Author: Roger Fisher and William Ury

ASIN: B008YUNDJS

There are many books on negotiation and according to my colleague (who works at McKinsey and read many books on negotiation), this one is known as the Negotiation bible and was his favourite. The book is useful but it tends to repeat the same few points over and over again. As with other topics, if you read any other book on this topic, you don't need to read most others as the main points are probably the same. The only one that has to some extent different view on negotiating procedure is Never split the difference. So, if you're interested in negotiation read the latter as well.

EXCERPTS

Core points of Principled negotiation:

• People: Separate the people from the problem.
• Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.
• Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.
• Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

Our belief is that by disentangling the people from the problem you can be “soft on the people” while remaining “hard on the problem.” So long as you remain respectful and attentive to people issues, you should be able to strengthen a relationship even as you disagree about substance.

Figuratively if not literally, the participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other. Hence the first proposition: Separate the people from the problem.

Making concessions “for the relationship” is equally problematic, because it can actually encourage and reward stubbornness, which can lead to resentment that ends up damaging the relationship.

It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people.

When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in “saving face”—in reconciling future action with past positions—making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties’ original interests. The more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely. Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties. The result is frequently an agreement less satisfactory to each side than it could have been, or no agreement at all, when a good agreement was possible.

Compromising between positions is not likely to produce an agreement that will effectively take care of the human needs that led people to adopt those positions. The second basic element of the method is: Focus on interests, not positions.

The third point responds to the difficulty of designing optimal solutions while under pressure. Trying to decide in the presence of an adversary narrows your vision. Having a lot at stake inhibits creativity. So does searching for the one right solution. You can offset these constraints by 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. Hence the third basic point: Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain.

Where interests are directly opposed, a negotiator may be able to obtain a favorable result simply by being stubborn. That method tends to reward intransigence and produce arbitrary results. However, you can counter such a negotiator by insisting that his single say-so is not enough and that the agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side. This does not mean insisting that the terms be based on the standard you select, but only that some fair standard such as market value, expert opinion, custom, or law determine the outcome. Hence the fourth basic point: Insist on using objective criteria.

The four propositions of principled negotiation are relevant from the time you begin to think about negotiating until the time either an agreement is reached or you decide to break off the effort.

A basic fact about negotiation, easy to forget in corporate and international transactions, is that you are dealing not with abstract representatives of the “other side,” but with human beings. They have emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints; and they are unpredictable. They are prone to cognitive biases, partisan perceptions, blind spots, and leaps of illogic. So are we.

Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict. Framing a negotiation as a contest of will over positions aggravates the entangling process. I see your position as a statement of how you would like the negotiation to end; from my point of view it demonstrates how little you care about our relationship. If I take a firm position that you consider unreasonable, you assume that I also think of it as an extreme position; it is easy to conclude that I do not value our relationship—or you—very highly.

Positional bargaining deals with a negotiator’s interests both in substance and in a good relationship by trading one off against the other. If what counts in the long run for your company is its relationship with the insurance commissioner, then you will probably let this matter drop. Yet giving in on a substantive point may buy no friendship; it may do nothing more than convince the other side that you can be taken for a ride. Or, if you care more about a favorable solution than being respected or liked by the other side, you can try to extract concessions by holding the relationship hostage. “If you won’t go along with me on this point, then so much for you. This will be the last time we meet.” While you may extract a concession this way, this strategy often results in lousy substance and a damaged relationship.

In negotiating it is easy to forget that you must deal not only with their people problems, but also with your own. Your anger and frustration may obstruct an agreement beneficial to you. Your perceptions are likely to be one-sided, and you may not be listening or communicating adequately.

As useful as looking for objective reality can be, it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution.

The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. It is not enough to know that they see things differently. If you want to influence them, you also need to understand empathetically the power of their point of view and to feel the emotional force with which they believe in it.

Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it. It is true that a better understanding of their thinking may lead you to revise your own views about the merits of a situation. But that is not a cost of understanding their point of view, it is a benefit. It allows you to reduce the area of conflict, and it also helps you advance your newly enlightened self-interest.

Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears. People tend to assume that whatever they fear, the other side intends to do.

Don’t blame them for your problem. It is tempting to hold the other side responsible for your problem.

When you talk about the problem, distinguish the symptoms from the person with whom you are talking.

Discuss each other’s perceptions. One way to deal with differing perceptions is to make them explicit and discuss them with the other side. As long as you do this in a frank, honest manner without either side blaming the other for the problem as each sees it, such a discussion may provide the understanding they need to take what you say seriously, and vice versa.

It is common in a negotiation to treat as “unimportant” those concerns of the other side perceived as not standing in the way of an agreement. To the contrary, communicating loudly and convincingly things you are willing to say that they would like to hear can be one of the best investments you as a negotiator can make.

Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions. Perhaps the best way to change someone’s perceptions is to send them a message different from what they expect.

Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process. If they are not involved in the process, they are unlikely to approve the product.

The Commissioner, however, is much more likely to agree to a revision of the regulations if he feels that he has had a part in drafting it. This way the revision becomes just one more small step in the long drafting process that produced his original regulation rather than someone’s attempt to butcher his completed product.

Even if the terms of an agreement seem favorable, the other side may reject them simply out of a suspicion born of their exclusion from the drafting process. Agreement becomes much easier if both parties feel ownership of the ideas.

To give the other side a feeling of participation, get them involved early. Ask their advice. Giving credit generously for ideas wherever possible will give them a personal stake in defending those ideas to others. It may be hard to resist the temptation to take credit for yourself, but forbearance pays off handsomely.

Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values.

Face-saving reflects people’s need to reconcile the stand taken in a negotiation or an agreement with their existing principles and with their past words and deeds.

Often in a negotiation people will continue to hold out not because the proposal on the table is inherently unacceptable, but simply because they want to avoid the feeling or the appearance of backing down to the other side. If the substance can be phrased or conceptualized differently so that it seems a fair outcome, they will then accept it.

Emotions on one side will generate emotions on the other. Fear may breed anger, and anger, fear.

First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours. Look at yourself during the negotiation. Are you feeling nervous? Is your stomach upset? Are you angry at the other side? Listen to them and get a sense of what their emotions are. You may find it useful to write down what you feel—perhaps fearful, worried, angry—and then how you might like to feel—confident, relaxed. Do the same for them.

Ask yourself what is producing the emotions. Why are you angry? Why are they angry? Are they responding to past grievances and looking for revenge? Are emotions spilling over from one issue to another? Are personal problems at home interfering with business?

Pay attention to “core concerns.” Many emotions in negotiation are driven by a core set of five interests:

• autonomy, the desire to make your own choices and control your own fate;
• appreciation, the desire to be recognized and valued;
• affiliation, the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer group;
• role, the desire to have a meaningful purpose; and
• status, the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged.

Trampling on these interests tends to generate strong negative emotions. Attending to them can build rapport and a positive climate for problem-solving negotiation.

Another surefire driver of strong negative emotion is a perceived threat to identity—one’s self-image or self-respect.

If you find a counterpart’s behavior oddly out of character or feel as if you have unexpectedly stepped on a land mine in your conversation, think about whether they might be experiencing a threat to their identity from something you have said or might say. Similarly, if you find yourself feeling off-balance and emotional, ask yourself if your sense of identity feels threatened. Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate. Talk with the people on the other side about their emotions. Talk about your own. It does not hurt to say, “You know, the people on our side feel we have been mistreated and are very upset. We’re afraid an agreement will not be kept even if one is reached. Rational or not, that is our concern. Personally, I think we may be wrong in fearing this, but that’s a feeling others have. Do the people on your side feel the same way?”

Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem.

Allow the other side to let off steam. Often, one effective way to deal with people’s anger, frustration, and other negative emotions is to help them release those feelings. People obtain psychological release through the simple process of recounting their grievances to an attentive audience. If you come home wanting to tell your husband about everything that went wrong at the office, you will become even more frustrated if he says, “Don’t bother telling me; I’m sure you had a hard day. Let’s skip it.” The same is true for negotiators. Letting off steam may make it easier to talk rationally later. Moreover, if a negotiator makes an angry speech and thereby shows his constituency that he is not being “soft,” they may give him a freer hand in the negotiation. He can then rely on a reputation for toughness to protect him from criticism later if he eventually enters into an agreement. Hence, instead of interrupting polemical speeches or walking out on the other party, you may decide to control yourself, sit there, and allow them to pour out their grievances at you. When constituents are listening, such occasions may release their frustration as well as the negotiator’s. Perhaps the best strategy to adopt while the other side lets off steam is to listen quietly without responding to their attacks, and occasionally to ask the speaker to continue until he has spoken his last word. In this way, you offer little support to the inflammatory substance, give the speaker every encouragement to speak himself out, and leave little or no residue to fester.

Don’t react to emotional outbursts.

Use symbolic gestures. Any lover knows that to end a quarrel the simple gesture of bringing a red rose goes a long way. Acts that would produce a constructive emotional impact on one side often involve little or no cost to the other. A note of sympathy, a statement of regret, a visit to a cemetery, delivering a small present for a grandchild, shaking hands or embracing, eating together—all may be priceless opportunities to improve a hostile emotional situation at small cost. On many occasions an apology can defuse emotions effectively, even when you do not acknowledge personal responsibility for the action or admit an intention to harm. An apology may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments you can make.

If you pay attention and interrupt occasionally to say, “Did I understand correctly that you are saying that …?” the other side will realize that they are not just killing time, not just going through a routine. They will also feel the satisfaction of being heard and understood. It has been said that the cheapest concession you can make to the other side is to let them know they have been heard.

Make it your task while listening not to phrase a response, but to understand them as they see themselves. Take in their perceptions, their needs, and their constraints.

Unless you acknowledge what they are saying and demonstrate that you understand them, they may believe you have not heard them.

As you repeat what you understood them to have said, phrase it positively from their point of view, making the strength of their case clear. You might say, “You have a strong case. Let me see if I can explain it. Here’s the way it strikes me. …” Understanding is not agreeing. One can at the same time understand perfectly and disagree completely with what the other side is saying. But unless you can convince them that you do grasp how they see it, you may be unable to get them to hear when you explain your viewpoint to them. Once you have made their case for them, then come back with the problems you find in their proposal. If you can put their case better than they can, and then refute it, you maximize the chance of initiating a constructive dialogue on the merits and minimize the chance of their believing you have misunderstood them.

If a negotiation is to be compared with a legal proceeding, the situation resembles that of two judges trying to reach agreement on how to decide a case. Try putting yourself in that role, treating your opposite number as a fellow judge with whom are you attempting to work out a joint opinion. In this context it is clearly unpersuasive to blame the other party for the problem, to engage in name-calling, or to raise your voice. On the contrary, it will help to recognize explicitly that they see the situation differently and to try to go forward as people with a joint problem.

No matter how many people are involved in a negotiation, important decisions are typically made when no more than two people are in the room.

It is more persuasive, however, to describe a problem in terms of its impact on you than in terms of what they did or why: “I feel let down” instead of “You broke your word.” “We feel discriminated against” rather than “You’re a racist.” If you make a statement about them that they believe is untrue, they will ignore you or get angry; they will not focus on your concern. But a statement about how you feel is difficult to challenge. You convey the same information without provoking a defensive reaction that will prevent them from taking it in.

Sometimes the problem is not too little communication, but too much. When anger and misperception are high, some thoughts are best left unsaid. At other times, full disclosure of how flexible you are may make it harder to reach agreement rather than easier. If you let me know that you would be willing to sell your car for $15,000, after I have said that I would be willing to pay as much as $20,000, we may have more trouble striking a deal than if you had just kept quiet. The moral is: Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve.

Dealing with a classmate, a colleague, a friend, or even a friend of a friend is quite different from dealing with a stranger. The more quickly you can turn a stranger into someone you know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become. You have less difficulty understanding where they are coming from. You have a foundation of trust to build upon in a difficult negotiation. You have smooth, familiar communication routines. It is easier to defuse tension with a joke or an informal aside. The time to develop such a relationship is before the negotiation begins. Get to know them and find out about their likes and dislikes. Find ways to meet them informally. Try arriving early to chat before the negotiation is scheduled to start, and linger after it ends. Benjamin Franklin’s favorite technique was to ask an adversary if he could borrow a certain book. This would flatter the person and give him the comfortable feeling of knowing that Franklin owed him a favor.

To help the other side change from a face-to-face orientation to side-by-side, you might raise the issue with them explicitly. “Look, we’re both lawyers [diplomats, businessmen, family, etc.]. Unless we try to satisfy your interests, we are hardly likely to reach an agreement that satisfies mine, and vice versa. Let’s look together at the problem of how to satisfy our collective interests.” Alternatively, you could start treating the negotiation as a side-by-side process and by your actions make it desirable for them to join in. 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.

Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons. First, for every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it. All too often people simply adopt the most obvious position, as Israel did, for example, in announcing that they intended to keep part of the Sinai. When you do look behind opposed positions for the motivating interests, you can often find an alternative position that meets not only your interests but theirs as well. In the Sinai, demilitarization was one such alternative.

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. We tend to assume that because the other side’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed.

Realize that each side has multiple interests.

The most powerful interests are basic human needs. In searching for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particularly for those bedrock concerns that motivate all people. Basic human needs include: security economic well-being a sense of belonging recognition control over one’s life

What is true for individuals remains equally true for groups and nations. Negotiations are not likely to make much progress as long as one side believes that the fulfillment of their basic human needs is being threatened by the other.

The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when you communicate them. The other side may not know what your interests are, and you may not know theirs.

It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate your interests are. One guideline is be specific.

For example: “Three times in the last week, a child was almost run over by one of your trucks. About eight-thirty Tuesday morning that huge red gravel truck of yours, going north at almost forty miles an hour, had to swerve and barely missed hitting seven-year-old Loretta Johnson.” As long as you do not seem to imply that the other side’s interests are unimportant or illegitimate, you can afford to take a strong stance in setting forth the seriousness of your concerns. Inviting the other side to “correct me if I’m wrong” shows your openness, and if they do not correct you, it implies that they accept your description of the situation.

You want them to feel not that you are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem you face legitimately demands attention. You need to convince them that they might well feel the same way if they were in your shoes.

Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. Each of us tends to be so concerned with his or her own interests that we pay too little heed to the interests of others. People listen better if they feel that you have understood them. They tend to think that those who understand them are intelligent and sympathetic people whose own opinions may be worth listening to. So if you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs. “As I understand it, your interests as a construction company are basically to get the job done quickly at minimum cost and to preserve your reputation for safety and responsibility in the city. Have I understood you correctly? Do you have other important interests?”

it helps to acknowledge that their interests are part of the overall problem you are trying to solve. This is especially easy to do if you have shared interests: “It would be terrible for all of us if one of your trucks hit a child.”

Put the problem before your answer.

If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later. Tell the company first about the dangers they are creating for young children and about your sleepless nights. Then they will be listening carefully, if only to try to figure out where you will end up on this question. And when you tell them, they will understand why.

If you ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will typically identify a cause, not a purpose.

Be concrete but flexible. In a negotiation you want to know where you are going and yet be open to fresh ideas. To avoid having to make a difficult decision on what to settle for, people will often go into a negotiation with no plan other than to sit down with the other side and see what they offer or demand.

To convert your interests into concrete options, ask yourself, “If tomorrow the other side agrees to go along with me, what do I now think I would like them to go along with?” To keep your flexibility, treat each option you formulate as simply illustrative. Think in terms of more than one option that meets your interests.

Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. You can be just as hard in talking about your interests as any negotiator can be in talking about their position. In fact, it is usually advisable to be hard. It may not be wise to commit yourself to your position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests. This is the place in a negotiation to spend your aggressive energies. The other side, being concerned with their own interests, will tend to have overly optimistic expectations of the range of possible agreements. Often the wisest solutions, those that produce the maximum gain for you at the minimum cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests.

Do not let your desire to be conciliatory stop you from doing justice to your problem. “Surely you’re not saying that my son’s life is worth less than the price of a fence. You wouldn’t say that about your son. I don’t believe you’re an insensitive person, Mr. Jenkins. Let’s figure out how to solve this problem.”

If they feel personally threatened by an attack on the problem, they may grow defensive and may cease to listen. This is why it is important to separate the people from the problem. Attack the problem without blaming the people. Go even further and be personally supportive: Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize your concern with meeting their basic needs, and so on. Show them that you are attacking the problem, not them.

A well-known theory of psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance, holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it. By attacking a problem, such as speeding trucks on a neighborhood street, and at the same time giving the company representative, Mr. Jenkins, positive support, you create cognitive dissonance for him. To overcome this dissonance, he will be tempted to dissociate himself from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it. Fighting hard on the substantive issues increases the pressure for an effective solution; giving support to the human beings on the other side tends to improve your relationship and to increase the likelihood of reaching agreement. It is the combination of support and attack that works; either alone is likely to be insufficient.

Skill at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have.

Before brainstorming:

1. Define your purpose. Think of what you would like to walk out of the meeting with.
2. Choose a few participants. The group should normally be large enough to provide a stimulating interchange, yet small enough to encourage both individual participation and freewheeling inventing—usually between five and eight people.
3. Change the environment. Select a time and place distinguishing the session as much as possible from regular discussions. The more different a brainstorming session seems from a normal meeting, the easier it is for participants to suspend judgment.
4. Design an informal atmosphere. What does it take for you and others to relax? It may be talking over a drink, or meeting at a vacation lodge in some picturesque spot, or dressing less formally during the meeting and calling one another by your first names.
5. Choose a facilitator. Someone at the meeting needs to facilitate—to keep the meeting on track, to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak, to enforce any ground rules, and to stimulate discussion by asking questions.

During brainstorming:

1. Seat the participants side by side facing the problem. The physical reinforces the psychological. Physically sitting side by side can reinforce the mental attitude of tackling a common problem together. People facing each other tend to respond personally and engage in dialogue or argument; people sitting side by side in a semicircle of chairs facing a flip chart or whiteboard tend to respond to the problem depicted there.
2. Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule.

You can multiply the number of possible agreements on the table by thinking of “weaker” versions you might want to have on hand in case a sought-for agreement proves beyond reach.

The pairs of adjectives below suggest potential agreements of differing “strengths”:

• Stronger - Weaker
• Substantive - Procedural
• Permanent - Provisional
• Comprehensive - Partial
• Final - In principle
• Unconditional - Contingent
• Binding - Nonbinding
• First-order - Second-order

Look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa.

The other side is more likely to accept a solution if it seems the right thing to do—right in terms of being fair, legal, honorable, and so forth. Few things facilitate a decision as much as precedent. Search for it. Look for a decision or statement that the other side may have made in a similar situation, and try to base a proposed agreement on it. This provides an objective standard for your request and makes it easier for them to go along. Recognizing their probable desire to be consistent, thinking about what they have already done or said will help you generate options acceptable to you that also take their point of view into account.

The more you bring standards of fairness, efficiency, or scientific merit to bear on your particular problem, the more likely you are to produce a final package that is wise and fair. The more you and the other side refer to precedent and community practice, the greater your chance of benefiting from past experience.

In other cases, depending on the issue, you may wish to propose that an agreement be based upon:

• Market value
• What a court would decide
• Precedent
• Moral standards
• Scientific judgment
• Equal treatment
• Professional standards
• Tradition
• Efficiency
• Reciprocity
• Costs
• Etc.

At a minimum, objective criteria need to be independent of each side’s will. Ideally, to assure a wise agreement, objective criteria should be not only independent of will but also both legitimate and practical.

If a real estate agency selling you a house offers a standard form contract, you would be wise to ask if that is the same standard form they use when they buy a house.

Drawing lots, flipping a coin, and other forms of chance have an inherent fairness. The results may be unequal, but each side had an equal opportunity.

There are three basic points to remember: Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.

Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. If you are negotiating to buy a house, you might start off by saying: “Look, you want a high price and I want a low one. Let’s figure out what a fair price would be. What objective standards might be most relevant?”

Ask “What’s your theory?” If the seller starts by giving you a position, such as “The price is $255,000,” ask for the theory behind that price: “How did you arrive at that figure?” Treat the problem as though the seller too is looking for a fair price based on objective criteria.

Agree first on principles. Before even considering possible terms, you may want to agree on the standard or standards to apply.

A principled negotiator is open to reasoned persuasion on the merits; a positional bargainer is not. It is the combination of openness to reason with insistence on a solution based on objective criteria that makes principled negotiation so persuasive and so effective at getting the other side to play.

The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What is that alternative? What is your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. That is the only standard that can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept. Your BATNA not only is a better measure but also has the advantage of being flexible enough to permit the exploration of imaginative solutions. Instead of ruling out any solution that does not meet your bottom line, you can compare a proposal with your BATNA to see whether it better satisfies your interests.

The insecurity of an unknown BATNA. If you have not thought carefully about what you will do if you fail to reach an agreement, you are negotiating with your eyes closed.

One frequent mistake is psychologically to see your alternatives in the aggregate. You may be telling yourself that if you do not reach agreement on a salary for this job, you could always go to California, or go south, or go back to school, or write, or work on a farm, or live in Paris, or do something else. In your mind you are likely to find the sum of these alternatives more attractive than working for a specific salary in a particular job. The difficulty is that you cannot have the sum total of all those other alternatives; if you fail to reach agreement, you will have to choose just one.

In most circumstances, however, the greater danger is that you are too committed to reaching agreement. Not having developed any alternative to a negotiated solution, you are unduly pessimistic about what would happen if negotiations broke off. As valuable as knowing your BATNA may be, you may hesitate to explore alternatives. You hope this buyer or the next will make you an attractive offer for the house. You may avoid facing the question of what you will do if no agreement is reached. You may think to yourself, “Let’s negotiate first and see what happens. If things don’t work out, then I’ll figure out what to do.” But having at least a tentative answer to the question is absolutely essential if you are to conduct your negotiations wisely. Whether you should or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness to you of the best available alternative.

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.

Think for a moment about how you would feel walking into a job interview with no other job offers—only some uncertain leads. Think how the talk about salary would go. Now contrast that with how you would feel walking in with two other job offers. How would that salary negotiation proceed? The difference is power.

What is true for negotiations between individuals is equally true for negotiations between organizations. The relative negotiating power of a large industry and a small town trying to raise taxes on a factory is determined not by the relative size of their respective budgets, or their political clout, but by each side’s best alternative.

Develop your BATNA. Vigorous exploration of what you will do if you do not reach agreement can greatly strengthen your hand. Attractive alternatives are not just sitting there waiting for you; you usually have to develop them. Generating possible BATNAs requires three distinct operations:

1. 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; and
3. selecting, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best.

[In other words: negotiation begins before you begin negotiating. The outcome of negotiation is to a large extent determined by your BATNA; the strength of your best alternative. If you walk into a negotiation with a strong alternative, you can confidently negotiate. Otherwise you bluff, which very few people can do, and almost anyone can detect! Therefore: Who cares less (about the outcome of negotiation or even if agreement will be reached) wins!]

The greater your willingness to break off negotiations, the more forcefully you can present your interests and the basis on which you believe an agreement should be reached.

If your BATNA is extremely attractive — if you have another customer waiting in the next room — it is in your interest to let the other side know. If they think you lack a good alternative when in fact you have one, then you should almost certainly let them know. However, if your best alternative to a negotiated agreement is worse for you than they think, disclosing it will weaken rather than strengthen your hand.

You should also think about the alternatives to a negotiated agreement available to the other side. The more you can learn of their alternatives, the better prepared you are for negotiation. Knowing their alternatives, you can realistically estimate what you can expect from the negotiation. They may be unduly optimistic about what they can do if no agreement is reached. Perhaps they have a vague notion that they have a great many alternatives and are under the influence of their cumulative total. If they appear to overestimate their BATNA, you will want to help them think through whether their expectations are realistic.

To get them to take your concerns seriously, you may have to file a lawsuit seeking to have their construction permit revoked. In other words, if their BATNA is so good they don’t see any need to negotiate on the merits, consider what you can do to change it.

If both sides have attractive BATNAs, the best outcome of the negotiation — for both parties — may well be not to reach agreement. In such cases a successful negotiation is one in which you and they amicably and efficiently discover that the best way to advance your respective interests is for each of you to look elsewhere and not to try further to reach agreement.

The stronger they appear in terms of physical or economic power, the more you benefit by negotiating on the merits. To the extent that they have muscle and you have principle, the larger a role you can establish for principle the better off you are.

The more easily and happily you can walk away from a negotiation, the greater your capacity to affect its outcome.

This method, the subject of this book, is contagious; it holds open the prospect of success to those who will talk about interests, options, and criteria. In effect, you can change the game simply by starting to play a new one. If this doesn’t work and they continue to use positional bargaining, you can resort to a second strategy that focuses on what they may do. It counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. This strategy we call negotiation jujitsu. The third approach focuses on what a third party can do. If neither principled negotiation nor negotiation jujitsu gets them to play, consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on interests, options, and criteria. Perhaps the most effective tool a third party can use in such an effort is the one-text mediation procedure.

If the other side announces a firm position, you may be tempted to criticize and reject it. If they criticize your proposal, you may be tempted to defend it and dig yourself in. If they attack you, you may be tempted to defend yourself and counterattack. In short, if they push you hard, you will tend to push back. Yet if you do, you will end up playing the positional bargaining game. Rejecting their position only locks them in. Defending your proposal only locks you in.

If pushing back does not work, what does? How can you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? Do not push back. When they assert their positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don’t defend them. When they attack you, don’t counterattack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Instead of pushing back, sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem. As in the Oriental martial arts of judo and jujitsu, avoid pitting your strength against theirs directly; instead, use your skill to step aside and turn their strength to your ends. Rather than resisting their force, channel it into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent standards.

Don’t attack their position, look behind it. When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for the interests behind it, seek out the principles that it reflects, and think about ways to improve it.

Assume every position they take is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side; ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand. Treat their position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so.

“If I understand you, you’re saying you can’t afford to give 750 teachers more than a $2,000 across-the-board raise. What if we accept that with the stipulation that any money saved by hiring fewer than 750 full-time teachers will be distributed as a monthly bonus to those teachers who are working?”

Another way to channel criticism in a constructive direction is to turn the situation around and ask for their advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in your position. “If your jobs were at stake, what would you do?

Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem. When the other side attacks you personally — as frequently happens — resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them. Instead, sit back and allow them to let off steam. Listen to them, show you understand what they are saying, and when they have finished, recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem.

Ask questions and pause. Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use two key tools. The first is to use questions instead of statements. Statements generate resistance, whereas questions generate answers. Questions allow the other side to get their points across and let you understand them. They pose challenges and can be used to lead the other side to confront the problem. Questions offer them no target to strike at, no position to attack. Questions do not criticize, they educate.

Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word.

If you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient answer, just wait. People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence, particularly if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said.

Some of the most effective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking.

Note that in most situations you do not have to get anyone’s consent to start using the one-text procedure. Simply prepare a draft and ask for criticism. Again, you can change the game simply by starting to play the new one. Even if the other side is not willing to talk to you directly (or vice versa), a third party can take a draft around.

In principled negotiation you present your reasons first before offering a proposal. If principles come afterward, they appear not as the objective criteria that any proposal should satisfy but as mere justifications for an arbitrary position.

Turnbull presents a proposal not as his, but as a fair option that deserves their joint consideration. He does not claim it is the only fair solution, but one fair solution. He is specific without digging himself into a position and inviting rejection.

If they recognize that a tricky bargaining tactic is being used against them, most people respond in one of two ways. The first standard response is to put up with it. It is unpleasant to rock the boat. You may give the other side the benefit of the doubt or get angry and promise yourself never to deal with them again. For now, you hope for the best and keep quiet. Most people respond this way. They hope that if they give in this time, the other side will be appeased and will not ask for more. Sometimes this works, more often it fails.

The second common response is to respond in kind. If they start outrageously high, you start outrageously low. If they are deceptive, so are you. If they make threats, you make counterthreats. If they lock themselves into their position, you lock yourself even more tightly into yours. In the end either one party yields or, all too often, negotiation breaks off.

There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game where the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic: recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactic’s legitimacy and desirability—negotiate over it.

Discussing the tactic not only makes it less effective, it also may cause the other side to worry about alienating you completely. Simply raising a question about a tactic may be enough to get them to stop using it.

Separate the people from the problem. Don’t attack people personally for using a tactic you consider illegitimate. If they get defensive it may be more difficult for them to give up the tactic, and they may be left with a residue of anger that will fester and interfere with other issues. Question the tactic, not their personal integrity. Rather than saying, “You deliberately put me here facing the sun,” attack the problem: “I am finding the sun in my eyes quite distracting. Unless we can solve the problem, I may have to leave early to get some rest.

Don’t be diverted from the negotiation by the urge to teach them a lesson. Focus on interests, not positions. “Why are you committing yourself in the press to an extreme position? Are you trying to protect yourself from criticism? Or are you protecting yourself from changing your position? Is it in our mutual interest to have both of us use this tactic?” Invent options for mutual gain. Suggest alternative games to play. “How about our undertaking to make no statements to the press until we reach agreement or break off the talks?” Insist on using objective criteria. Above all, be hard on principle. “Is there a theory behind having me sit in the low chair with my back to the open door?” Try out the principle of reciprocity on them. “I assume that you will sit in this chair tomorrow morning?” Frame the principle behind each tactic as a proposed “rule” for the game.

As a last resort, turn to your BATNA (your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) and walk out. “It’s my impression that you’re not interested in negotiating in a way that we both think will produce results. Here’s my phone number. If I’m mistaken, I’m ready any time you are. Until then, we’ll pursue the court option.” If you are walking out on clearly legitimate grounds, as when they have deliberately deceived you about facts or their authority, and if they are genuinely interested in an agreement, they are likely to call you back to the table.

Tricky tactics can be divided into three categories: deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure tactics.

Unless you have good reason to trust somebody, don’t. This does not mean calling him a liar; rather it means making the negotiation proceed independent of trust.

A practice of verifying factual assertions reduces the incentive for deception, and your risk of being cheated.

Ambiguous authority. The other side may allow you to believe that they, like you, have full authority to compromise when they don’t. After they have pressed you as hard as they can and you have worked out what you believe to be a firm agreement, they announce that they must take it to someone else for approval. This technique is designed to give them a “second bite at the apple.” This is a bad situation to fall into. If only you have authority to make concessions, only you will make concessions. Do not assume that the other side has full authority just because they are there negotiating with you.

You may later find that what you thought was an agreement will be treated by the other side as simply a floor for further negotiation. Before starting on any give-and-take, find out about the authority on the other side. It is perfectly legitimate to inquire, “Just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?” If the answer is ambiguous, you may wish to talk to someone with real authority or to make clear that you on your side are reserving equal freedom to reconsider any point. If they do announce unexpectedly that they are treating what you thought was an agreement as a basis for further negotiation, insist on reciprocity. “All right. We will treat it as a joint draft to which neither side is committed. You check with your boss and I’ll sleep on it and see if I come up with any changes I want to suggest tomorrow.” Or you might say, “If your boss approves this draft tomorrow, I’ll stick by it. Otherwise each of us should feel free to propose changes.” One way to try to head off this problem is to clarify early in the negotiation that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” so that any effort to reopen one issue automatically reopens all issues.

Dubious intentions. Where the issue is one of possible misrepresentation of their intention to comply with the agreement, it is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement itself.

“Let’s not put ourselves under such a strong temptation to mislead. If you think no agreement is possible, and that we may be wasting our time, perhaps we could disclose our thinking to some trustworthy third party, who can then tell us whether there is a zone of potential agreement.”

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

These tactics are designed to make you feel uncomfortable, so that you will have a subconscious desire to end the negotiation as soon as possible.

• Stressful situations.

Much has been written about the physical circumstances in which negotiations take place. You should be sensitive to such modest questions as whether a meeting takes place at your place or theirs, or on neutral territory. Contrary to the accepted wisdom, it is sometimes advantageous to accept an offer to meet on the other side’s turf. It may put them at ease, making them more open to your suggestions. If necessary, it will be easier for you to walk out. If, however, you do allow the other side to choose the physical environment, be aware of what that choice is and what effects it may have. Ask yourself if you feel under stress, and if so, why. If the room is too noisy, if the temperature is too hot or cold, if there is no place for a private caucus with a colleague, be aware that the setting might have been deliberately designed to make you want to conclude negotiations promptly and, if necessary, to yield points to do so. If you find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so. You can suggest changing chairs, taking a break, or adjourning to a different location or another time. In every case your job is to identify the problem, be willing to raise it with the other side, and then negotiate better physical circumstances in an objective and principled fashion.

• Personal attacks.

In addition to manipulating the physical environment, there are also ways for the other side to use verbal and nonverbal communication to make you feel uncomfortable. They can comment on your clothes or your appearance. “Looks like you were up all night. Things not going well at the office?” They can attack your status by making you wait for them or by interrupting the negotiations to deal with other people. They can imply that you are ignorant. They can refuse to listen to you and make you repeat yourself. They can deliberately refuse to make eye contact with you.

In each case recognizing the tactic will help nullify its effect; bringing it up explicitly will probably prevent recurrenece.

• The good-guy/bad-guy routine.

One form of psychological pressure that also involves deception is the good-guy/bad-guy routine. This technique appears in its starkest form in old police movies. The first policeman threatens the suspect with prosecution for numerous crimes, puts him under a bright light, pushes him around, then finally takes a break and leaves. The good guy then turns off the light, offers the suspect a cigarette, and apologizes for the tough policeman. He says he’d like to control the tough guy, but he can’t unless the suspect cooperates. The result: the suspect tells all he knows.

• Threats.

Threats are one of the most abused tactics in negotiation. A threat seems easy to make — much easier than an offer. All it takes is a few words, and if it works, you never have to carry it out. But threats can lead to counterthreats in an escalating spiral that can unhinge a negotiation and even destroy a relationship. Threats are pressure. Pressure often accomplishes just the opposite of what it is intended to do; it builds up pressure the other way. Instead of making a decision easier for the other side, it often makes it more difficult.

Good negotiators rarely resort to threats. They do not need to; there are other ways to communicate the same information. If it seems appropriate to outline the consequences of the other side’s action, suggest those that will occur independently of your will rather than those you could choose to bring about. Warnings are much more legitimate than threats and are not vulnerable to counterthreats: “Should we fail to reach agreement, it seems highly probable to me that the news media would insist on publishing the whole sordid story."

You can also warn the other side about your likely actions in the event of no agreement, so long as you can show how those actions are intended to safeguard your interests, not to coerce or punish the other side.

Provided your plans are a true warning, you should be able to reply confidently, “Absolutely not. In our shoes, would you recommend a better way to safeguard our interests?” For threats to be effective they must be credibly communicated. Sometimes you can interfere with the communication process. You can ignore threats; you can take them as unauthorized, spoken in haste, or simply irrelevant. You can also make it risky to communicate them.

POSSITIONAL PRESSURE TACTICS

This kind of bargaining tactic is designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions.

• Refusal to negotiate.

What can you do when the other side refuses to negotiate altogether? First, recognize the tactic as a possible negotiating ploy: an attempt to use their entry into negotiation as a bargaining chip to obtain some concession on substance. A variant on this ploy is to set preconditions for negotiations. Second, talk about their refusal to negotiate. Communicate either directly or through third parties. Don’t attack them for refusing to negotiate, but rather find out their interests in not negotiating. Are they worried about giving you status by talking to you? Will those who talk with you be criticized for being “soft”? Do they think negotiation will destroy their precarious internal unity? Or do they simply not believe that an agreement is possible? Suggest some options, such as negotiating through third parties, sending letters, or encouraging private individuals like journalists to discuss the issues (as happened in the Iranian case). Finally, insist on using principles.

• Extreme demands.

Negotiators will frequently start with extreme proposals like offering $175,000 for your house that is apparently worth $300,000. The goal is to lower your expectations. They also figure that an extreme initial position will give them a better end result, on the theory that the parties will ultimately end up splitting the difference between their positions. There are drawbacks to this approach, even for tricky bargainers. Making an extreme demand that both you and they know will be abandoned undermines their credibility. Such an opening may also kill the deal; if they offer too little, you may think they are not worth bothering with. Bringing the tactic to their attention works well here. Ask for principled justification of their position until it looks ridiculous even to them.

• Escalating demands.

A negotiator may raise one of his demands for every concession he makes on another. He may also reopen issues you thought had been settled. The benefits of this tactic lie in decreasing the overall concession, and in the psychological effect of making you want to agree quickly before he raises any more of his demands.

• Lock-in tactics.

This tactic is illustrated by Thomas Schelling’s well-known example of two dynamite trucks barreling toward each other on a single-lane road. The question becomes which truck goes off the road to avoid an accident. As the trucks near each other, one driver in full view of the other pulls off his steering wheel and throws it out the window. Seeing this, the other driver has a choice between an explosive crash or driving his truck off the road into a ditch. This is an example of an extreme commitment tactic designed to make it impossible to yield. Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation.

But lock-in tactics are gambles. You may call the other side’s bluff and force them to make a concession, which they will then have to explain to their constituency. Like threats, lock-in tactics depend on communication. If the other truck driver does not see the steering wheel fly out the window, or if he thinks the truck has an emergency steering mechanism, the act of throwing the steering wheel out the window will not have its intended effect.

In response to a commitment tactic, therefore, you may be able to interrupt the communication. You can so interpret the commitment as to weaken it. “Oh, I see. You told the papers your goal was to settle for $400,000. Well, we all have our aspirations, I guess. Do you want to know what mine are?” Alternatively, you can crack a joke and not take the lock-in seriously. You can also resist lock-ins on principle: “Fine, Bob, I understand you made that statement publicly. But my practice is never to yield to pressure, only to reason. Now let’s talk about the merits of the problem.” Whatever you do, avoid making the commitment a central question. Deemphasize it so that the other side can more gracefully back down.

• Hardhearted partner.

Perhaps the most common negotiating tactic used to justify not yielding to your requests is for the other negotiator to say that he personally would have no objection, but his hardhearted partner will not let him. “It’s a perfectly reasonable request, I agree. But my boss absolutely refuses to hear of it.” Recognize the tactic. Rather than discussing it with the other negotiator, you may want to get his agreement to the principle involved — perhaps in writing — and then if possible speak directly with the “hardhearted partner.”

• A calculated delay.

Frequently one side will try to postpone coming to a decision until a time they think favorable. Labor negotiators will often delay until the last few hours before a strike deadline, relying on the psychological pressure of the deadline to make management more malleable. Unfortunately, they often miscalculate and the strike deadline passes. Once the strike begins, management, in turn, may decide to wait for a more favorable time, such as when the union’s strike fund has run out. Waiting for the right time is a high-cost game. In addition to making delaying tactics explicit and negotiating about them, consider creating a fading opportunity for the other side. If you represent one company negotiating a merger with another, start talks with a third company, exploring the possibility of merging with them instead. Look for objective conditions that can be used to establish credible deadlines, such as the date on which taxes are due, the annual trustees meeting, the end of the contract, or the end of the legislative session.

• “Take it or leave it.”

There is nothing inherently wrong with confronting the other side with a firm choice.

This is an efficient method of conducting business, but it is not a negotiation. Nor is there anything wrong after long negotiations to conclude them when you mean to do so by saying, “Take it or leave it,” except that you should probably phrase it more politely. As an alternative to explicitly recognizing the “Take it or leave it” tactic and negotiating about it, consider ignoring it at first. Keep talking as if you didn’t hear it, or change the subject, perhaps by introducing other solutions. If you do bring up the tactic specifically, let them know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached and look for a face-saving way, such as a change in circumstances, for them to get out of the situation.

How important is it to maintain a good working relationship? If the other side is a valued customer or client, maintaining your ongoing relationship may be more important to you than the outcome of any one deal. This does not mean you should be less persistent in pursuing your interests, but it does suggest avoiding tactics such as threats or ultimatums that involve a high risk of damage to the relationship.

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. But if the discussion starts to bog down, be prepared to change gears. Start clarifying the underlying interests.

Question 2: “What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?” In most negotiations there will be no one “right” or “fairest” answer; people will advance different standards by which to judge what is fair. Yet using external standards improves on haggling in three ways: An outcome informed even by conflicting standards of fairness and community practice is likely to be wiser than an arbitrary result. Using standards reduces the costs of “backing down”—it is easier to agree to follow a principle or independent standard than to give in to the other side’s positional demand. And finally, unlike arbitrary positions, some standards are more persuasive than others. In a negotiation between a young lawyer and a Wall Street law firm over salary, for example, it would be absurd for the hiring partner to say, “I don’t suppose you think you are any smarter than I am, so we’ll offer you the same salary I made when I started out forty years ago—$24,000.” The young lawyer would point out the impact of inflation over the intervening years and suggest using current salaries. If the partner proposed using the current salaries for young lawyers in Dayton or Des Moines, the young lawyer would point out that the average salary for young lawyers in similarly prestigious Manhattan firms was a more appropriate standard.

When standards have been refined to the point that it is difficult to argue persuasively that one standard is more applicable than another, the parties can explore trade-offs or resort to fair procedures to settle the remaining differences. They can flip a coin, use an arbitrator, or even split the difference.

Question 4: “What do I do if the people are the problem?”

Sometimes there may be good reasons to agree, even when you believe fairness would dictate otherwise. For example, if you already have an excellent working relationship, you may well decide to give in on an issue, confident that on some future occasion the other person will recognize that they “owe you one” and reciprocate the favor. (But make sure they also see what you are doing as a favor.) Or you may reasonably decide that one or more issues are not worth fighting over, all things considered. Our point is that you should not give in for the purpose of trying to improve a relationship.

As always in negotiation, you need to have thought through your BATNA. In some cases the other side may come to appreciate that your concerns are a shared problem only when they realize that your BATNA, in the event you fail to reach a solution satisfactory to you, is not very good for them.

When does it make sense not to negotiate? Whether it makes sense to negotiate and how much effort to put into it depends on how satisfactory you find your BATNA and how likely you think it is that negotiation will produce better results. If your BATNA is fine and negotiation looks unpromising, there is no reason to invest much time in negotiation.

To do this analysis, you need to have thought carefully about your BATNA and the other side’s. You should not make the mistake of the bank that was negotiating with a bankrupt energy company.

Don’t assume that you have a BATNA better than negotiating or that you don’t. Think it through. Then decide whether negotiating makes sense.

Get in step. In any negotiation it is highly desirable to be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns, norms of behavior, and mood of those with whom you are dealing. Adapt your behavior accordingly. If you are negotiating with someone, it is that person whom you are trying to affect. The more successfully you can get in step with that person’s way of thinking, the more likely you are to be able to work out an agreement. Some common differences that can make a difference in negotiation include the following: Pacing: fast or slow? Formality: high or low? Physical proximity while talking: close or distant? Oral or written agreements: which are more binding and inclusive? Bluntness of communication: direct or indirect? Time frame: short-term or longer? Scope of relationship: business-only or all-encompassing? The expected place of doing business: private or public? Who negotiates: equals in status or the most competent people for the task? Rigidity of commitments: written in stone or meant to be flexible?

Even if the bulk of your communication needs to be on email, try to have an initial meeting in person or on the phone, and schedule periodic check-ins in the same mode, to create and maintain a level of human connection.

Who should make the first offer? It would be a mistake to assume that making an offer is always the best way to put a figure on the table. Usually you will want to explore interests, options, and criteria for a while before making an offer. Making an offer too soon can make the other side feel railroaded. Once both sides have a sense of the problem, an offer that makes an effort to reconcile the interests and standards that have been advanced is more likely to be received as a constructive step forward. (Without that groundwork, even a generous offer may be seen suspiciously as a result of what social psychologists call “reactive devaluation”: If you are offering it, it must not be good for me.) Whether or not you make an offer, you may want to try to “anchor” the discussion early around an approach or standard favorable to you.

How high should I start? Many people tend to measure success by how far the other party has moved.

Under these circumstances, if you are selling, you would ordinarily start with the highest figure that you could justify without embarrassment. Another way to think of it is to start with the highest figure that you would try to persuade a neutral third party was fair. In putting forth such a figure you would first explain the reasoning and then give the number. (If they hear a number they don’t like, they may not listen to the reasoning.) Such an opening figure need not be advanced as a firm position. Indeed, the firmer you suggest early figures to be, the greater you damage your credibility as you move off them. It is safer and at least as effective to say something like “Well, one factor to consider would be what others are paying for comparable work. In New York, for example, they pay $58 an hour. How does that sound?” Here you have put out a standard and a figure without committing to it at all.

Throughout, the goal is to avoid useless quarreling. Where disagreements persist, seek second-order agreement—agreement on where you disagree. Make sure that each side’s interests and reasoning are clear.

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—their Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. If that seems impossible, then negotiation doesn’t make sense. Concentrate instead on improving your BATNA and perhaps changing theirs.

The best rule of thumb is to be optimistic—to let your reach exceed your grasp. Without wasting a lot of resources on hopeless causes, recognize that many things are worth trying for even if you may not succeed. The more you try for, the more you are likely to get. Studies of negotiation consistently show a strong correlation between aspiration and result. Within reason, it pays to think positively.

Good listening can increase your negotiation power by increasing the information you have about the other side’s interests or about possible options. Once you understand the other side’s feelings and concerns, you can begin to address them, to explore areas of agreement and disagreement, and to develop useful ways to proceed in the future.

Showing that you have heard the other side also increases your ability to persuade them. When the other side feels heard by you, they are more apt to listen to you. It is comparatively easy to listen when the other side is saying something that you agree with. It is harder to listen to things with which you disagree, but that is the very time it is most effective. Listen before you launch into a rebuttal. Inquire. Make sure you understand their view, and make sure they know you understand. Once the other side knows that you understand what they have said, they cannot dismiss your disagreement as simple lack of understanding.

Another way to “change the game” is to change the frame. In other words, move the focus in the negotiation from positions to interests, options, or standards. If the other side says, for example, “$10,000 is the most we will pay,” when you think $50,000 would be fair, you could respond in several ways: Reframe to interests: “I hear that is your position. Given how far that seems below the market price, help me understand your interests. Are you experiencing a serious cash flow crisis?” Reframe to options: “$10,000 is one option, just as $100,000 or $200,000 would be attractive options from our point of view. I think we’ll get a lot further brainstorming options likely to be acceptable and attractive to both of us. What if we were to …?” Reframe to standards: “You must have good reasons for thinking $10,000 is a fair offer. How did you arrive at that number? Why that number, instead of, say, $0 or $100,000? My understanding is that the market price is $50,000. Why should we agree on less?” Reframe to BATNA: “Of course, that’s your decision to make, and perhaps someone else will accept that. I think we need to think hard now about whether an agreement is possible here that would make sense for both of us.”

Look for intangible or hidden interests that may be important. With concrete interests like money, ask what lies behind them. (“For what will the money be used?”) Sometimes even the most firmly stated and unacceptable position reflects an underlying interest that is compatible with your own.

There is power in using external standards of legitimacy. You can use standards of legitimacy both as a sword to persuade others, and as a shield to help you resist pressure to give in arbitrarily. (“I would like to give you a discount, but this price is firm. It is what General Motors paid for the same item last week; here is the bill of sale.”)

So a negotiator can enhance his or her negotiation power by finding precedents, principles, and other external criteria of fairness and by thinking of ways to present them forcefully and tellingly: “I am asking for no more and no less than you are paying others for comparable work.”

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

An attractive BATNA is a strong argument with which to persuade the other side of the need to offer more. (“The firm across the street has offered me 20 percent above what I am now earning. I would rather stay here. But with the cost of living, unless I can get a good raise soon, I will have to consider moving on. What do you think might be possible?”) In addition to improving your overall BATNA (what you will do if the negotiations fail to produce an agreement), you should also prepare your “micro-BATNA”—if no agreement is reached at this meeting, what is the best outcome? It helps to draft in advance a good exit line to use if a meeting is inconclusive. (“Thank you for sharing your views and for listening to mine. If I decide to go forward, I will get back to you, perhaps with a fresh proposal.”)

The tactic of worsening the other side’s BATNA can be used to coerce or exploit, but it can also help ensure a fair outcome. Efforts to improve one’s own alternatives and to lower the other side’s estimate of theirs are critical ways to enhance our negotiating power.

In some cases, you may also want to clarify what you will do if the other side does not accept your proposal. They may not realize the consequences of your BATNA for them. (“If we can’t get heat in our apartment this evening, I will have to call the health department’s emergency line. Are you aware that they charge landlords a $250 fine when they respond and find a violation of the statute?”) Consider committing to what you will not do. Sometimes you can persuade the other side to accept an offer better than their BATNA by convincing them that you cannot or will not offer more (“Take it or leave it”). You not only make an offer; you tie your hands against changing it. As discussed in Chapter 1, locking into a position has significant costs; locking in early limits communication and runs the risk of damaging the relationship by making the other side feel ignored or coerced. There is less risk in locking in after you have come to understand the other side’s interests and have explored options for joint gains, and it will do less damage to your relationship with the other side if there are credible reasons independent of your will to explain and justify your rigidity. At some point, it may be best to put a final offer on the table and mean it. Doing so tends to influence the other side by worsening their micro-BATNA. At this point if they say “no,” they no longer have open the possibility of reaching a better agreement with you.