|
|
Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in, by Roger Fisher and William Ury, 1981
Although there is an ever increasing number of management books published each year, each promising radical business or personal transformation, few stand the test of time. Perhaps more than any other genre, fads and fashions seem to rapidly come and go, with many of the bestselling books written with little concern for objective evidence, thorough research or robust thinking.
There are, however, a small number of key texts that will stand, or have stood, the test of time, and these are the ones we try to summarise on this site. Although it was first published as far back as 1981, one such key text is: “Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in”, by Roger Fisher and William Ury.
This book remains one of the most widely read books on negotiation. Despite its age, it has not been surpassed or superseded. It has sold well over two million copies and continues to sell well today.
If your job in any way involves you in negotiation you should read it. In fact, even if you are unlikely ever to be involved in any form of formal or semi formal negotiation, which is extremely improbable, you should still make yourself familiar with the ideas in this book. This is because, essentially, the book is about achieving outcomes through principled and skilled communication; its considerable wisdom is, therefore, applicable to most areas of work and non work life.
The book is structured into three main sections followed by a set of FAQs. First, it develops the idea of principled negotiation as a replacement for old style position bargaining; secondly, it sets out a clear four step method; and finally, it gives guidance about what to do if the principled method fails.
Don’t argue over positions
Even today, most negotiation is conducted on the basis of position bargaining. Effectively, this means that both parties have and present a position, they are locked in to these positions and all their efforts are dedicated towards prevailing. Defending their standpoint against each other, the protagonists are blind to any other possibilities and, as the negotiation progresses, there is a tendency for positions to get even more embedded. Demands are met with counter demand and the fear of losing face means that the possibility of compromise or consensus is lost. Instead, what usually happens is either that the stronger party wins, they split the difference and nobody wins, or they end up walking away. The whole process is clearly inefficient and, importantly, should the parties need to negotiate on important matters in the future, the conflict, frustration and mistrust of the present round mean that the likelihood of future successful negotiations has been greatly compromised.
Position based bargainers tend to come in two broad types: Hard and soft. The hard negotiator exerts strong pressure which can often be seen by the other side as, and indeed frequently is, bullying. Their goal is victory at all costs, threats are made, one sided gains are demanded and no concessions are made. They tend to dig in their position and distrust the “opposition”. In contrast, the soft negotiator is soft on people and the problem. They change position easily, accept one sided losses and yield to pressure. They have a tendency to disclose their bottom line and make offers too easily, yielding to pressure and failing to gain what is rightly theirs.
The authors contrast this with their principled negotiation approach. This is fundamentally a problem solving approach where the goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably. Their mantra is: “Soft on people, hard on problems”, and the main body of the book is then dedicated to developing this approach.
The principles of principled negotiation
The method involves four key steps, these are:
o Separate people from the problem
o Focus on interests, not positions
o Invent options for mutual gain
o Use objective criteria
There is little other than sound common sense in each of these steps, but it is common sense that is rarely applied.
1. Separate people from the problem
Human beings being what they are, it is easy for emotions and misunderstandings to set in. People tend to negotiate about things that are of value to them, so emotions are inevitably going to be involved to one degree or another. Emotions should never be ignored, dismissed or undervalued, but they should, as far as possible, be disentangled from the substance of the issues involved. Emotion must be clearly acknowledged, but it must not be allowed to cloud rational needs. When others become emotional, time and space needs to be given to enable them to safely let off steam without over reaction on your part.
The authors recommend that the protagonists “base the relationship on accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotion and a forward looking, purposive outlook”.
This means listening actively and intently to what the other has to say, giving them time and space to speak and, rather than making adverse inferences, asking them what is really meant. There must be a vigorous and genuine dialogue where no blame is apportioned and point scoring is avoided. Work is required to build rapport and a quality of relationship where the imposition of wills is avoided and real work is undertaken to address the substance of the issues. In working to build the relationship, you should try to metaphorically step into their shoes, attempting to see things from their perspective, looking for both merits and faults.
Where you know they have negative perceptions or prejudices about your side, try to act inconsistently with their preconceptions and make sure that you link all your propositions to their values. Obviously this means having the quality of discussion through which you can elicit their values.
2. Focus on interests, not positions
People tend to adopt singular positions, but often have multiple interests. In negotiation, the focus should be on interests, desired outcomes and underlying concerns. It is interests and outcomes that motivate people. Helpfully, each person and group has multiple interests and many interests are held in common by groups across the negotiating divide.
It is important then that you talk specifically about interests, identify and highlight shared interests and demonstrate a full understanding of the other side’s interests.
You also need to think in terms of outcomes. If they achieve their negotiating goals, what will that get for them? What will they have that they would not otherwise have? It helps to ask this question to yourself several times over and, subtly, attempt to find out from the other party what their higher order outcomes are. This style of questioning tends to get at deep seated values and it is often much easier to find commonality in shared values than it is in talking about demands and positions.
It also helps to make sure that you are clear about precisely and specifically what their interests are. Assumptions and generalisations can be damaging. If you are not clear, ask: “What …… specifically?” or “ …… how specifically?”.
It is also important to summarise from time to time, it confirms understanding and shows that you were fully listening.
3. Invent options for mutual gain
The point here is to avoid the view that there can be only one answer by generating as many options as possible. The preferred tool here is good old brainstorming. If you are unsure about the other side’s willingness to participate in this, it can be done prior to the meeting. It is better, however, if it is done as a natural, shared and agreed stage of the negotiation process.
Time must be taken to get all possible options out on the table: The logical, the reasonable, the slightly strange and the completely absurd. It should be an enjoyable, free floating time that is informal and relaxed. Promising ideas should be built on and it is often useful to deliberately approach the problem from different perspectives. Fisher and Ury suggest adopting the mindset and viewpoint of various experts.
The authors caution against the adoption of a pie or cake metaphor, where there are only so many slices and one person’s loss is another person’s gain. The aim is for one side to have their cake whilst not preventing the other side from eating theirs. Mutual gains should be searched for, and neither side should lose any real interests.
4. Use objective criteria
No evaluation of decision making should be attempted until the brainstorming phase is fully completed. Once this is the case, the parties need to work together to find an independent solution from amongst those generated, or developed on the back of one such option.
Stubborn insistence must be avoided at all costs and, prior to any decision being attempted, standards or decision criteria must be agreed. The authors offer many possible standards, including market value, efficiency and scientific judgement. No choosing should be made until all options have been appraised, and neither party should seek dominance.
This chapter is based around three basic points:
o Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria
o Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied
o Never yield to pressure, only principle
What if the principled approach fails?
Three possible scenarios are developed where, despite meticulously applying the guidance set out above, the approach is more likely than not to fail. Recommendations are then made as to how to reduce the likelihood of failure even in these situations where the odds are stacked against you. The three identified scenarios are:
o When they are more powerful
o When they won’t play
o When they use dirty tricks
When they are more powerful
Here the advice is to have your best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA) carefully worked out prior to the negotiation. By BATNA they mean the standards against which any proposed agreement should be measured. It should protect you from accepting terms that are too unfavourable and from rejecting terms that it would be in your interests to accept. Unlike setting a fixed bottom line, a BATNA permits the exploration of imaginative solutions.
To develop your BATNA, the authors recommend that you should first generate a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached. You should then improve some of the more promising ideas and turn them into fully worked practical alternatives before, finally, tentatively selecting the option that seems best.
Obviously, as well as developing yours, you should carefully consider the other side’s BATNA.
When they won’t play
Here negotiation jujitsu is advised. This is a process whereby, as its name implies, instead of pushing back, you sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem. Do not attack their problem; you should seek instead to look behind it. Rather than defending your ideas, you must invite criticism and advice. Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem, ask questions and pause.
When they use dirty tricks
Here you are advised not to descend to their level, but to stick to principled negotiation, whilst not allowing your opponent to cast you in the role or victim. This is the only section, however, in which the authors permit themselves to describe the other side as the opponent.
And finally
The above guidelines are as much about the being side as they are the doing side of communication and negotiation. They require you to act differently, to change your habitual patterns of behaviour. It is easy to make a significant and lasting improvement to your impact as a negotiator. None of what is written above is difficult or complicated, but its successful application requires sustained and committed practice by yourself.
| Related stories: |
 | Living Leadership: A practical guide for ordinary heroes, by G Binney, G Wilke and C Williams, FT Prentice Hall, 2005 | | Simply Strategy: The shortest route to the best strategy, by R Koch and P Nieuwenhuizen, Prentice Hall, 2006 | | Relationship Marketing, by Regis McKenna, Century Hutchinson, 1992 | | The Leadership Pipeline, By R. Charan, S. Drotter and J. Noel, Josey-Bass, 2001 | | Change, Watzlawick et al, W. W. Norton and Company, 1974 | | Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't, by Jim Collins, Random House, 2001 |
|
|
