View
59
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Notes on principled negotiation
Citation preview
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