Negotiating Without Defeat: The Harvard Method. "Negotiations without defeat

Principled Negotiation was developed by Roger Fisher, Bill Urey, and Bruce Patten and published as a book in 1981. This book has been translated into 25 languages and has become a bestseller. I bring to the attention of readers her summary, which may be of interest not only to various kinds of managers and people professionally involved in negotiating, but also to IT workers, housewives, businessmen, and also to everyone who wants to learn how to win in negotiations "in Harvard style", but before reading I haven't gotten the whole book yet.

Key theses of the book

The purpose of negotiations is the satisfaction of interests.
The ability to see the problem from the other side's point of view, no matter how difficult the task may seem to you, is one of the most important negotiating skills. It is not enough just to know that you perceive problems differently. If you want to influence another negotiator, you must absolutely clearly understand his point of view and feel its emotional power.
You have to separate the person from the problem.
It is the perception of the reality of each of the parties that is the main problem of the negotiations, which opens the way to a solution.
The differences between positions and interests are quite significant. Interests define the problem. Your position is that you decide. Your interests lie in what exactly made you decide this way.
The art of devising solutions that serve the mutual benefit of the parties is the most rewarding skill a negotiator can possess.
Think of an attack on you as an attack on a common problem.

1. Don't insist on your position

The negotiation game is always played on two levels. At one level, negotiations get to the heart of the issue; on the other hand, they focus (usually unconditionally) on the procedure for resolving a given issue. This is a kind of game in which the parties can stick to hard or soft positions. If you want to get the right answer to the question of which style of play is preferable - delicate or hard, we can emphatically tell you: neither of them. Our method of negotiation is aimed at achieving reasonable results quickly, efficiently and without prejudice to the personal relationship between the participants. This method is called principled negotiation and is based on four main principles.

These four principles define a straightforward method of negotiation that can be used in almost any setting. Each principle relates to a basic element of negotiation and provides a clear picture of what needs to be done.

People are not computers, standing up for one's own position during negotiations only worsens the situation, since the egos of the participants are inextricably merged with their positions. Before getting to the heart of the issue, it is necessary to separate people from the problem and deal with these aspects in turn.
Negotiating positions are often completely different from what you really want, focus on interests, not positions.
Before trying to reach an agreement, look for options that would serve mutual benefit.
As a criterion, absolutely neutral standards should be chosen, 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, and not what each side should concede to the other.

The method of principled negotiation is cruel to the issues being resolved, but "delicate" to people.

In the analysis phase, you are simply trying to understand the situation: gathering information, organizing and thinking about it.

In the planning phase, you are dealing with the same four principles for the second time. Now you need to generate ideas and decide what to do.

At the stage of discussion, when the parties communicate among themselves and seek to reach an agreement, it is necessary to discuss all the same four principles. Differences in perception, feelings of depression and anger, communication difficulties - all these factors must be considered and overcome.

The result will be a reasonable agreement between the parties.

2. Separate people from the problem

Be "soft" with people and "hard" with problems. People have emotions, value systems, points of view. Each of them is absolutely unique and unpredictable. During negotiations, both parties perceive each other in relation to the problem under discussion. The human aspect can be either beneficial or harmful, but it cannot be excluded.

In order to understand the vast array of purely human problems, divide them into three main categories:

Perception
Emotions
Communication

It is the perception of the reality of each of the parties that is the main problem of the negotiations, which opens the way to a solution.

Remember: understanding the other side's point of view is not a cost, but an advantage. It will allow you to reduce the conflict zone and effectively defend your own interests.

Coping with differences in perception means making them explicit and discussing them with the other side.

Emotions of one participant cause reciprocal emotions in another. Fear can breed anger, and anger breeds fear. Emotions very quickly lead negotiations to a dead end, and even lead to their unsatisfactory conclusion. Freed from the burden of unspoken emotions, people are more willing to work on the problem.

In the process of communication, do not be afraid to apologize when necessary. An apology costs nothing, but it can be considered your most valuable investment.

The best time to solve problems is when the problem has not yet become a problem. Solve the problem, do not transfer your attitude to the problem to people.

3. Focus on Interests, Not Positions

It is important to be receptive to other people's ideas and not get hung up on personal characteristics the other side.

The differences between positions and interests are quite significant. Behind opposing positions lie common and quite compatible interests, and not just conflicting ones. In the course of many negotiations, an in-depth analysis of the true interests of the parties reveals the existence of many common and quite compatible interests.

The most powerful interests are basic human needs. The basic human needs are:

safety;
economic well-being;
sense of belonging;
confession;
control over your own life.

You must make sure that the other party is absolutely clear about how significant and legitimate your interests are.

Formulate the problem before giving your own answer, which may otherwise be taken "with hostility".

Look to the future, not to the past. Talk about what you want from the future instead of talking about what happened yesterday.

Be specific, but remember to be flexible. Be hard on the problem and soft on the people. Standing up for one's interests often stimulates creativity allowing the parties to reach a mutually beneficial solution. Show the other side that you are attacking the problem, not the negotiators.

4. Invent win-win options

The search for a compromise that equally suits both parties is the key to success. The art of devising solutions that serve the mutual benefit of the parties is the most rewarding skill a negotiator can possess.

In most negotiations, we see four main obstacles that hinder invention. variety of options solutions:

Premature Judgment
Finding the only solution
Assumption of a fixed nature of the problem
The belief that "solving their problems is their problem."

Nothing harms creative thinking more than the criticism that accompanies every new idea. Judgment suppresses the imagination. Criticism is necessary, but there are cases when it is not something that harms, but when it is categorically unacceptable, and one of these cases is the formation of solutions when nothing should stand in the way of creativity and criticism should be turned off.

In order to offer creative solutions, you must: first, separate the process of inventing solutions from the process of evaluating them; secondly, to expand the number of options discussed, and not to look for a single solution; third, seek mutual benefit; and fourth, look for ways to make these decisions simple.

To reduce the risk of making unwanted commitments, develop the habit of offering at least two alternatives at the same time each time.

Analyze the problem with the help of various experts. invent various options agreements. Change the range of the proposed agreement.

Even if one does not strive to reduce joint losses, there is almost always an opportunity to achieve mutual benefits. Almost always, the degree of your satisfaction depends on the degree to which the other party remains satisfied with the agreement with which he will have to live.

Look for something that has no value to you, but is of interest to the other side, and vice versa. Instead of creating difficulties and obstacles for the other side, you should offer them the most painless choice possible.

In a difficult situation, creative ingenuity is absolutely essential. In any negotiation, this tactic helps to find new ways, open locked doors and reach an agreement that satisfies all interested parties. You must develop many options before settling on just one. Invent first, decide later. Identify common and different interests. Try to connect them. And try to make the decision as easy as possible for the other party.

5. Insist on using objective criteria

First of all, you need to make sure that the negotiations do not go beyond the stated topic and remain productive and find a subjective norm.

Making a good contract is no easier than laying a good foundation. You must strive to ensure that agreement is reached on the basis of principles, and not under pressure. Focus on the core of the problem, not on the characters of the parties. Be open to common sense and deaf to threats. Principled negotiation allows a reasonable agreement to be reached effectively and amicably.

Reaching an agreement based on a discussion of objective criteria reduces the number of obligations that each side has to take on. By using objective criteria, time is spent more efficiently as participants discuss possible standards and solutions. Independent standards further enhance the effectiveness of multilateral negotiations.

Formulate your proposals in such a way that they look like a joint search for an objective criterion.
Be guided by common sense, listen to reasonable proposals, soberly assess the applicability of standards.
Never try to push the other side. Use only persuasion.

Ask: "What is your proposal based on?" First of all, agree with the principles.

6. What if they are stronger?

The establishment of the lower limit, that is, the most minimum conditions acceptable to you may protect you from accepting a completely unprofitable offer, but at the same time may prevent both parties from formulating a creative solution that is beneficial to all participants.

Work out the best alternative negotiated agreement, NAOS. It must be remembered that none of the methods can guarantee 100% success and always have a fallback. To do this, it is recommended to make a list of possible actions that will have to be taken in case of failure and work with the most promising options.

Without thinking carefully about what you will have to do in case of failure, you go into negotiations with your eyes closed. The better your best alternative, the more power you have.

Remember that what applies in negotiations between two people also applies in negotiations between organizations.

Thinking carefully about what to do in case the negotiations fail will greatly strengthen your position.

Development best strategies̆ includes three stages:

drawing up a list of actions to be taken if an agreement is not reached;
more thorough elaboration of the most promising ideas and turning them into practical alternatives;
choosing the best alternative.

The more attractive the alternative, the greater your ability to improve the terms of the negotiated agreement.

Consider the best alternative to the opponent. The more you know about the other side's alternatives, the better prepared you can be for negotiations.

Developing the best alternative is the most effective course of action when negotiating with a vastly superior enemy.

7. What if they don't want to play by your rules?

Talking about interests, options, and standards can be a smart, efficient, and benevolent game. But what if the other side doesn't want to play it? You will try to discuss interests, and your opponents will unequivocally state their position and will not leave it one iota.

There are three main methods to divert the enemy's attention to material matters:

What can you do. You yourself must concentrate on the essence of the matter, and not on the positions taken by the participants.
What can your opponents do? Think about how you can change their way of thinking, how to get them to focus on the essence of the matter, and not on their position.
What can a third party do? Consider bringing in a third party that can shift participants' attention to interests, solutions, and criteria.

If the other side has taken a stand, you will be tempted to criticize and reject it. If opponents criticize your proposal, you will most likely defend it and forget about everything else. If they attack you, you will defend and counterattack. But if you do this, you will slide into defending your own position. By rejecting the position of the other side, you push opponents to do the same.

How to recognize that you are being attacked? Typically, an attack consists of three maneuvers:

energetic assertion of one's own position;
an attack on your ideas and suggestions;
attack on you personally.

Think of an attack on you as an attack on a common problem. When the other side formulates its position, you must neither reject it nor agree with it. Treat her like one of options. Don't defend own ideas accept criticism and advice. Instead of asking your opponent to accept or reject an offer, ask them what they don't like about the idea.

Ask questions and pause. Questions create room for action and allow both sides to attack the issue rather than each other. Silence is your best weapon. Feel free to use it. If the other side makes you an unacceptable offer or attacks you unfairly, it's best to just sit there without saying a word.

If you can't reverse the process, perhaps a third party can. A third party can separate the process of developing proposals from making decisions and help the parties understand what is the best solution for them.

8. What if the other side resorts to dirty tricks?

Dirty tricks are associated with one-sided proposals regarding the negotiation procedure, the negotiating game played by the participants.

You must know what is happening. Only then will you be able to take effective action. Realizing, for example, that the other side is attacking you personally in order to force an agreement beneficial to them, you can negate all the efforts of the enemy with your calmness.

The most important goal of early detection of dirty tactics is to be able to discuss the rules of the game.

Discuss tactics, not personal qualities of your opponents. Don't digress from the negotiation process just to teach your adversaries a lesson.

Strictly adhere to the principles outlined earlier:

Separate the person from the problem.
Focus on interests, not positions
Find options that are mutually beneficial.
Insist on using objective criteria.

Some of the more common dirty tricks are:

Deliberate deception
- Fake facts. Verification of factual claims reduces the likelihood of deception.
- Ambiguous powers. Before proceeding with mutual concessions, you must find out the powers of the other side.
- Questionable intentions. You may include special conditions into the agreement itself.
- Incomplete sincerity cannot be regarded as deceit. Negotiations rarely require absolute candor from the participants.
psychological warfare
- Personal attacks. Recognizing a tactic early can help you reduce or even eliminate its impact. Make it obvious and you won't have to deal with the consequences.
- Good guy bad guy game. We often see this technique in old police films. If you recognize the situation in time, you will not be deceived.
- Threats. It is best to postpone the response, hoping for a more constructive approach and mutual understanding.
Positional pressure
- Excessive requirements. Ask for a fair assessment of the position he has taken before its consequences become disastrous.
- Escalation of requirements. Draw the opponent's attention to it, and then take a break to see if you are ready to continue negotiations in this vein.
- Blackmail. In response to such tactics, you must be prepared to break off negotiations.
- Tough partner. Instead of discussing issues with this participant, try to get him to agree to an objective principle (preferably in writing) and then, if possible, talk directly to the hard partner.
- Conscious delays. You must make the delay tactics obvious and discuss them. Also, consider creating a fake opportunity for the other side. If you are a representative of a company negotiating a merger with another firm, open negotiations with a third company by giving the impression that you are considering more than one offer.
- "Agree or leave." Continue the conversation as if you didn't hear anything, or change the subject, for example, offer other solutions. If you decide to deliberately use this tactic, let the enemy know what he loses if an agreement cannot be reached, and then try to change the situation so that the enemy can get out of it without losing face.

At the start of a negotiation, it makes sense to say, “Look, I know this is going to sound a little weird, but I would like to know the rules we're going to play by. Do we want to reach a reasonable agreement together as soon as possible and without special effort̆? Or will we defend the initially taken positions until the end, until the most stubborn one wins? It is much easier to uphold principles than illegal and unethical tactics. Don't be a victim.

Conclusion

Three main aspects:

You always knew it. There is nothing in this book that you would not have known to some extent before. We just tried the best way organize what is known to all, and create a convenient apparatus that could be used in thinking and acting.
Learn by doing. No one will make you more experienced and smart, except yourself.
Win. Both theory and experience confirm that the method of principled negotiation brings real tangible results that are as good or even better than what you could achieve using any other strategy.

Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher

(No ratings yet)

Title: Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method
Author: William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher
Year: 1981
Genre: Management, recruitment, Popular about business, Foreign business literature, Social psychology, Foreign psychology

About the book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method" William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher

Every day we need to communicate with relatives, work colleagues, friends, and often we need to agree on something, argue, defend our point of view. It's good when it's a simple friendly argument, which, in fact, does not carry anything dangerous or unprofitable. On the other hand, when the conversation is with potential customers or partners. Here you need to talk in such a way that they want to cooperate with you.

In most cases, a person behaves incorrectly during serious conversations, even if you are arguing with your spouse about the upcoming vacation. Many will agree that each oppresses his point of view, not listening to the other. Often the conversation turns to raised voices, and everything ends very badly. Psychology, really Magic wand If you study it and put it into practice, the world will definitely become kinder and more practical. The book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method" was written by three great people, William Urey, Bruce Patton, and Roger Fisher, who work at Harvard University and are the lead experts on the Harvard Conversation Project.

We often perceive opponents as enemies. That is, roughly speaking, we are trying to bend a person under ourselves, under our views and desires. And it doesn't matter if it's a family conversation or a meeting in the government on solving state issues. It is this behavior that leads to the fact that both sides do not make concessions and cannot agree. It is important to learn to perceive the opponent to those who will help us solve problems. At the same time, you must give strong arguments, attract him with benefits, offers, bonuses.

The technique that he offers in his book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method” by William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher, is aimed at the fact that we should treat people kindly, but at the same time not give indulgence to an issue that needs to be resolved. You can find an approach to absolutely any person, but this must be done carefully and correctly, and how exactly you will read in this scientific work.

In addition, the book presents detailed recommendations about how to prepare for a conversation, how to set certain limits for yourself, how to predict the actions of an opponent.

Book by William Ury, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher "Negotiations Without Defeat. The Harvard Method reads very quickly. It will be useful absolutely for all readers, regardless of their occupation. Indeed, even sometimes it becomes almost impossible to solve family issues due to the wrong approach to this matter.

In this book you will find a lot of useful and interesting things for yourself. You can easily apply all the recommendations and techniques in life, and you will immediately notice that it will become much easier for you to negotiate with people, and all negotiations will be more productive and profitable.

This book is available from Mann, Ivanov & Ferber.

What is this book about?

This book is about principled negotiation techniques that will help you get the results you want in any level of negotiation. In addition, the authors added another useful section to it: "10 questions about how to always hear "yes"", which contains answers to questions about justice, relationships between people, tactics and power in the negotiation process.

What is the book made 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 is related to negotiation. However, many tips from it will help to negotiate even with the most intractable interlocutors and in Everyday life.

Have you ever participated in negotiations? The answer to this question is often “no”. This is quite understandable: there are not so many professions in which you need to resort to oratory and convince your opponent to make a deal. However, the authors of the cult book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method” by Roger Fisher, William Urey, and Bruce Patton invites the reader to look at negotiations from a new angle.

It turns out that we enter into negotiations every day. Trying to change your grade with a teacher, raise your salary with your boss, buy a product at a discount, choose a movie to watch with a friend, or discuss an itinerary for a walk with your family are all examples in 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 consists in conducting principled negotiations. It contrasts with the often used method of positional negotiation, where the parties state their positions and try to "blur" the differences between them. The method of principled negotiations 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 declared 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 differences between the interests and positions of the participants. To solve this problem, the book describes many ways, as well as simple and successful examples of separation of positions and interests:

“Two are sitting in the library. One wants to open the window, the other prefers to keep it closed. They begin to argue about how far the window can be opened: to 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 disputants why he wants to open the window. “To be in the room Fresh air". Then he asks the other why he objects. "So that there is no draft." After thinking for a moment, the librarian opens a window in next room. The room becomes fresh, but at the same time there is no draft.

The method of principled negotiation by discussing the interests of the other side (often unpredictable in advance) allows you to solve problems in a way that is impossible to implement alone. That is why the book contains seemingly paradoxical advice: it is not necessary to conduct research and prepare your own solution to the problem (60.2%, according to the results of the survey of our publication, do just that) and you do not even need to determine the lower limit of the agreement (84.3% determines) . However, all this does not mean that one 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 how exactly.

Separately, Harvard experts consider ways to deal with "dirty" methods in negotiations. For example, with positional pressure, in which the opponent deliberately forces you to make concessions, or with psychological methods designed to make you feel uncomfortable and strive to complete negotiations as soon as possible. “Dirty” tricks are also understood as deliberate deception and the transition to personalities. 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 in the event of such situations.

Roger Fisher, William Urey, Bruce Patton

Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method

Foreword

Over the past ten years, interest in the art of negotiation in professional and academic circles has grown significantly. New theoretical works have been published, studies and numerous experiments have been carried out. Ten years ago, very few law colleges and departments offered a course in the art of negotiation, but now it is a required curriculum. Universities are opening special faculties dedicated to the art of negotiation. Consulting firms do the same in the corporate world.

Despite the fact that the situation in the world is constantly changing, the ideas outlined in our book remain unshakable and constant. They have stood the test of time, are widely accepted, and are often the basis from which the authors of other books are repelled.

We hope that our answers to "10 Questions on How to Always Hear Yes" will be useful 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, not moral issues). 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 negotiating. 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 questions related to the role of the influence of the authorities in the course of the negotiation process.

Introduction

Like it or not, you are constantly involved in negotiations. Negotiations are an integral part of our life. You are discussing a raise with your boss. You are trying to persuade a stranger to lower the price of your house, which you are going to buy. Two lawyers arguing in court over who is guilty of car accident. A group of oil companies plans to set up a joint venture to develop a field in an offshore zone. A government official meets with union leaders to avoid a national strike. The United States Secretary of State confers with his Russian counterpart on nuclear arms reduction. And all this is negotiation.

A person participates in negotiations every day. Remember Molière'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 negotiating 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 reaching 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. The conflicts are growing and spreading. Everyone wants to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives. Fewer people are willing to put up with decisions that someone else has made for them. People are not alike, and negotiation is needed to iron out those differences. Whether it's about business, government or family issues - most decisions are made through negotiations. Even going to court, people make an attempt to negotiate before the process.

Although negotiations take place every day, it is very difficult to conduct them well. Standard strategies often wear down participants, create feelings of alienation, and leave them dissatisfied.

People are faced with a dilemma. They recognize two ways of negotiating: delicate and hard. Choosing the first method, a person does his best to avoid personal conflicts and makes concessions in order to reach agreement. He wants to reach a solution that would suit both parties, but as a result he feels cheated. A person who has chosen a tough manner of negotiating considers any situation that arises as a conflict of vanities, in which only the one who insists on his own can win. He wants to win, but more often than not he runs into an even tougher position. It exhausts, depletes forces and resources, spoils relations between the participants. There are intermediate negotiating strategies, but each of them boils down to trying to reach an agreement between what you want to receive and what others are ready to give you.

There is a third way of negotiating, which is neither delicate nor harsh. It combines features of both methods. This is a principled negotiation method developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project. This way of negotiating 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 the participants do their best 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 negotiation is cruel to the issues being resolved, but "delicate" to people. There is no place for dirty tricks and senseless stubbornness. Principled negotiations will help you achieve what you want and not turn into 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 justice.

The book is devoted to methods of conducting principled negotiations. In the first chapter, we will discuss the problems that arise in connection 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 if the opponent turns out to be stronger?" "What if he does not want to play on our terms?" "What if he resorts to dirty tricks ?

The method of principled negotiations can be used by American diplomats who are negotiating with Russia on nuclear arms reduction, Wall Street lawyers representing the interests of largest companies, and spouses who decide 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 unchanged. Principled negotiation can be used in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, in dealing with 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 hard-line 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 than more people read this book, the easier it will be for all of us to conduct any negotiations.

I. Problem

1. Don't insist on your position

Whether you're negotiating an important contract, a family problem, or bringing peace to the world, people often have to make positional deals. Each side takes a certain position, defends it and makes concessions in order to reach a compromise. A classic example of such a negotiation is a conversation between a customer and a second-hand store owner.

Customer: How much do you want for this copper basin?

Owner: It's a wonderful antique, isn't it? I'm willing to give it up for $75.

P .: Well, what are you, it's too expensive! I'm willing to buy it for $15.

V: Are you serious? I can offer you a small discount, but $15 is not a serious offer.

P: Well, I can raise the price to $20, but I will never pay you $75. Name a reasonable price.

Q: You know how to bargain, young lady. Well, 60 dollars - and on the hands.

P: $25.

V .: I myself bought this basin much more expensive. Name a reasonable price.

P: 37.50 and not a cent more. This is the most high price to which I can agree.

Q: Do you see what is engraved on this basin? Next year, such items will cost twice as much.

Any method of negotiation can be evaluated according to three criteria. Negotiations should lead to a reasonable agreement, if possible. Negotiations must be effective. And, finally, they should improve, but by no means spoil the relationship between the parties. (A reasonable agreement would be one that tolerable degree meets the legitimate interests of all parties, fairly resolves conflicts of interest, is long term and takes into account the common interests of all negotiating parties.)

Published with permission from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. and Synopsis Literary Agency

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.

* * *

Foreword

We hope that our answers to "10 Questions on How to Always Hear Yes" will be useful and of interest to you.

Introduction

Like it or not, you are constantly involved in negotiations. Negotiations are an integral part of our life. You are discussing a raise with your boss. You are trying to persuade a stranger to lower the price of your house, which you are going to buy. Two lawyers argue in court over who is responsible for a car accident. A group of oil companies plans to set up a joint venture to develop a field in an offshore zone. A government official meets with union leaders to avoid a national strike. The United States Secretary of State confers with his Russian counterpart on nuclear arms reduction. And all this is negotiation.

More and more life situations require negotiations. The conflicts are growing and spreading. Everyone wants to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives. Fewer people are willing to put up with decisions that someone else has made for them. People are not alike, and negotiation is needed to iron out those differences. Whether it's about business, government or family issues - most decisions are made through negotiations. Even going to court, people make an attempt to negotiate before the process.

Although negotiations take place every day, it is very difficult to conduct them well. Standard strategies often wear down participants, create feelings of alienation, and leave them dissatisfied.

Principled negotiation can be used by American diplomats negotiating nuclear arms reductions with Russia, Wall Street lawyers representing major 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 unchanged. Principled negotiation can be used in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, in dealing with 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 hard-line 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 the more people who read this book, the easier it will be for all of us to conduct any negotiations.

I. Problem

1. Don't insist on your position

Buyer: How much do you want for this copper basin?

Owner: It's a wonderful antique, isn't it? I'm willing to give it up for $75.

P.: What are you, it's too expensive! I'm willing to buy it for $15.

AT.: 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, but I'll never pay you $75. Name a reasonable price.

AT.: You know how to bargain, young lady. Well, 60 dollars - and on the hands.

P.: 25 dollars.

AT.: I myself bought this basin much more expensive. Name a reasonable price.

P.: 37.50 and not a cent more. This is the highest price I can agree to.

AT.: See what is engraved on this basin? Next year, such items will cost twice as much.

Any method of negotiation can be evaluated according to three criteria. Negotiations should lead to a reasonable agreement, if possible. Negotiations must be effective. And, finally, they should improve, but by no means spoil the relationship between the parties. (A reasonable agreement is one that serves the legitimate interests of all parties to a reasonable extent, fairly resolves conflicts of interest, is long-term, and takes into account the common interests of all negotiating parties.)

The most common form of negotiation, illustrated in the example above, depends on successively taking and then giving up a series of positions.

Taking positions, like the customer and the store owner, during negotiations serves several useful purposes at once. It shows the other side what you want; it provides support in a complex 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, effective and mutually acceptable.

Disputes over positions lead to unreasonable agreements

When negotiators take certain positions, they are locked into them. The more precisely you clarify your position and the more fiercely you defend it from the attacks of the other side, the more firmly you defend it. The more you try to convince the other party that you can't change your position, the harder it becomes for you to do so. Your ego merges with your position. You have a new interest - you need to "save face", to 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 positional warfare could impede negotiations can be illustrated widely. famous example. Consider President Kennedy's negotiations with Soviet Union regarding the ban on nuclear weapons tests. 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 connection with 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 in its own way. And this 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 less and less likely. Any agreement reached most often reflects a mechanical leveling of differences between the final positions of the parties, and not a solution that satisfies their legitimate interests. As a result, the agreement reached is less satisfactory for the parties than it could be.

Arguing over positions is ineffective

The standard method of negotiating can either lead to an agreement, as in the price of a copper basin, or to a break, as happened in the discussion of nuclear arms limitation. In any case, the process takes quite a long time.

Insisting on one's position creates factors that slow down 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 does the same. These factors significantly delay reaching an agreement. The more extreme the position of the parties and the smaller the concessions to which they agree, the more time and effort it will take to find out the possibility of reaching an agreement.

The standard procedure also requires the adoption a large number 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 side, but, on the contrary, only increases pressure, the negotiator cannot count on a quick agreement. Scandals, threats, stone silence - these are the most common methods of negotiating. It is natural that similar methods only increase the time and expense of reaching agreement, and in the worst case make agreement absolutely impossible.

Disputes over positions threaten to save the relationship

Excessively firm upholding of one's positions turns into a struggle of vanity. 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 we will not go to the cinema at all.” The result of such behavior is anger and resentment, since one party has to submit to the will of the other party, while its own legitimate interests remain unsatisfied.

Commercial enterprises leading for years joint activities diverge forever. Neighbors stop talking to each other. The resentment that arose as a result of such negotiations can last for years.

When several parties are involved in negotiations, the situation is even more aggravated.

Although it is much more convenient to discuss negotiations in which two parties are involved, 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, leadership, boards of directors and committees that determine the strategy for their behavior. The more people participate in the negotiations, the more serious are the consequences of actively defending their positions.

Defending one's positions often has the most negative effect on relations between the parties.

If 150 countries participate in the negotiations, as happens at the session of the UN General Assembly, it becomes almost impossible to defend one's position. Everyone can say "yes" and one person can say "no". Mutual concessions in such a situation become difficult, if not impossible: it is not at all clear to whom one 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, the commonality of interests of which is often more symbolic than real. At the UN, such coalitions lead to negotiations between North and South, between East and West. Since there are many members in each group, it becomes very difficult to develop a common position. Even worse, after everyone has worked out a common position with great difficulty, it becomes simply impossible to leave it. Changing a position is further complicated by the fact that authoritative participants who might be absent at the time of its development may categorically refuse to approve the result.

Agreeing with everyone is not the way out

Many understand the negative role of actively defending one's own position, in particular its detrimental effect on relations between the parties. They hope to avoid this by negotiating more delicately. Instead of viewing the other side as an adversary, they prefer to treat it in a friendly way. Instead of aiming for victory, they recognize the need to reach agreement.

The table below shows two styles of asserting one's own position: delicate and hard. 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 hard style. Or maybe you prefer an intermediate strategy? A delicate negotiation game is being played to strengthen and maintain relations between the parties. Between relatives and friends, negotiations are conducted in this way. The process is usually effective. At least the results are achieved quickly enough. When each side competes with the other in generosity and selflessness, agreement is easily reached. 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 the wife sold her hair to buy her husband a gold watch chain? However, any negotiations related to personal relationships can always give not the most top scores. More seriously, a soft, friendly negotiating style leaves you vulnerable to someone who plays a tough game and insists on his position. In such a situation, hard play dominates soft play. If the second party insists on concessions, and the first makes them out of fear of spoiling the relationship, the negotiation game ends in favor of the hardliner. The process leads to an agreement, although this agreement is not the most reasonable. It is much more favorable to the tough participant than to the delicate style. If you find yourself in a similar situation and choose the role of a peacemaker for yourself, get ready to lose your last shirt.