Contrasting the two most common kinds of positional negotiating

	Hard negotiating	Soft negotiating
Style	Adversarial	Friendly
Goal	Goal is victory	Goal is agreement without confrontation
Iteration	Each side demands repeated concessions from others as condition of continued negotiation (example: North Korea)	Each side gives concessions to cultivate the relationship
Focus	Each negotiator focuses on position (My lowest price is )	Each negotiator focuses on agreement
Tactic	Pick extreme starting position, and then give as little as possible	Give on position to get agreement
Assumption	Assumes the best outcome is somewhere between the starting positions	Assumes the best outcome doesn't necessarily meet your needs
Example	haggling over price of brass dish [p3ff]	"so, what so you want to do?"
Efficiency	Takes forever to reach a conclusion Grossly inefficient with more than two parties or more than one issue	Typically produces results relatively quickly
Tendency	Encourages extreme positions and lying about what is important to you	Encourages generosity and not holding out for what is important to you
Future relations	Damages relations between parties	Attempts to cultivate the relationship between parties
Effectiveness	Neither of these is particularly effective: — They don't explore the solution space — They don't necessarily produce anything both parties want

Criteria for a good negotiation method

It should produce a wise agreement (if an agreement is possible).
It should be efficient; that is, it should produce agreement fairly quickly.
It should improve or at least not damage relationship between parties involved.

Soft and hard clearly don't work well by these criteria, especially together.

Needed: a negotiating method that works when applied against a variety of approaches. Principled negotiating is such a method.

Principled negotiating (negotiating on the merits)

hard about the problem
soft about the people (and everything else)

The points in summary:

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 criteria.

People: Separate the people from the problem

Negotiators are people, therefore they have egos, deeply held values, different viewpoints; are unpredictable, moody; they misunderstand and don't express themselves clearly. Just like you.
Separate substantive issues from psychological issues, and deal with each. Note: Positional negotiating tangles them, and often trades off one for the other.
Put yourself in their shoes. How do they see their interests? the problem? your interests?

[Example: tenant, landlord p24]

People Do's and Don'ts
Don't use your fears to deduce their interests.
Do be hard with your interests; commit to them. (But you have to decide what your interests are).
Do state your view of the situation, firmly but not threateningly. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but …" about your view of the situation,
Don't blame them personally for the problem. Separate the people and what they can do from what is wrong (as far as possible),
Do involve them (all of "them") in finding solutions and in coming to something to agree on. Get them to participate in the process. That way they are much more likely to accept its results.
Do help them save face. Make your proposal consistent with their values as much as possible (so they will be able to reconcile the results with their values).
Do phrase potentially threatening assertions as questions. Asking a question is less threatening than making the equivalent assertion.
Do look forward, not back. The past is done; the future is where a solution lies. Don't dwell on the past.
Do remember that emotions are important.
Do pay attention to emotions, theirs and yours. Are you nervous? Angry? Is your stomach upset? What are they feeling? Why are you feeling these emotions? What do you want to be feeling instead (confident, relaxed)? How about them?
Do talk about emotions (unemotionally). "We are feeling [this way]."
Do separate emotions from the problem: "Personally I think we may be wrong in feeling this, but this is a feeling others on my side have. Do the people on your side feel this way also?" (Note how this phrasing lets you say it unemotionally.)
Do allow them to let off steam. Listen while they complain. Perhaps encourage them to continue ("I see; go on.") until they have talked about it all. Then the emotion is less likely to get in the way.
Don't react emotionally to theirs. [Example: steel industry negotiations 1950's "only one person can be angry at a time".]
Do use symbolic gestures to defuse emotional trouble. [Examples: a rose to a lover, a statement of regret, shaking hands, eating together.] "An apology may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments you can make."
Do communicate. Like we talked about for teams etc. Be sure you are talking. Be sure you are saying what you mean. Be sure they understand you. Be sure you are listening and understanding.
Do speak about yourself, not about them.
Don't speak when it doesn't help. Figure out what you are trying to communicate, or find out, and keep silent if saying that won't help. Lawyer's saying: "When you've won your case, shut up."
Don't make important decisions on the fly. Say you will get back to them.

Interests: Focus on interests, not positions

Position: something you have decided on.
Interest: what caused you to decide. (Cf. requirements and goals).
"Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones" (and also interests that do not conflict but simply are different) [Example p42: tenant and landlord].
How do you identify interests? It's like how you identify goals. Ask: Why? Why not?
Basic human needs are the most powerful interests: security, economic well-being, sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life.
Example: US/Mexico negotiations over natural gas: Mexico burned it rather than sell at what to them was an insultingly low price [p50].
Example: Northern Ireland. Sides ignored basic human needs: Catholic interest in being treated as equal, Protestant need to feel secure [p51].

Interests Do's and Don'ts
Do make a list of interests of each side, add to it as you learn more.
Do talk about interests, yours and theirs
Do be specific and concrete (example of gravel truck [p52]).
Do state your interests firmly and seriously.
Do acknowledge their interests are part of the problem to be solved (active listening helps here).
Do state your view of the problem first, then afterwards your proposals.

Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do

You need to consider lots of ideas in order to get a really good solution everyone can agree on.
Look at the big picture. What's the problem or problems?
Establish a context in which possibilities can be looked at without becoming positions or idiocies. Separate inventing possibilities from deciding on them. E.g. propose a brainstorming session as a practical thing for the two sides to do together.
- Define your purpose ahead of time. What do you want to walk out of the meeting with?
- Have five to eight participants.
- Meet in a different environment. Make the session seem clearly different from the negotiations.
- Design an informal atmosphere.
- Choose a facilitator.
- "no criticism" rule.
- Record every idea in full view.
- Make sure brainstorming proposals aren't mistaken for negotiating proposals. For example, always propose at least two possibilities at once to ensure a single statement isn't taken as a bargaining position; or begin with alternatives that are so extreme that they (and the alternatives you propose after them) can't possibly be positions.
Circle Chart: The four basic steps in inventing options
[Fisher+Ury1981-gyna p.70]

Technique: "Circle chart" (cf. Inquiry Cycle). Use one idea to generate others.
1. Problem (What's wrong? What are its current symptoms? What are the disliked facts, in contrast to some preferred situation?)
2. Analysis (Diagnose the problem. Sort symptoms into categories. Suggest causes. What is lacking? What barriers get in way of a solution?)
3. Approaches (Generate broad ideas about what might be done. Possible strategies, theoretical cures)
4. Action ideas (What might be done? What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem?)
Vertical divisions: 2,3: "In theory" 1,4: "In the real world".
Horizontal divisions: 1,2: "What is wrong" 3,4: "What might be done."
Technique: How would experts from other disciplines or professions see the problem? E.g. lawyer, doctor, nutritionist, feminist, banker, real estate agent, economist, ….
Technique: Invent agreements of different strengths. Think of weaker agreements that might be better than nothing if the desired kind of agreement can't be reached.

Options Do's and Don'ts
Don't think in terms of a "fixed pie".
Don't think that solving their problem is … their problem.
Do broaden the options.
Do look for mutual gain. Identify shared interests.
Do think about how different interests dovetail. The difference may be what makes a solution possible. E.g. form/substance; economic/political; symbolic/practical; progress/tradition; precedent/this case; prestige/results. Different beliefs, times of interest, forecasts, risk-aversion.
Do look for what is preferable, not just acceptable. Propose several equally acceptable to you options and ask which is preferable (even if none are acceptable to them). Find out which way is most likely to be fruitful.
Do make their decision easy. Give them an answer, not just a problem. Technique: write up a "yes-able" proposition (one they could reasonably and practically answer with just "yes").

Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective criteria

More likely to produce a result that is acceptable in the long run.
An awful lot faster than something iterative.
Separates the issues from the people.
Better relationship for the future.
Puts the focus on fairness, which is what will make everyone happiest in the long run.
Examples: market value, precedent, scientific judgement, professional standards, efficiency, costs, what a court would decide, etc.
Not as a negotiating position but as a result.
Fair standard. Example: dividing a pie (one divides, other chooses).
Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.
Reason (jointly) about which standards are most appropriate.
Never yield to pressure, only to principle.
[Example p92 insurance company and car].

Quick reference list of useful phrases

"Please correct me if I'm wrong."
"We appreciate what you've done for us."
"Our concern is fairness." [or some other objective criterion]
"We would like to settle this on the basis not of selfish interest and power but of principle."
"Trust is a separate issue."
"Could I ask a few questions to see whether my facts are right?"
"What's the principle behind your action/statement/demand/…?"
"Let me see if I understand what you're saying."
"Let me get back to you."
"Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning."
"One fair solution might be …"
"If we agree … if we disagree …"
"We'd be happy to see if we can [do X in some manner so] it's most convenient for you."
"It's been a pleasure dealing with you."

… What if it's a bad bad negotiation?

BATNA

Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.
Think: if you can't reach agreement, what is your best alternative?
Example: if you are negotiating to buy a car, your BATNA might be:
- buy the same car somewhere else.
- buy a different car.
- buy a bicycle instead.
- put the money in a savings account and use it for taxis.
Especially important if other side is more powerful.
Gives you a lever that always works (because it requires no cooperation).
The better your BATNA, the more power you have.
Similar but distinct: "trip wire" to warn you to take a break and think. An option unattractive but still better than your BATNA.

Negotiation jujitsu

Especially important if they won't do principled negotiation (e.g. if they insist on negotiating by positions).
Make them negotiate in principled manner anyway.
Use their desire to negotiate as your lever.
Technique: Don't fight back. Sidestep and use their attack against them.
Cases:
- Don't attack their position, look behind it. Ask questions. [Examples p109ff].
- Don't defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice [p110].
- Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem [p111].
- Be silent. Ask questions and pause. Respond to something unreasonable by not responding. If their answer is not sufficient, wait for them to make it sufficient.

"One text"

This requires a third party, usually, to be representative of the one text that takes the place of the two texts that the sides are elaborating.

Responding effectively to dirty tricks

Deliberate deception.
- Arrange matters so that trust isn't necessary.
- Don't say they lie, simply say you will verify (then do so).
- Ask (and find out) whether they have authority to negotiate.
- Put in provisions to protect yourself that can't be offensive unless the other side is deceiving you.
Psychological warfare.
- Are they intentionally making you uncomfortable?
- If circumstances are prejudicial, say so (that may be enough). If necessary, first negotiate a better negotiating context.
- Examples: they criticize your clothing or appearance, make you wait, interrupt negotiations and make you wait again, make you repeat yourself, imply you are stupid.

References

Roger Fisher and William Ury. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin, 1981.

url

flip bg unflip

thomas · alspaugh @ acm · org
2019May11Sa10:36
Attribution