and they’ll likely understand communications in ways that stray widely from intended meanings. This happens even among people who have been close for a long time, but even more so between those who have recently met through disagreement. It’s vital to know this beforehand and therefore expect that misunderstandings will arise. Careful listening in a calm and dispassionate manner can set the stage for better understanding. This illustrates The Importance of Disengaging From Strong Emotions.

“When you do look behind opposed positions for the motivating interests, you can often find an alternative position that meets not only your interests but theirs as well.”

Positional compromises are hard to achieve: Each side wants maximum advantage, and both sides’ egos are involved. If the two parties develop alternative solutions—for example, one side agrees to meet the other’s price if the other provides benefits that are cheap to them but valuable to the payer—then both sides can get what they want. In 1978, Egypt wanted its Sinai territory back but Israel didn’t want Egyptian tanks on its border; the solution wasn’t a territorial compromise but a complete return of the Sinai to Egypt combined with a large demilitarized zone. They’ve been at peace ever since.

“Be hard on the problem, soft on the people.”

A major theme of the book is the value of pursuing interests instead of positions. When negotiators take strong stands—the result must be such-and-so, and nothing less—they put their egos and reputations on the line, which complicates things immensely and makes it harder for them to compromise. If, instead, the two sides discuss their interests rather than their demands, they can carve out solutions that serve both sides. This method generates win-win settlements.

“There also frequently exists a psychological reluctance to accord any legitimacy to the views of the other side; it seems disloyal to think up ways to satisfy them.”

The very idea of helping one’s opponent may seem foolish at best and morally wrong at worst. Modern negotiators, however, can take advantage of many technical options that weren’t available in the past, which enables them to consider each other not as enemies but as potential allies. The habit of animosity runs deep, though, and it can be difficult to acknowledge that the other side consists of people with legitimate interests.

“In a complex situation, creative inventing is an absolute necessity. In any negotiation it may open doors and produce a range of potential agreements satisfactory to each side.”

One of the chief ideas of the book is that difficult conflicts can often be resolved with innovative ideas that sidestep positional standoffs over limited resources. By brainstorming about each side’s many interests and finding ways to fulfill them, parties can think innovatively and have the power to solve problems that might otherwise appear to have only one painful solution.

“[C]ommit yourself to reaching a solution based on principle, not pressure. Concentrate on the merits of the problem, not the mettle of the parties. Be open to reason, but closed to threats.”

Negotiations often turn on the personal qualities of the negotiators. Winning and losing depends, not on the merits of the cases, but the strengths of the bargainers. A better approach bases an agreement on principles that are fair to both sides. Such a system refers intractable disputes to a respected outside authority that will decide the matter based on common standards. This saves both sides a great deal of anguish and rancor; it lets them instead point to a logical system that resolves the minor details of an agreement in a manner that’s fair and rational.

“A constant battle for dominance threatens a relationship; principled negotiation protects it. It is far easier to deal with people when both of you are discussing objective standards for settling a problem instead of trying to force each other to back down.”

The authors repeatedly argue that positional bargaining, where negotiators try to outlast each other by refusing to budge, is costly to both sides. It wastes the resources available—the creative minds on each side which can generate solutions that work for everyone. If a brainstorming session fails to come up with answers that the other side accepts, a team can still keep talks from devolving into strident posturing by offering to settle minor disagreements through accepted and authoritative outside standards. It’s hard for the other side to reject this idea since it simplifies the agreement process with a protocol that’s fair to both sides.

“[T]he protection afforded by adopting a bottom line involves high costs. It limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation. By definition, a bottom line is a position that is not to be changed. To that extent you have shut your ears […] .”

A bottom line—for example, the lowest offer a seller will accept—protects against making serious mistakes, but it also forces the negotiator to ignore offers that might provide values other than money that can make a deal worthwhile. This is why the book counsels against taking a position, especially at the outset of talks; positions force bargaining to center around a single issue, which generates at best an inferior agreement.

“You yourself can concentrate on the merits, rather than on positions. This method, the subject of this book, is contagious; it holds open the prospect of success to those who will talk about interests, options, and criteria. In effect, you can change the game simply by starting to play a new one.”

The overall goal of the Getting to YES system is to move negotiations away from positions and toward alternatives. A strong move is to keep the focus on the various ways that both parties can get what they want. It’s hard for the other side to keep attacking your position if you don’t have one. If, instead, you propose a set of options that include attractive choices, the other side will have trouble ignoring these opportunities.

“[I]f they push you hard, you will tend to push back. Yet if you do, you will end up playing the positional bargaining game. Rejecting their position only locks them in. Defending your proposal only locks you in.”

Verbal attacks can feel like stones thrown, and the temptation to respond in kind becomes almost irresistible. The great secret to avoiding the argument game is to refuse to play. To get into a quarrel is to play their game instead of yours. Not responding might feel like letting them win, but simply listening, and then speaking only about proposals and alternatives, begins to make the angry side look foolish. They’ll notice the value of responding to your ideas instead of attacking your character.

“Statements generate resistance, whereas questions generate answers.”

Statements tend to sound absolute. Any differences they display from the other side’s viewpoint will engender vigorous attack. Questions, on the other hand, invite answers instead of argument; they keep talks centered on solutions instead of criticisms.

“Some of the most effective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking.”

There’s a saying in negotiation: Whoever talks first, loses. Talking may remove tension, but impulsive comments usually give the opponent ammunition to undercut the speaker’s arguments. Silence puts the onus on the other side, and it enables you to think. A side should speak only when it has a specific question or something constructive to propose.

“Don’t attack people personally for using a tactic you consider illegitimate. If they get defensive it may be more difficult for them to give up the tactic, and they may be left with a residue of anger that will fester and interfere with other issues. Question the tactic, not their personal integrity.”

Feelings can run high during a negotiation, and it’s tempting to punish bad behavior. Often, the other side believes it’s legitimate to strike preemptively at an opponent; getting called on it in a judgmental fashion will likely make them harden their stance. Instead, describing their dirty trick as a source of inconvenience for both sides can give them a chance to withdraw the offensive action in a face-saving manner.

“It is easier to defend principle than an illegitimate tactic.”

The book teaches that a principled approach—finding alternatives that serve both sides and using a standardized system to adjudicate minor disputes—needs little defending. It pulls the other side in and leads to a better agreement. The side that initiates such an approach takes the moral high ground and invites the other side to join. Tricky negotiating, in contrast, tempts both sides to act unethically with attempts to trap each other. By calling for a principled approach, a team acts with integrity, and it’s hard for the other side to continue with its unethical methods.

“There is probably nothing in this book that you did not already know at some level of your experience.”

The stresses of bargaining, and the temptation to try to dominate the other side, obscure basic truths about how people can work with, instead of against, each other to solve problems. Many negotiators intuitively sense these possibilities but don’t always bring them to the table. The authors’ techniques are designed to melt defensiveness and inspire trust so that both sides can work together.

“[T]he 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.”

Using the book’s methods, the authors argue that it’s possible to develop an agreement that lets both sides win. Doing so gives each team satisfaction without compromising their ethics. A much better agreement will result, and both teams demonstrate that they’re worthy partners for the future.

“Relying on standards of fairness and seeking to meet the interests of both sides helps produce agreements that are durable, set good precedents, and build lasting relationships […] And beyond such social benefits, you may find that using this approach serves values of caring and justice in a way that is personally satisfying.”

The book’s purpose is to help fashion successful agreements, but it also offers a way to improve the world through respectful dealings. Though winning a negotiation is more a practical goal than a moral one, the authors argue that it’s gratifying to have a system that can produce both results.

“People problems often require more attention than substantive ones. The human propensity for defensive and reactive behavior is one reason so many negotiations fail when agreement would otherwise make sense.”

The book’s first principle is to separate people from their positions and move the conversation toward issues and their solutions. Doing this can be difficult and delicate, but it’s every bit as important, the authors argue, as finding solutions: If the other side’s pride is threatened, no agreement will result. Thus, the first thing good negotiators must do is see to it that the other side isn’t focused on strutting and preening, but on finding solutions of mutual value.

“[N]egotiating does not require compromising your principles. More often success is achieved by finding a solution that is arguably consistent with each side’s principles.”

The point of negotiating isn’t to concede or even to dominate, but to find ways to settle disputes without resorting to worse behavior. To talk isn’t to give in; it’s simply to talk. Such conversations can reveal possibilities that aren’t apparent during conflict. Negotiations, even with terrorists, aren’t signals of weakness; they’re signs of wisdom.

“Sometimes people seem to prefer feeling powerless and believing that there is nothing they can do to affect a situation. That belief helps them avoid feeling responsible or guilty about inaction.”

Negotiations can be highly emotional and stressful, and it’s tempting to assume the worst as an excuse to avoid the hard work of creating an agreement. A common avoidance method is to blame the other side and even demonize them. It’s hard to dedicate oneself to the betterment of an opponent who may think the worst of you.