Roger Fisher, William Urey
The path to agreement or negotiations without defeat
Scanned, recognized, polished and made in HTML NIKULIN Victor, St. Petersburg, 2000.
INTRODUCTION
To Our Fathers, Walter T. Fisher
and Melvin S. Urey, who
by force of example they proved to us
the power of principles.
This book began with the question: how can people the best way deal with your differences? For example, what is the best advice to give to a divorcing husband and wife who want to know how to reach a fair and satisfactory agreement without the usual violent quarrel? Or - what is even more difficult - what advice can be given to one of them, guided by the same considerations? Every day, families, neighbors, spouses, employees, bosses, businessmen), consumers, sellers, lawyers and countries find themselves faced with the same dilemma - how to say “yes” to each other without resorting to war with each other. Drawing on our knowledge of international law and anthropology, and relying on extensive long-term collaboration with practitioners, colleagues and students, we have developed a practical method for reaching agreements on a friendly basis, without defeating the parties.
We tested our ideas in conversations with lawyers, businessmen, government officials, judges, prison governors, diplomats, insurance representatives, miners and oil company executives. We express our gratitude to all those who critically responded to our work and shared their comments and suggestions with us. We benefited greatly from this.
Frankly, so many people have contributed to our research over the years that it is now completely impossible to say exactly to whom we are most indebted for which ideas. Those who have made the greatest contributions understand, of course, that we have not made references not because we believed that every idea was first expressed by us, but rather in order for the text to be readable at all, especially, we repeat, we are obliged very much a large number of people.
And yet we can't help but say something about Howard Reiff. His kind but frank criticism repeatedly improved our approach. Moreover, his comments on the need to seek mutual benefits in negotiations by exploiting existing differences, as well as the role of imagination in solving difficult problems, inspired us to write separate sections of the book devoted to these issues. Louis Sohn, an extraordinary visionary and negotiator, constantly inspired us with his constant ingenuity and vision for the future. Among other things, we owe it to him that he introduced us to the idea of using a single negotiating text, which we called the “One Text Procedure”. We would also like to thank Michael Doyle and David Strauss for their creativity to conduct brainstorming sessions.
It was very difficult to find suitable stories and examples. Here we are indebted to Jim Sibenius for his reviews of the Law of the Sea Conference (as well as for his thoughtful criticism of our method), Tom Griffith for his account of his negotiations with an insurance company clerk, and Mary Parker Follett for the story of two men arguing in a library. .
We would especially like to thank all those who have read this book in various manuscript versions and who have allowed us to benefit from their criticisms, including our student participants in the Negotiation Workshops held in January 1980 and 1981. at Harvard Law School, as well as Frank Sander, John Cooper, and William Lincoln, who led these groups with us. We would like to thank in particular those members of the Harvard Negotiation Seminar whom we have not yet mentioned; they have listened patiently to us over the past two years and made many useful suggestions - John Dunlop, James Healy, David Kuchl, Thomas Schelling and Lawrence Susskind. To all our friends and allies we owe more than we can express, but the authors bear final responsibility for the contents of the book; if the result is imperfect, it is not due to lack of effort on the part of our colleagues.
Without the help of family and friends, writing would be unbearable. For constructive criticism and moral support, we thank Carolyn Fisher, David Lax, Francis Turnbull, and Janice Urey. Without Francis Fisher this book would never have been written. It was he who introduced us to each other about four years ago.
Without excellent secretarial assistance, we would not have succeeded either. Thanks to Deborah Reimel for her unfailing competence, moral support, and firm but kind reminders, and to Denise Trybula, whose diligence and cheerfulness never wavered. Special thanks to the staff at Ward Processing, led by Cynthia Smith, who stood the test of an endless array of options and almost impossible deadlines.
There are also our editors. By rearranging and cutting our book in half, Marty Lynskey has made it much more readable. To spare our readers, he had the good sense not to spare our feelings. Thanks also to Peter Kinder, June Kinoshita, and Bob Ross. June tried to keep as little unparliamentary language as possible in the book. Where this has failed, we apologize to those who may be offended by this. We would also like to thank Andrea Williams, our advisor: Juliana Bach, our agent; Dick McAdow and his colleagues at Houghton Mifflin, who made the publication of this book both possible and enjoyable.
Finally, we want to thank Bruce Patton, our friend and colleague, editor and facilitator. No one did more for this book than he. From the very beginning, he helped brainstorm and organized the book's syllogisms. He rearranged almost every chapter and edited every sentence. If books were movies, ours would be known as a "Patton production."
Roger Fisher, William Urey
INTRODUCTION
Whether you like it or not, you are the person negotiating. Negotiations are a fact of ours Everyday life. You are discussing your promotion with your boss or trying to negotiate with a stranger on the price of his house. Two lawyers are trying to resolve a controversial case due to car accident. A group of oil companies is planning a joint venture to explore offshore oil fields. A city official is meeting with union leaders to try to prevent a transit workers' strike. The United States Secretary of State, seeking an agreement to limit nuclear weapons, sits down at the negotiating table with his Soviet counterpart. It's all negotiation.
Every day we all agree on something. Like Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain, who was delighted to learn that he had spoken in prose all his life, people negotiate even when they do not imagine that they are doing it. Some people discuss with their spouse where to go for dinner and with their child about when to turn off the lights. Negotiation is the primary means of getting what you want from other people. This is a shuttle relationship designed to reach an agreement when you and the other party have some coinciding or opposing interests.
Nowadays, we increasingly have to resort to negotiations: after all, conflict is, figuratively speaking, a developing industry. Every person wants to participate in decisions that affect him; fewer and fewer people agree with decisions imposed by someone. People with different interests use negotiation to resolve their differences. Whether in business, government, or family, people reach most decisions through negotiation. Even when they go to court, they almost always work out an agreement before the hearing.
Although negotiations happen every day, they are not easy to conduct properly. The standard negotiation strategy often leaves people feeling dissatisfied, exhausted, or alienated, and often all three.
People find themselves in a dilemma. They see only two options for negotiating: being flexible or being tough. A person who is gentle in character wants to avoid personal conflict and is willing to make concessions in order to reach an agreement. He wants an amicable outcome, but the matter often ends with him feeling slighted and remaining offended. A tough negotiator views every situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the extreme position and persists in its position gains more. He wants to win, but often ends up causing an equally violent reaction, which exhausts him and his resources, and damages his relationship with the other party. The second standard strategy in negotiations takes a middle approach - between soft and hard, but includes an attempt to negotiate between the desire to achieve what you want and getting along with people.
To Our Fathers, Walter T. Fisher
and Melvin S. Urey, who
by force of example they proved to us
the power of principles.
This book began with a question: How can people best deal with their differences? For example, what is the best advice to give to a divorcing husband and wife who want to know how to reach a fair and satisfactory agreement without the usual violent quarrel? Or - what is even more difficult - what advice can be given to one of them, guided by the same considerations? Every day, families, neighbors, spouses, employees, bosses, businessmen), consumers, sellers, lawyers and countries find themselves faced with the same dilemma - how to say “yes” to each other without resorting to war with each other. Drawing on our knowledge of international law and anthropology, and relying on extensive long-term collaboration with practitioners, colleagues and students, we have developed a practical method for reaching agreements on a friendly basis, without defeating the parties.
We tested our ideas in conversations with lawyers, businessmen, government officials, judges, prison governors, diplomats, insurance representatives, miners and oil company executives. We express our gratitude to all those who critically responded to our work and shared their comments and suggestions with us. We benefited greatly from this.
Frankly, so many people have contributed to our research over the years that it is now completely impossible to say exactly to whom we are most indebted for which ideas. Those who contributed the most will, of course, understand that we have not made references not because we believed that every idea was first expressed by us, but rather in order for the text to be readable at all, especially since, we repeat, we owe it to a very large number of people .
And yet we can't help but say something about Howard Reiff. His kind but frank criticism repeatedly improved our approach. Moreover, his comments on the need to seek mutual benefits in negotiations by exploiting existing differences, as well as the role of imagination in solving difficult problems, inspired us to write separate sections of the book devoted to these issues. Louis Sohn, an extraordinary visionary and negotiator, constantly inspired us with his constant ingenuity and vision for the future. Among other things, we owe it to him that he introduced us to the idea of using a single negotiating text, which we called the “One Text Procedure”. We would also like to thank Michael Doyle and David Strauss for their creative brainstorming efforts.
It was very difficult to find suitable stories and examples. Here we are indebted to Jim Sibenius for his reviews of the Law of the Sea Conference (as well as for his thoughtful criticism of our method), Tom Griffith for his account of his negotiations with an insurance company clerk, and Mary Parker Follett for the story of two men arguing in a library.
We would especially like to thank all those who have read this book in various manuscript versions and who have allowed us to benefit from their criticisms, including our student participants in the Negotiation Workshops held in January 1980 and 1981. at Harvard Law School, as well as Frank Sander, John Cooper, and William Lincoln, who led these groups with us. We would like to thank in particular those members of the Harvard Negotiation Seminar whom we have not yet mentioned; they have listened patiently to us over the past two years and made many useful suggestions - John Dunlop, James Healy, David Kuchl, Thomas Schelling and Lawrence Susskind. To all our friends and allies we owe more than we can express, but the authors bear final responsibility for the contents of the book; if the result is imperfect, it is not due to lack of effort on the part of our colleagues.
Without the help of family and friends, writing would be unbearable. For constructive criticism and moral support, we thank Carolyn Fisher, David Lax, Francis Turnbull, and Janice Urey. Without Francis Fisher this book would never have been written. It was he who introduced us to each other about four years ago.
Without excellent secretarial assistance, we would not have succeeded either. Thanks to Deborah Reimel for her unfailing competence, moral support, and firm but kind reminders, and to Denise Trybula, whose diligence and cheerfulness never wavered. Special thanks to the staff at Ward Processing, led by Cynthia Smith, who stood the test of an endless array of options and almost impossible deadlines.
There are also our editors. By rearranging and cutting our book in half, Marty Lynskey has made it much more readable. To spare our readers, he had the good sense not to spare our feelings. Thanks also to Peter Kinder, June Kinoshita, and Bob Ross. June tried to keep as little unparliamentary language as possible in the book. Where this has failed, we apologize to those who may be offended by this. We would also like to thank Andrea Williams, our advisor: Juliana Bach, our agent; Dick McAdow and his colleagues at Houghton Mifflin, who made the publication of this book both possible and enjoyable.
Finally, we want to thank Bruce Patton, our friend and colleague, editor and facilitator. No one did more for this book than he. From the very beginning, he helped brainstorm and organized the book's syllogisms. He rearranged almost every chapter and edited every sentence. If books were movies, ours would be known as a "Patton production."
Roger Fisher, William Urey
INTRODUCTION
Whether you like it or not, you are the person negotiating. Negotiations are a fact of our daily life. You are discussing your promotion with your boss or trying to negotiate with a stranger on the price of his house. Two lawyers try to resolve a controversial car accident case. A group of oil companies is planning a joint venture to explore offshore oil fields. A city official is meeting with union leaders to try to prevent a transit workers' strike. The United States Secretary of State, seeking an agreement to limit nuclear weapons, sits down at the negotiating table with his Soviet counterpart. It's all negotiation.
Every day we all agree on something. Like Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain, who was delighted to learn that he had spoken in prose all his life, people negotiate even when they do not imagine that they are doing it. Some people discuss with their spouse where to go for dinner and with their child about when to turn off the lights. Negotiation is the primary means of getting what you want from other people. This is a shuttle relationship designed to reach an agreement when you and the other party have some coinciding or opposing interests.
Nowadays, we increasingly have to resort to negotiations: after all, conflict is, figuratively speaking, a developing industry. Every person wants to participate in decisions that affect him; fewer and fewer people agree with decisions imposed by someone. People with different interests use negotiation to resolve their differences. Whether in business, government, or family, people reach most decisions through negotiation. Even when they go to court, they almost always work out an agreement before the hearing.
Although negotiations happen every day, they are not easy to conduct properly. The standard negotiation strategy often leaves people feeling dissatisfied, exhausted, or alienated, and often all three.
Published by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. and Synopsis Literary Agency
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.
© 1981, 1991 by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Published by special arrangement with Houghton Mifflin & Harcourt Publishing Company
© Translation. Tatyana Novikova, 2012
© Design. Mann, Ivanov and Ferber LLC, 2018
* * *
Preface
Over the past ten years, interest in the art of negotiation has grown significantly in professional and academic circles. New theoretical works have been published, research and numerous experiments have been conducted. Ten years ago, very few law colleges and departments offered a course on the art of negotiation, but now it is part of the required curriculum. Universities are opening special faculties dedicated to the art of negotiation. Consulting firms do the same thing in the corporate world.
Despite the fact that the situation in the world is constantly changing, the ideas presented in our book remain unshakable and constant. They have stood the test of time, received wide recognition, and are often the basis from which authors of other books build.
We hope that our answers to “10 Questions on How to Always Hear Yes” will be helpful and of interest to you.
We have divided the questions into several groups. The first includes questions about the meaning and scope of “principled” negotiations (we are talking about practical issues, not moral ones). The second category includes negotiations with people who do not want to make concessions, who profess a different system of values and adhere to a different system of negotiations. The third includes questions related to tactics (where to negotiate, who should make the first proposal, how to move from listing options to making commitments). And to the fourth group we included issues related to the role of government influence during the negotiation process.
Introduction
Whether you like it or not, you are constantly involved in negotiations. Negotiations are an integral part of our life. You are discussing a salary increase with your boss. You are trying to persuade a stranger to lower the price of the house you are about to buy. Two lawyers argue in court over who is at fault for a car accident. A group of oil companies plans to create a joint venture to exploit a field in an offshore zone. A government official meets with union leaders to avoid a national strike. The United States Secretary of State is conferring with his Russian counterpart regarding the reduction of nuclear weapons. And it's all negotiations.
A person participates in negotiations every day. Remember Moliere's Jourdain, who was happy to learn that he spoke in prose. People participate in negotiations even when they are not aware of it. You are involved in negotiations with your spouse about dinner and with your children about when to go to bed. Negotiation is the main way to get what you want from others. This is a way of communication aimed at achieving agreement in a situation where you and the other party have common interests, but at the same time there are opposing ones.
More life situations requires negotiations. Conflicts are growing and expanding. Everyone wants to be involved in decisions that affect their lives. Fewer and fewer people are willing to accept decisions that someone else has made for them. People are different from each other, and negotiations are necessary in order to smooth out these differences. Whether we are talking about business, government or family problems, most decisions are made through negotiations. Even when going to court, people try to reach an agreement before the trial.
Although negotiations take place every day, it is very difficult to conduct them well. Standard strategies often leave participants exhausted, alienated, and dissatisfied.
People are faced with a dilemma. They recognize two ways of negotiating: delicate and tough. When choosing the first method, a person tries with all his might to avoid personal conflicts and makes concessions in order to achieve agreement. He wants to reach a solution that would suit both parties, but as a result he feels deceived. A person who has chosen a tough style of negotiation views any situation that arises as a conflict of egos, in which only those who insist on their own can win. He wants to win, but more often than not he encounters an even tougher position. This is exhausting, drains strength and resources, and spoils relationships between participants. There are intermediate negotiation strategies, but each of them boils down to trying to reach an agreement between what you want to get and what others are willing to give you.
There is a third way of negotiations, which can be neither delicate nor tough. It combines features of both methods. This is a method of principled negotiations developed within the framework of the Harvard Negotiation Project. This method of negotiation takes into account the true interests of both parties, and does not boil down to a meaningless discussion of what each of the participants is ready to do and what they will not do for anything. The basic premise is that participants strive to find a mutually beneficial solution, and when a conflict of interest arises, the decision should be based on fair standards, independent of the wishes of the parties. The method of principled negotiations is harsh in relation to the issues being resolved, but “delicate” towards people. There is no room for dirty tricks and pointless stubbornness. Principled negotiations will help you achieve what you want and avoid becoming a trickster and a deceiver. You will be able to remain fair and at the same time protect yourself from those who want to take advantage of your fairness.
The book is devoted to methods of conducting principled negotiations. In the first chapter we will discuss the problems that arise with the use of standard position trading strategies. In the next four chapters we will talk about the four principles of our proposed method. In the last three chapters you will find the answer to the most frequently asked questions: “What to do if the enemy turns out to be stronger?”, “What to do if he does not want to play on our terms?”, “What to do if he resorts to dirty tricks ?
The method of principled negotiations can be used by American diplomats who are negotiating with Russia regarding the reduction of nuclear weapons, Wall Street lawyers representing the interests of largest companies, and spouses deciding where to go on vacation and how to divide property in the event of a divorce. This method is suitable for everyone.
Each negotiation is unique and different from each other, but the main aspects are constant and unchanging. The method of principled negotiations can be used in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, when resolving one or more issues, in negotiations conducted according to a predetermined ritual, and in completely unexpected situations that require impromptu. This method will help you negotiate with both an experienced and inexperienced opponent, and with a tough-minded representative of the other side, and with someone who is polite and friendly. Principled negotiations can be conducted in any situation. Unlike most other strategies, this method is easy to use even when the other party is also using the same strategy. And what more people If they read this book, it will be easier for all of us to conduct any negotiations.
I. Problem
1. Don't insist on your position
Whether your negotiations involve an important contract, a family issue, or world peace, people often have to make positional bargains. Each side takes a certain position, defends it and makes concessions in order to reach a compromise. A classic example of such negotiations is a conversation between a customer and the owner of a second-hand goods store.
Buyer: How much do you want for this copper basin?
Owner: This is a wonderful antique, isn't it? I'm ready to sell it for $75.
P.: Come on, it's too expensive! I'm ready to buy it for 15 dollars.
IN.: Are you seriously? I can offer you a small discount, but $15 is not a serious offer.
P.: Well, I can raise the price to 20 dollars, but I will never pay you 75. Name a reasonable price.
IN.: You know how to bargain, young lady. Well, okay, 60 dollars - and we're done.
P.: 25 dollars.
IN.: I bought this basin myself for much more. Name a reasonable price.
P.: 37.50 and not a cent more. This is the most high price, which I can agree to.
IN.: See what's engraved on this basin? Next year such items will cost twice as much.
Any negotiation method can be assessed according to three criteria. Negotiations should lead to a reasonable agreement, if possible. Negotiations must be effective. And finally, they should improve, but in no case spoil, the relations between the parties. (A reasonable agreement can be considered one that permissible degree meets the legitimate interests of all parties, resolves conflicts of interest fairly, long term and takes into account the common interests of all parties involved in the negotiations.)
The most common form of negotiation, demonstrated in the example above, depends on consistently taking and then surrendering a number of positions.
Taking positions, as the customer and the store owner did, during negotiations serves several useful purposes. It shows the other party what you want; it provides support in a difficult and uncertain situation; it allows the terms of an acceptable agreement to be worked out. But all these goals can be achieved in other ways. Positional deals do not help achieve the main goal - reaching a reasonable agreement that is effective and mutually acceptable.
Disputes over positions lead to unreasonable agreements
When negotiators take certain positions, they become locked into them. The more clearly you clarify your position and the more vigorously you defend it from the attacks of the other side, the more firmly you defend it. The more you try to convince the other side that it is impossible to change your position, the more difficult it becomes for you to do so. Your ego merges with your position. You have a new interest - you need to “save face”, coordinate your future actions with the position taken in the past. And this significantly reduces the likelihood of reaching a reasonable agreement that meets the interests of both parties.
The danger that trench warfare can complicate negotiations can be illustrated widely famous example. Let us recall the negotiations between President Kennedy and Soviet Union regarding the ban on nuclear weapons testing. During the negotiations, a critical question arose: How many inspections per year should the Soviet Union and the United States conduct on each other's territory in response to suspicious seismic activity?
The Soviet Union agreed to three inspections, the United States insisted on ten. As a result, the negotiations failed, each side remained with its own. This is despite the fact that no one discussed either the number of inspectors or the duration of inspections. The parties made no attempt to develop an inspection procedure that would satisfy the interests of both parties.
The more attention is paid to the positions of the parties, the less is left to satisfy mutual interests.
An agreement is becoming increasingly unlikely. Any agreement reached most often reflects a mechanical smoothing out of differences between the final positions of the parties, rather than a solution that satisfies their legitimate interests. As a result, the agreement reached turns out to be less satisfactory for the parties than it could have been.
Arguing over positions is ineffective
The standard method of negotiating can lead either to an agreement, as in the issue of the price of a copper basin, or to a break, as happened in the discussion of limiting nuclear weapons. In any case, the process takes quite a long time.
Insisting on one's position creates factors that slow down the achievement of agreement. By insisting on your position, you are trying to increase the chances that the agreement reached will be favorable to you. To this end, you uncompromisingly stand your ground, try to mislead the other side, and only as a last resort agree to minimal concessions. The other side behaves in exactly the same way. These factors significantly delay reaching an agreement. The more extreme the positions of the parties and the fewer concessions they agree to, the more time and effort will be required to determine whether an agreement can be reached.
The standard procedure also requires the adoption large quantity individual decisions, since each side must firmly decide what it can offer, what it must reject, and what concessions it will agree to make. Since each decision is not only not aimed at satisfying the interests of the other party, but, on the contrary, only increases pressure, a negotiator cannot count on quickly reaching agreement. Scandals, threats, stony silence - these are the most common negotiating techniques. It is natural that similar methods lead only to increased time and expense in reaching agreement, and in the worst case, make agreement completely impossible.
Disputes over positions threaten the survival of relationships
Excessively firm defense of one's positions turns into a battle of egos. Each participant in the negotiations clearly knows what he can do and what he will not do under any circumstances. The task of reaching a mutually acceptable solution turns into a real battle. Each side tries to force the other to change its position. “I'm not going to give in. If you want to go to the cinema with me, we will watch The Maltese Falcon or not go to the cinema at all.” The result of such behavior is anger and resentment because one party is forced to submit to the will of the other party while its own legitimate interests remain unsatisfied.
Commercial enterprises that have been leading for years joint activities, separate forever. Neighbors stop talking to each other. Resentment resulting from such negotiations can last for years.
When multiple parties are involved in negotiations, the situation becomes even worse
Although it is much more convenient to discuss negotiations in which there are two parties, that is, you and the other party, in reality there are almost always many more participants. Several parties can gather at the table at once, and each has its own constituents, management, boards of directors and committees that determine their strategy. The more people participate in negotiations, the more serious the consequences of actively defending their positions.
Defending your positions often has the most negative impact on relations between the parties.
If 150 countries are involved in negotiations, as happens at a session of the UN General Assembly, it becomes almost impossible to defend your position. Everyone can say “yes”, but one person will say “no”. Mutual concessions in such a situation become difficult, if not impossible: it is not clear at all who should yield? The results of thousands of bilateral agreements are nullified by the inability to reach a multilateral agreement. In such situations, defending one's own position leads to the formation of coalitions within the parties, whose common interests are often more symbolic than real. At the UN, such coalitions lead to negotiations between North and South, between East and West. Since each group has many members, it becomes very difficult to develop a common position. What’s worse, after everyone has worked out a common position with great difficulty, it becomes simply impossible to move away from it. Changing a position is further complicated by the fact that authoritative participants who may have been absent at the time of its development may categorically refuse to approve the result obtained.
Agreeing with everyone is not the answer
Many people understand the negative role of actively defending their own position, in particular its detrimental impact on relations between the parties. They hope to avoid this by negotiating more sensitively. Instead of viewing the other side as an enemy, they prefer to treat them in a friendly manner. Instead of seeking to win, they recognize the need to reach agreement.
The table below shows two styles of asserting your own position: delicate and tough. Most people believe that this is the only way to negotiate. After studying the table, think about whether you are a supporter of a delicate or tough style. Or maybe you prefer an intermediate strategy? A delicate negotiation game is conducted with the aim of strengthening and maintaining relations between the parties. Negotiations between relatives and friends are conducted this way. The process is generally effective. At least the results are achieved fairly quickly. When each party competes with the other in generosity and selflessness, agreement is easily achieved. But such consent is not always reasonable. Of course, the results may not be as tragic as in O'Henry's story "The Gift of the Magi." Remember how the husband sold his watch to buy his wife a beautiful comb, and she sold her hair to buy her husband a gold chain for his watch? However, any negotiations related to personal relationships may always not give the best results. top scores. More seriously, a soft, friendly negotiating style leaves you vulnerable to those who play hardball and assertively defend their position. In such a situation, the hard game dominates the soft game. If the second party insists on concessions, and the first makes them out of fear of ruining the relationship, the negotiation game ends in favor of the hard-line supporter. The process leads to an agreement, although this agreement is not the most reasonable one. It is much more favorable to the hard participant than to the gentle person. If you find yourself in a similar situation and choose to play the role of peacemaker, prepare to lose your shirt.
This book can be purchased from the publishing house Mann, Ivanov and Ferber
What is this book about?
The book is devoted to methods of conducting principled negotiations that will help you achieve the desired results in negotiations at any level. In addition, the authors added another useful section to it: “10 questions on how to always hear “yes”,” which contains answers to questions about fairness, relationships between people, tactics and power within the negotiation process.
What does the book consist of?
The book consists of theoretical foundations principled negotiations and practical, including historical, examples of their application.
Who is this book for?
The book will be most useful for those whose work involves negotiations. However, many of the tips from it will help you come to an agreement even with the most intractable interlocutors in everyday life.
Have you ever participated in negotiations? The answer to this question is often “no.” This is understandable: the proportion of professions in which you need to resort to oratory and convince your opponent to make a deal is not so large. However, the authors of the cult book “Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method» Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton offer the reader a new perspective on negotiations.
It turns out that we enter into negotiations every day. Trying to change your grade with a teacher, increase your salary with your boss, buy a product at a discount, choose a movie to watch with a friend, or discuss a route for a walk with your family - all these are examples from everyday life when we have to defend our position. The authors of the book offer a time-tested way to achieve what you want.
This method involves conducting principled negotiations. It is contrasted with the often used method of positional negotiations, where the parties state their positions and try to “smooth out” the differences between them. The principled negotiation method means that in order to achieve a mutually beneficial solution, it is necessary to take into account the true interests of the parties, and not the stated positions of the participants. However, according to a survey conducted by THE WALL (125 people took part in it; the results are reflected in the infographic below), 21.3% of people do not see any differences between the interests and positions of the participants. To solve this problem, the book describes many ways, and also provides simple and successful examples of separation of positions and interests:
“Two people are sitting in the library. One wants to open the window, the other prefers it to remain closed. They begin to argue about how far the window can be opened: make a small crack, open half, three-quarters, or not open at all. No solution satisfies the disputants.
The librarian enters. He asks one of the arguers why he wants to open the window. “So that the room has Fresh air" He then asks the other why he objects. “So that there is no draft.” After thinking for a minute, the librarian opens the window to next room. The room becomes fresh, but at the same time there is no draft.” 
The method of principled negotiations, by discussing the interests of the other party (often unpredictable in advance), allows you to solve problems in a way that cannot be achieved alone. That is why the book contains advice that seems paradoxical at first glance: you should not conduct research in advance and prepare your own solution to the problem (60.2%, according to the results of our publication’s survey, do just that) and you should not even determine the lower limit of the agreement (84.3% determine) . However, all this does not mean that you should not prepare for negotiations in advance; on the contrary, it is necessary to do this, but in a different way, and in the book the authors tell you exactly how.
Separately, Harvard experts consider ways to combat “dirty” techniques in negotiations. For example, with positional pressure, in which your opponent deliberately forces you to make concessions, or with psychological methods, aimed at making you feel uncomfortable and strive to end the negotiations as quickly as possible. “Dirty” tricks also mean deliberate deception and personal attacks. According to a survey of young people aged 18 to 25, the majority of respondents have encountered such problems and many of them do not know how to competently continue negotiations if such situations arise.
Every week H&F reads one business book and selects the most interesting points from it. This time we read a book about the so-called “Harvard method” of negotiations, which teaches us to perceive opponents as accomplices in solving a common problem, and not as enemies.
Roger FISCHER
Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, government consultant
on conflict resolution
William URY
Co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project, global negotiations consultant
Bruce PATTON
Advocate,
Deputy Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project
Typical negotiation scenario
The most common form of negotiation depends on consistently taking and then surrendering a series of positions. When negotiators take certain positions, they become locked into them. The more accurately you clarify your position and the more fiercely you defend it from attacks from the other side, the more firmly you defend it. The more you try to convince the other side that it is impossible to change your position, the more difficult it becomes for you to do so. Your ego merges with your position. You have a new interest: you need to “save face”, coordinate your future actions with the position taken in the past. And this significantly reduces the likelihood of reaching a reasonable agreement that meets the interests of both parties. Excessively firm defense of one's positions turns into a battle of egos.
Harvard method
People recognize two ways of negotiating: delicate and tough. When choosing the first method, a person tries with all his might to avoid personal conflicts and makes concessions in order to achieve agreement. He wants to reach a solution that would suit both parties, but as a result he feels deceived. A person who has chosen a tough style of negotiation views any situation that arises as a conflict of egos, in which only those who insist on their own can win. He wants to win, but more often than not he encounters an even tougher position. This is exhausting, drains strength and resources, and spoils relationships between participants.
Negotiators must understand that they are working hand in hand. They are fighting the problem, not each other.
There is a third method that combines the features of the previous two - this is the method of principled negotiations, developed within the framework of the Harvard Negotiation Project. This method takes into account the true interests of both parties, and does not boil down to a meaningless discussion of what each of the participants is ready to do and what they will not do for anything. The basic premise is that participants strive to find a mutually beneficial solution, and when a conflict of interest arises, the decision should be based on fair standards, independent of the wishes of the parties. The method of principled negotiations is harsh in relation to the issues being resolved, but “delicate” towards people.
Separate people from money
A key feature of negotiations that is often forgotten at corporate or international events is that you are not dealing with abstract representatives of the “other side”, but with people. People have value systems and points of view. Each of them is completely unique and unpredictable. And you are exactly the same. People are not computers. Each of us has strong emotions, which often distort perceptions and complicate communication. Emotions, as a rule, are associated with the objective value of the problem. Taking a stand for your own position only makes the situation worse, as the egos of the participants become inextricably fused with their positions. Thus, before getting to the heart of the matter, it is necessary to separate the people from the problem and deal with these aspects in turn. Negotiators must understand that they are working hand in hand. They are fighting the problem, not each other.
True interests of the parties
The most powerful interests are basic human needs. When examining the basic interests behind stated positions, first identify those that are common to all people. If you can meet these needs, you will greatly increase the chances of reaching an agreement. And if an agreement is reached, the other side will definitely fulfill it. Basic human needs include the following: security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life. Because these needs are so obvious, they are often underestimated. During the negotiations, it seems to us that the only and main interest of all parties is money.
Be fair
Insist on using objective criteria. When interests are sharply opposed, negotiators can achieve the desired outcome simply through stubbornness. This method rewards persistence and produces arbitrary results. However, even such an opponent can be countered by insisting that his proposals are clearly insufficient and that the agreement must reflect fair standards that do not depend on the will of either side. This doesn't mean you should only insist on your own standards. No, absolutely neutral standards should be chosen as a criterion, such as market value, expert opinion, customs regulations or legal requirements. Discuss these criteria, not what each side wants or doesn't want to do, or what each side should concede to the other. A fair decision will benefit all parties.
Trust the other side
Don't conflate the other party's intentions with your fears. People often assume that the other party wants to do exactly what they fear. Let's take an example from the New York Times. “They met in a bar and he offered her a ride home. He took her along an unfamiliar route, saying that this road was shorter. He got her home so quickly that she was on time for the ten o'clock television news." Why is the ending of this story so surprising to us? Because our assumptions were based on our own fears. It is very easy to fall into the habit of interpreting the other party's words and actions in the worst possible way.
Maybe, best way change perception
the other hand is to send a message different from the one
what do they expect
Suspicion becomes second nature, which is very difficult to give up. They look "safe", but the habit of interpreting everything the other party says and does in the worst possible light prevents you from objectively perceiving fresh ideas, and therefore slows down the achievement of agreement. Blinded by your own negative attitude, you simply do not notice minor changes in position and concessions that the other side makes. They make your opponents real villains in your eyes. Look for opportunities to interact with the other party's perceptions. Perhaps the best way to change the other party's perception is to send a different message than what they expect.
Create together
If the other party is not involved in the process, they are unlikely to approve the outcome. It's very simple. If you come to the insurance adjuster after doing a lot of research and preparing for a fight, he will feel threatened by you and will resist your proposals with all his might. If you want the other party to agree to a conclusion that contradicts their point of view, you must involve them in the process of developing that conclusion. Usually you meet halfway, making sure that everything has been worked out. However, the other party would be much more likely to agree to your terms if they felt involved in the process of making those changes. Then the changes would be just one step in a long process of preparation. And so one of the parties offers the other a ready-made product that only needs approval.
In order to effectively involve the other party in this process, you must do so at a very early stage. Ask for advice. Share generously own ideas, and then you won't have to defend them to the other side. It's hard to resist the temptation to do everything yourself, but involving the other party in the process of developing a solution pays off. In addition to material benefits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the main the most important factor, which determines whether the negotiator will accept the proposal received.
Don't be shy about emotions
Discuss with all negotiators their emotions. Talk about your own feelings. If you say, “You know, we feel like we're being treated unfairly and it worries us. We are afraid that the agreement will not be fulfilled even if you and I reach it. Our doubts may seem irrational to you, but they exist. Personally, I think that most likely we are mistaken, but you can’t control your feelings. Maybe you feel something similar too? - It won't harm you in any way. Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people are more willing to start working on the problem.
Give the other side a chance to blow off steam. Very often the most effective way coping with anger is about providing opportunities to release them
Do own feelings and the emotions of the other party are subject to discussion. In this way, you will not in any way reduce the seriousness of the problem under discussion, but you will transfer the negotiations from the reactive phase to the “proactive” phase. Give the other side a chance to blow off steam. Often the most effective way to deal with anger, depression and other negative feelings is to give yourself the opportunity to release them. People experience psychological relief by throwing off the burden of such emotions.
Voice someone else's position
Until you acknowledge that you heard what the other party said and demonstrate full understanding, your partners will be convinced that you did not hear them. When you try to explain a different point of view, your opponents will think that you completely misunderstood them. “I explained my point of view to him, and now he says something completely opposite. So he didn’t understand me.” And instead of listening to your point of view, your negotiating partners will only think about how to explain their arguments in a more accessible and understandable way for you. Be sure to demonstrate your understanding. “Let's discuss whether I understood you correctly. Do you think the situation is like this..."
When repeating that you understand what the other negotiators have said, phrase the phrases in a positive way, increasing their impact on the interlocutors. You can say: "You have strong position. Let's see if I understood you correctly. That’s what worries me...” Understanding does not mean agreement. A person can absolutely understand the interlocutor and completely disagree with his words. But if you fail to convince your interlocutor that you fully understand his words, you will never explain your point of view to him.
The importance of one-on-one
In order to reduce the unpleasant and distracting effect that third parties have on negotiators, it is very useful to develop a personal, confidential style of communication with the other party. Communication can be improved by limiting the number of participants in group meetings. During the negotiations between Yugoslavia, Britain and the United States over the Trieste issue in 1954, not the slightest progress was made. And then the heads of the delegations abandoned their assistants and began to meet alone in an informal setting. It doesn’t matter how many people take part in the negotiations, - important decisions, as a rule, are accepted when there are no more than two people in the room.