Negotiation getting to yes

Negotiation - Getting to YesNegotiation - Getting to Yes

Tong Ka Io

2011.07.19

Roger Fisher and William Ury. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 2nd ed.

Random House Business Books

NegotiationNegotiation It is back-and-forth communication designed to

reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed

提綱提綱1. 討價還價

2. 按原則的談判

3. 實力和茅招

4. 總結

1. 1. 討價還價討價還價

Like it or not, you are a negotiatorLike it or not, you are a negotiator Negotiation is a fact of life

Everyone negotiates something every day

Negotiation is a basic mean of getting what you want from others

People differ, and they use negotiation to handle their differences

Positional bargainingPositional bargaining Each side takes a position, argues for it,

and makes concessions to reach a compromise

Depends upon successively taking – and then giving up – a sequence of positions

講價高手講價高手 秘訣是……

Two way to negotiateTwo way to negotiate

Soft Hard

Participants are friends Participants are adversaries

The goal is agreement The goal is victory

Make concessions to cultivate the relationship

Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship

Be soft on the people and the problem Be hard on the problem and the people

Trust others Distrust others

Change your position easily Dig in to your position

Make offers Make threats

Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line

Accept one-sided losses to reach agreement Demand one-sided gains as the price of agreement

Search for the single answer: the one they will accept

Search for the single answer: the one you will accept

Insist on agreement Insist on your position

Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will

Yield to pressure Apply pressure

Orange experimentOrange experiment 你是高級餐廳大廚

正準備一重要晚宴

二廚和三廚負責的菜色都需要一個橙

但頂級的橙只剩一個

二廚和三廚爭得面紅耳赤來找你……

Solution?Solution?1. 切開一人一半

2. 重要性 /優先性

3. 輪流

4. 抽籤

5. ……

6. 授權

真相真相 二廚做的橙汁豆腐，需要一個橙的汁

三廚做的是蜜橙皮，需要一個橙的皮

Successful negotiationSuccessful negotiation

Three criteria of successful Three criteria of successful negotiationnegotiation

1. Produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible

2. Be efficient

3. Improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties

Wise agreementWise agreement Meets the legitimate interests of each

side to the extent possible

Resolves conflicting interests fairly

Is durable

Takes community interests into account

Soft negotiatorSoft negotiator Wants to avoid personal conflict and so

makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement

Wants an amicable resolution

Often ends up exploited and feeling bitter

Hard negotiatorHard negotiator Sees any situation as a contest of wills in

which the side that takes the more extreme positions and holds out longer fares better

Wants to win

Often ends up producing an equally hard response which exhausts him and his resources and harms his relationship with the other side

Arguing over positionsArguing over positions1) Produces unwise agreements

2) Is inefficient

3) Endangers an ongoing relationship

4) Is even worse when there are many parties

5) Being nice is no answer

1) Produces unwise agreements1) Produces unwise agreements

Locking into positions and “saving face”

Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of difference

2) Is inefficient2) Is inefficient

Requires a large number of individual decisions

Creates incentives that stall settlement

Starting with an extreme position, stubbornly holding to it, deceiving the other party as to your true views

Dragging one’s feet, threatening to walk out, stonewalling

3) Endangers an ongoing relationship3) Endangers an ongoing relationship

Become a battle

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

4) Is even worse when there are many 4) Is even worse when there are many partiesparties

Reciprocal concessions are difficult

Leads to the formation of coalitions, often more symbolic than substantive

Becomes more difficult to develop a common position, and worse, much harder to change it

5) Being nice is no answer5) Being nice is no answer

Runs the risk of producing a sloppy agreement

Makes you vulnerable to someone who plays a hard game

An alternativeAn alternative Change the game

Principled negotiation

Developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project

A method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably

Can be boiled down to four basic points: people, interests, options, criteria

Game of negotiationGame of negotiation

Four basic pointsFour basic points1. Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem

2. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions

3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain

4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA

1. Separate the PEOPLE from the 1. Separate the PEOPLE from the ProblemProblem

Before working on the substantive problem, the “people problem” should be disentangled from it and dealt with separately

Participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other

2. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions2. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions

Position = something you have decided upon

Interests = what caused you to so decide = desires and concerns

To satisfy people’s underlying interests

3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain

Setting aside a designated time within which to think up a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests

4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIA

Insisting that single say-so is not enough and that the agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side

Positional Bargaining Principled NegotiationSoft Hard

Participants are friends Participants are adversaries Participants are problem-solvers

The goal is agreement The goal is victory The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably

Make concessions to cultivate the relationship

Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship

Separate the people from the problem

Be soft on the people and the problem

Be hard on the problem and the people

Be soft on the people, hard on the problem

Trust others Distrust others Proceed independent of trust

Change your position easily Dig in to your position Focus on interests, not positionsMake offers Make threats Explore interestsDisclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line Avoid having a bottom lineAccept one-sided losses to reach agreement

Demand one-sided gains as the price of agreement Invent options for mutual gain

Search for the single answer: the one they will accept

Search for the single answer: the one you will accept

Develop multiple options to choose from; decide later

Insist on agreement Insist on your position Insist on using objective criteria

Try to avoid a contest of will Try to win a contest of will Try to reach a result based on standards independent of will

Yield to pressure Apply pressure Reason and be open to reasons; yield to principle, not pressure

Be soft on the people, hard on the problem

2. 2. 按原則的談判按原則的談判

Principled negotiationPrincipled negotiation

1. Separate the PEOPLE from the 1. Separate the PEOPLE from the ProblemProblem Negotiators are people first

Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship

The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem

Two kinds of interestsTwo kinds of interests

People

Substance

People

Substance

1.1. Separate the relationship from the 1.1. Separate the relationship from the substancesubstance Dealing with a substantive problem and

maintaining a good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits

Base the relationship on accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotions, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook

Deal with people problems directly; don’t try to solve them with substantive concessions

People

Substance

People

Substance

1.2. Deal directly with the people 1.2. Deal directly with the people problemproblem

To deal with psychological problems, use psychological techniques

To find your way through the jungle of people problem, it is useful to think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication

People problemsPeople problems

1.2.1. Perception1.2.1. Perception Put yourself in their shoes

Don’t deduce their intentions from your fear Don’t blame them for your problem; even if blaming is

justified, it is usually counterproductive; separate the symptoms from the person

Discuss each other’s perceptions Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their

perceptions Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they

participate in the process Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with

their values

1.2.2. Emotion1.2.2. Emotion First recognize and understand emotions, theirs

and yours

Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate

Allow the other side to let off steam

Don’t react to emotional outbursts Adopt the rule that only one person

could get angry at a time

Use symbolic gestures

1.2.3. Communication1.2.3. CommunicationThree big problems: not be talking to each other;

forget to listen; misinterpret

Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said

Speak to be understood

Reduce distracting effect

Speak about yourself, not about them

Speak for a purpose

1.2.4. Prevention works best1.2.4. Prevention works best Build a working relationship

Face the problem, not the people

It helps to sit literally on the same side of a table and to have in front of you the contract, the map, the blank pad of paper, or whatever else depicts the problem

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

2. Focus on INTEREST, Not 2. Focus on INTEREST, Not PositionsPositions For a wise solution reconcile interests,

not positions How do you identify interests? Talking about interests

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

Position

Interests

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

Position

Interests

2.1. For a wise solution reconcile 2.1. For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positionsinterests, not positions

Interests define the problem For every interest there usually exist

several possible positions that could satisfy it

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones

Behind opposed positionsBehind opposed positions

2.2. How do you identify interests?2.2. How do you identify interests?

Ask “Why?” – Put yourself in their shoes Ask “Why not?” – Think about their

choice Realize that each side has multiple

interests The most powerful interests are basic

human needs Make a list

2.3. Talking about interests2.3. Talking about interests

Make your interests come alive

Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem

Put the problem before your answer

Look forward, not back

Be concrete but flexible

Be hard on the problem, soft on the people

Be hard on the problem, soft on Be hard on the problem, soft on the peoplethe people It is wise to commit yourself to your interests

Attack the problem without blaming the people

Give positive support to the human being on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem

Be both firm and open

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

Position

Interests

Procedure - Principled

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

Position

Interests

Procedure - Positional

3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain3. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain The ability to invent solutions

advantageous to both is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have

Four major obstaclesFour major obstacles

People usually believe that they know the right answer

ZOPA = Zone of Possible Agreement

Often you are negotiating along a single dimension and see the choice as one between winning and losing

PrescriptionPrescription Separate inventing from deciding

Broaden your options

Look for mutual gain

Make their decision easy

3.1. Separate inventing from deciding3.1. Separate inventing from deciding Before brainstorming

During brainstorming

After brainstorming

Consider brainstorming with the other side

3.2. Broaden your options3.2. Broaden your options Multiply options by shuttling between the

specific and the general: The Circle Chart

Look through the eyes of different experts

Invent agreements of different strengths

Change the scope of a proposed agreement

3.3. Look for mutual gain3.3. Look for mutual gain Identify shared interests

Dovetail differing interests

Ask for their preferences

3.4. Make their decision easy3.4. Make their decision easy Whose shoes?

What decision?

Making threats is not enough

4. Insist on Using Objective 4. Insist on Using Objective CRITERIACRITERIA Developing objective criteria

Negotiating with objective criteria

4.1. Developing objective criteria4.1. Developing objective criteria Fair standards

Fair procedures

4.2. Negotiating with objective criteria4.2. Negotiating with objective criteria Frame each issue as a joint search for objective

criteria

“What’s your theory?”

Reason and be open to reason

Never yield to pressure

PressurePressure Bribe

Threat

Manipulative appeal to trust

Simply refusal to budge

3. 3. 實力和茅招實力和茅招

What If They Are More Powerful?What If They Are More Powerful?

Power ≠ ResourcePower ≠ Resource People think of negotiating power as

being determined by resources like wealth, political connections, physical strength, friends, and military might

In fact, the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement (BATNA)

Some things you can’t getSome things you can’t get The best negotiator in the world will not

be able to buy the White House

You should not expect success in negotiation unless you are able to make the other side an offer they find more attractive than their BATNA

2 objectives in response to power2 objectives in response to power Protecting yourself

Know your BATNA

Formulate a trip wire

Making the most of your assets

Develop your BATNA

Consider the other side’s BATNA

BATNA ≠ bottom lineBATNA ≠ bottom line “Bottom line” = worst acceptable outcome

established in advance

Arbitrarily selected, likely to be set too high

Limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation

Inhibits imagination to invent a tailor-made solution which would reconcile differing interests in a way more advantageous for both

BATNABATNA Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

Ex. Instead of selling a house at an agreed price, you may rent it

The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating

The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement

Developing your BATNADeveloping your BATNA1. Inventing a list of actions

you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached

2. Improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives

3. Selecting, tentatively, the one option that seems best

How you negotiate makes a big How you negotiate makes a big differencedifference Don’t ask, “Who’s more

powerful?”

There are many sources of negotiation power

Make the most of your potential power

Enhance your negotiation powerEnhance your negotiation power Developing a good working relationship between

the people negotiating

Understanding interests

Inventing an elegant option

Using external standards of legitimacy

Developing a good BATNA

To worsen the other side’s BATNA

Making a carefully crafted commitment

Negotiation power is not a zero-sum phenomenon. You will often benefit from the other side’s increasing ability to influence you

The more clearly you understand the other side’s concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy them at minimum cost to yourself

Convincing the other side that you are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments you can make

Micro-BATNA – if no agreement is reached at this meeting, what is the best outcome?

Use each source of power in harmony with other sources

Believe what you say and say what you believe

What If They Won’t Play?What If They Won’t Play? What you can do

Principled negotiation

What they may do Negotiation jujitsu

What a third party can do One-text mediation

procedure

Negotiation jujitsuNegotiation jujitsu Don’t attack their

position, look behind it

Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice

Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem

Ask question and pause

One-text procedureOne-text procedure Mediator asks parties about their

interests

Develops a list of interests and needs and asks parties to criticize and suggest improvements

Prepares sequential drafts and asks for criticism until no more improvement can be made

Stock phrasesStock phrases Please correct me if I’m wrong We appreciate what you’ve

done for us Our concern is fairness 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 you a few

questions to see whether my facts are right

What’s the principle behind your action

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

leave when it’s most convenient for you

It’s been a pleasure dealing with you

What If They Use Dirty Tricks?What If They Use Dirty Tricks?

Dirty TricksDirty Tricks Tricky tactics are illegitimate because

they fail the test of reciprocity

Negotiate about the rules of game

Don’t be a victim

Negotiate about the rules of gameNegotiate about the rules of game Recognize the tactic

Raise the issue explicitly

Question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability

Negotiate over it Separate the people from the problem

Focus on interests, not positions

Invent options for mutual gain

Insist on using objective criteria

Common tricky tacticsCommon tricky tactics

Common tricky tacticsCommon tricky tactics1. Deliberate deception

Phony facts

Ambiguous authority

Dubious intentions

Responses to deliberate deceptionResponses to deliberate deception Unless you have good reason to trust

somebody, don’t, making the negotiation proceed independent of trust

Verifying factual assertions

Do not assume that the other side has full authority

Make the problem explicit and use their protestations to get a guarantee

2. Psychological warfare

Stressful situations: physical circumstances

Personal attacks: comment on you, making you wait, interrupting, refuse to listen, make you repeat, refuse to make eye contact ……

The good-guy / bad-guy routine

Threats

Responses to psychological warfareResponses to psychological warfare

If you find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so

Recognizing the tactic and bringing it up

What is your principle?

Ignore threats, to be principled

3. Positional pressure tactics: structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions Refusal to negotiate

Extreme demands

Escalating demands

Lock-in tactics

Hardhearted partner

A calculated delay

“Take it or leave it”

Responses to positional pressure Responses to positional pressure tacticstactics Recognize the tactics as a possible negotiating ploy; talk about

that, find out their interests and suggest some options; insist on using principles

Ask for principled justification

Call it to their attention and take a break to consider

Interpret lock-ins as goal and resist on principle

Get his agreement to the principle involved and speak directly with the “hardhearted partner”

Create a fading opportunity

Look for a face-saving way

Don’t be a victimDon’t be a victim Is this an approach I would use in dealing with a

good friend or a member of my family?

I want to know the rules of the game we’re going to play. Are we both trying to reach a wise agreement as quickly and with as little effort as possible? Or are we going to play hard bargaining where the more stubborn fellow wins?

It is easier to defend principle than an illegitimate tactic

4. 4. 總結總結

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

Position

Interests

Procedure - Principled

People - Perception - Emotion - Communication

Substance

Position

Interests

Procedure - Positional - Dirty tricks

Tong KI 2011

Successful negotiationSuccessful negotiation

Principled negotiationPrincipled negotiation

Common tricky tacticsCommon tricky tactics

ConclusionConclusion You knew it all the time

Learn from doing

“Winning”

Better process for dealing with differences

Getting what you deserve

Being decent

附：常見問題附：常見問題

Q1: Does positional bargaining ever Q1: Does positional bargaining ever make sense?make sense? In virtually every case, the outcome will be better

for both sides with principled negotiation. The issue is whether it is worth the extra effort How important is it to avoid an arbitrary outcome?

How complex are the issues?

How important is it to maintain a good working relationship?

What are the other side’s expectations, and how hard would they be to change?

Where are you in the negotiation?

In single-issue negotiations among strangers where the transaction costs of exploring interests would be high and where each side is protected by competitive opportunities, simple haggling over positions may work fine

Q2: What if the other side believes in a Q2: What if the other side believes in a different standard or fairness?different standard or fairness? In most negotiation there will be no one “right”

or “fairest” answer

Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another

Agreement on the “best” standard is not necessary, the parties can explore tradeoffs or resort to fair procedures to settle the remaining differences

Q3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to Q3: Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?be? How much is the difference worth to you?

Will the unfair result be durable?

What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationships?

Will your conscience bother you?

Q4: What do I do if the people are the Q4: What do I do if the people are the problem?problem? People problems often require more attention than

substantive ones. The human propensity for defensive and reactive behavior is one reason so many negotiations fail

Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement

Negotiate the relationship

Distinguish how you treat them from how they treat you

Deal rationally with apparent irrationality

A good working relationship is one that can cope with differences. Such a relationship cannot be bought by making substantive concessions or by pretending that disagreements do not exist.

Making an unjustified concession now is unlikely to make it easier to deal with future differences

There is no need to emulate unconstructive behavior. Doing so may indeed “teach them a lesson”, but often not the lesson we would like.

In most cases responding in kind reinforces the behavior we dislike. Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer, and to avoid any reward for the behavior we dislike

Recognize that while people often do not negotiate rationally, it is worth trying to yourself – in a mental hospital, we do not want crazy doctors

Question your assumption that others are acting irrationally. These people are reacting rationally to the world as they see it.

In quire emphatically, taking their feelings seriously and trying to trace their reasoning to its roots

Q5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists, Q5: Should I negotiate even with terrorists, or someone like Hitler? When does it make or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?sense not to negotiate?

However unsavory the other side, unless you have a better BATNA, the question you face is not whether to negotiate, but how

We should negotiate if negotiation holds the promise of achieving an outcome that, all things considered, meets our interests better than our BATNA

If your BATNA is fine and negotiation looks unpromising, there is no reason to invest much time in negotiation

Q6: How should I adjust my negotiating Q6: How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for differences of approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on?personality, gender, culture, and so on?

Get in step

Adapt our general advice to the specific situation

Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, but avoid stereotyping individuals

Question your assumptions; listen actively

Q7: What about practical questions like, “where Q7: What about practical questions like, “where should we meet?” “Who should make the first should we meet?” “Who should make the first offer?” and “How high should I start?”offer?” and “How high should I start?”

We have no all-purpose medicines. Good tactical advice requires knowledge of specific circumstance

To explore interests, options, and criteria for a while before making an offer

To start with the highest figure that you would try to persuade a neutral third party was fair

To put out a standard and a figure without committing to it at all

Strategy depends on preparation

Q8: Concretely, how do I move from Q8: Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?inventing options to making commitments?

Think about closure from the beginning

Consider crafting a framework agreement

Move toward commitment gradually

Be persistent in pursuing your interests, but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution

Make an offer

Be generous at the end

Q9: What is the best way to try out these Q9: What is the best way to try out these ideas without taking too much risk?ideas without taking too much risk?

Start small

Make an investment

Review your performance

Prepare – negotiation power requires hard work in advance

Q10: Can the way I negotiate really make a Q10: Can the way I negotiate really make a difference, if the other side is more powerful? And, difference, if the other side is more powerful? And, How do I enhance my negotiating power?How do I enhance my negotiating power?

Some things you can’t get

How you negotiate makes a big difference

“Resources” are not the same as “negotiation power”

Don’t ask, “Who’s more powerful?”

There are many sources of negotiation power

Make the most of your potential power

Negotiation powerNegotiation power Developing a good working relationship between

the people negotiating

Understanding interests

Inventing an elegant option

Using external standards of legitimacy

Developing a good BATNA

Making a carefully crafted commitment

Negotiation power is not a zero-sum phenomenon. You will often benefit from the other side’s increasing ability to influence you

The more clearly you understand the other side’s concerns, the better able you will be to satisfy them at minimum cost to yourself

Convincing the other side that you are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments you can make

Micro-BATNA – if no agreement is reached at this meeting, what is the best outcome?

Use each source of power in harmony with other sources

Believe what you say and say what you believe