Getting to Yes

The most common form of negotiation involves successively taking on and giving up positions. Positional bargaining is an inefficient means of reaching to an agreement and the agreements usually neglect the interest of the parties involved. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the relationship between both the parties. A good agreement is one which is efficient, wise, fair and lasting. Wise agreements improve the relationship by satisfying the interests of both the parties. Principled negotiations provide a better way of reaching to an efficient and wise agreement.

Understanding Positional Bargaining

Positional bargaining is an inefficient means of reaching to an agreement and the agreements usually neglect the interest of the parties involved. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the relationship between both the parties.

Principles of Effective Negotiation

A good agreement is one which is efficient, wise, fair and lasting. Wise agreements improve the relationship by satisfying the interests of both the parties.

The Four Principles of Principled Negotiation

The process of principled negotiation can be used effectively on almost any type of dispute and the four principles are:

Separate the people from the problem

Differences on perception, emotions and communication are the major sources of people problems. People don’t communicate clearly and they mix their emotions with the issues and their side’s positions. So separating the people from the problem will be helpful in addressing the issues without damaging the relationship. Each of the parties must allow the other side to express their emotions. Each side should try to make proposals which would be appealing to the other side. Each party should employ active listening and avoid blaming or attacking the other.

Focus on interests rather than positions

When the problems are defined in terms of the underlying interests, it is always possible to find a solution which satisfies both the parties. Identifying the underlying interests that led the parties to adopt their positions is the first step. Once after both the parties have identified their interests they must discuss them together and both parties should pay attention to the other side’s interest and take those into account and remain open to different proposals or positions.

Generate a variety of options

Making a decision in the presence of your adversary narrows your vision and deciding an optimal solution while under pressure is relatively harder. To offset these barriers it is important to separate the invention process from the evaluation stage. Brainstorming for all possible solutions focusing on shared interests of both the parties in an informal atmosphere will help to overcome obstacles to generate options that creatively settle differences. Each side should try to make proposals that are appealing to the other side.

Insist that agreements be based on objective criteria

Some negotiators can get what they want simply by being stubborn. Objective criteria can be used to resolve the differences when interests of both the parties are directly opposed. Objective criteria should independent of each side’s mere desires and both legitimate and practical. Unbiased standards such as market value, expert opinion, scientific findings, professional standards, legal precedent etc… are the sources of objective criteria. Each party must keep an open mind and the issue should be approached as a shared search for objective criteria.

Navigating Difficult Negotiations

Negotiators try to protect themselves from a bad outcome or poor agreement is by establishing a worst acceptable outcome, or “bottom line,” to help them resist the pressures. The bottom line is always decided upon in advance of discussions, so the figure almost guaranteed to be arbitrary or unrealistic and too rigid. It inhibits imagination/inventiveness and undermines the incentive to create or generate options. So the weaker party should concentrate on assessing their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and identifying BATNA is the best alternative to the bottom line. The weaker party can have a better understanding of the negotiation context if they also try to estimate the other side’s BATNA.

Strategies for Dealing with Stubborn Opponents

There are three approaches to deal with opponents who are stuck in positional bargaining and seek only to maximize their own gains.

Simply continue to use the principled approach, because this approach is often contagious.
The principled party may use “negotiation jujitsu” to bringthe other party in line. Here, key is to refuse respond in kind their positional bargaining; when other side attacks, principled party shouldn’t defend break cycle refusing react also it deflect attack back problem using questions instead statements silence weapon draw other party out.
When all else fails other party remains stuck positional bargaining one-text approach can used third party mediator brought separate people problem direct discussion interest options.
Best way respond such tricky tactics explicitly raise issue negotiations engage principled negotiation establish procedural ground rules negotiation seek verification other side claim best way protect against being deceived about facts intentions important not make any personal attack seen calling other party liar.