Getting to yes fisher en 3355 by Zaira Reyes

Getting to Yes

Negotiating Agreement without Giving In Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce M. Patton Copyright © Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce M. Patton, 1981. Used by arrangement with Penguin Group (U.S.A.), Inc. 200 pages [@] getab.li/3355 Book:

Rating

10 Applicability 8 Innovation 8 Style

Focus Leadership & Management Strategy Sales & Marketing Finance Human Resources IT, Production & Logistics Career & Self-Development Small Business Economics & Politics

Take-Aways • Any negotiation where the relationship is the primary concern runs the risk of producing a shabby agreement.

• Separate the people from the problem. • "Focus on interests, not positions." • Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. • Insist that the result be based on some objective standard. • Determine your BATNA - the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. • Your power in negotiations is tied directly to the quality of your BATNA, not resources such as wealth, physical strength or political connections.

• Use questions instead of statements, and use silence as a weapon. • Ask questions, then pause. You are doing some of your most effective negotiating when you are not talking.

• When all else fails, call in a third party mediator.

Industries Global Business Concepts & Trends

To purchase personal subscriptions or corporate solutions, visit our website at www.getAbstract.com, send an email to info@getabstract.com, or call us at our US ofﬁce (1-877-778-6627) or at our Swiss ofﬁce (+41-41-367-5151). getAbstract is an Internet-based knowledge rating service and publisher of book abstracts. getAbstract maintains complete editorial responsibility for all parts of this abstract. getAbstract acknowledges the copyrights of authors and publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this abstract may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, photocopying or otherwise – without prior written permission of getAbstract Ltd. (Switzerland).

This summary is restricted to the personal use of Zaira Reyes Villarreal . (zreyes@valtra.com.mx)

LoginContext[cu=1840936,asp=4631,subs=3,free=0,lo=es,co=MX] 2015-06-26 21:03:33 CEST

1 of 5

getabstract

Relevance

getabstract What You Will Learn In this summary, you will learn:r1) How to negotiate effectively; 2) Specific tactics to use to outline an agreement or counter an attack; and 3) When to get a mediator and when not to. getabstract Review Authors Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce M. Patton offer a seminal step-by-step guide to negotiating effectively. The authors use anecdotal examples to illustrate both positive and negative negotiating techniques. They believe that, with principled negotiation, both parties can reach an agreement in an amicable and efficient manner. Principled negotiation is based on the belief that when each side comes to understand the interests of the other, they can jointly create options that are mutually advantageous, resulting in a wise settlement. Since this is the second edition, the authors take the opportunity to answer ten common questions from readers of the first edition. If you become skeptical about these fairly rosy negotiation techniques as you read, the Q and A section is very useful. This classic text is easy to understand and you can implement its techniques immediately. getAbstract can’t ask for more than that. getabstract getabstract

getabstract

Summary

getabstract

“The first thing you are trying to win is a better way to negotiate - a way that avoids your having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what you deserve and of being decent. You can have both.”

“If your response to sustained, hard positional bargaining is soft positional bargaining, you will probably lose your shirt.”

Judging Negotiation Styles: Hard vs. Soft The most common form of negotiation involves successively taking on and giving up positions. The two sides bargain over positions and lock themselves into their individual stances. In its standard form, this kind of positional bargaining requires many separate decisions (what to offer, what to reject, how big a concession to make). The process is difficult and tedious. Tactics such as stonewalling or threatening to walk out become common. Positional bargaining increases the time and cost of reaching an agreement and the risk that none will be produced at all. The contest of wills strains and shatters relationships. Bitter feelings may last a lifetime. Many people recognize the risk of hard positional bargaining and take a softer approach. They treat the other side as friends and emphasize agreement as their goal, rather than victory. It is standard to make offers and concessions, to be amiable and trust the other side, and to yield to avoid confrontation. Much negotiating within families and among friends takes place this way. This is efficient in producing agreements quickly, but the agreements may not be wise ones that take each party’s underlying interests into account. Any negotiation where the relationship is the primary concern runs the risk of producing a shabby agreement. Those who pursue soft, friendly positional bargaining are vulnerable to a negotiator who plays hard. Change the Game Should you use soft or hard positional bargaining? Neither. Instead, "change the game." The Harvard Negotiation Project developed an alternative: "Principled Negotiation" or "negotiation on the merits," which has four basic points: 1. People - Human beings don’t communicate clearly and they mix their egos with their positions. Attack the problem instead of the people.

2 of 5

This summary is restricted to the personal use of Zaira Reyes Villarreal . (zreyes@valtra.com.mx)

LoginContext[cu=1840936,asp=4631,subs=3,free=0,lo=es,co=MX] 2015-06-26 21:03:33 CEST

“If you do not like the choice between hard and soft positional bargaining, you can change the game.”

“Separating the people from the problem allows you to deal directly and empathetically with the other negotiator as a human being, thus making possible an amicable agreement.”

2. Interests - Pay attention to interest areas to overcome the flaw of concentrating on stated positions. "Focus on interests not positions." Work to satisfy the underlying interests that led the parties to adopt their positions in the first place. 3. Options - Designing optimal solutions while under pressure is hard. Having to make decisions in the presence of your adversary narrows your vision. If you have a lot at stake, or spend all your time searching for one perfect solution, you may inhibit your creativity. To offset these barriers, set a designated time for generating possible solutions and options that advance shared interests and creatively settle differences. 4. Criteria - Some negotiators can get what they want simply by being stubborn. Counter such a negotiator by insisting that a single voice is not enough. Demand that the agreement reflect a fair "objective criteria," independent of each side’s mere desires. Base the terms on unbiased standards such as market value, expert opinion, custom or law. No one has to give in. Both sides can work together for a fair solution. Can these principles work if the other side has a stronger bargaining position or is richer or better connected? What use is talking about interests, options or standards in that case? Every negotiation has inflexible realities. What if, while you are attacking the problem on its merits, they attack you? No method can succeed if the other side has all the leverage. The most any negotiating method can do is protect you from accepting an agreement you should reject and help you make the most of the assets you have. While talking about interests, options and standards is wise, efficient and genial, have a strategy if the other side won’t play. Try to change the game back to a "principled negotiation." Using a "Bottom Line" One way negotiators try to protect themselves from a bad outcome is by establishing a worst acceptable outcome, or "bottom line," to help them resist the pressures and temptations of the moment. But, this protection involves high costs. If you decide in advance that nothing the other side says could make you change your bottom line, you limit your ability to use what you learn during the negotiation. The bottom line is almost guaranteed to be too rigid. It inhibits imagination and undermines the incentive to create a custom-made solution. Know Your BATNA A bottom line may protect you from a very bad agreement, but it may also keep you from devising a solution it would be wise to accept. The alternative to a bottom line is to identify your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Measure any proposed agreement against this standard. It will protect you from accepting a very bad agreement and keep you from rejecting an agreement that is in your interest. A BATNA is flexible enough to allow the investigation of creative solutions. Compare your proposal to your BATNA to see which better satisfies your interests.

“The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement.”

If you do not think carefully about your BATNA, you are negotiating with your eyes closed. You may be too optimistic, thinking that you have many other choices. Even if your alternative is fixed, without thinking carefully about it you may not appreciate the consequences of activating that alternative (a lawsuit, contested divorce or strike). Being too committed to reaching an agreement is an even greater danger. Having a tentative answer to, "What happens if negotiations break down?" is essential if you plan to conduct negotiations wisely. Your power in negotiations is tied to the quality of your BATNA, not to resources such as wealth, physical strength or political connections. Wealth can even weaken the negotiating position of someone trying to get a lower price. Relative negotiating power depends upon how attractive the option of not reaching agreement is to each party.

3 of 5

This summary is restricted to the personal use of Zaira Reyes Villarreal . (zreyes@valtra.com.mx)

LoginContext[cu=1840936,asp=4631,subs=3,free=0,lo=es,co=MX] 2015-06-26 21:03:33 CEST

“What is true for negotiations between individuals is equally true for negotiations between organizations.”

“The relative negotiating power of a large industry and a small town is determined not by the relative size of their respective budgets, or their political clout, but by each side’s best alternative.”

Generating Your BATNA Follow these three distinct operations to generating possible BATNAs. First, invent a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached. Then improve the ideas with the most potential and convert them into practical alternatives. Finally, tentatively select the best alternative. This is your BATNA. Improving the terms of any negotiated agreement is easier with a good BATNA. Knowing where you are going will give you the confidence to break off negotiations. Willingness to stop negotiating lets you present your interests more forcefully. Reflect on the Other Side’s BATNA Considering the other side’s BATNA can better prepare you for negotiation. Knowing their alternatives lets you estimate what to expect during negotiation. If their BATNA is so good that they won’t need to negotiate on the merits, consider what you can do to change their BATNA. If a power plant is polluting a local area with noxious gases and their BATNA is to ignore protests and continue business as usual, perhaps you will have to file an injunction to stop their operations. That makes their BATNA less attractive than it was. When both sides have attractive BATNAs, the best outcome may well be not to reach agreement. In such a case, a successful negotiation may be one where you amicably, efficiently decide to look elsewhere rather than reaching agreement. Negotiation Jujitsu If the BATNA approach fails, you could resort to a strategy focused on what the other side may do. This involves countering the basic moves of positional bargaining to redirect their attention to the merits of the case. This is called, "negotiation jujitsu." When you play the positional bargaining game, defending your position locks you in and attacking their position locks them in. A lot of time and energy is wasted in a useless push-pull cycle of attack and defense. So what can you do if pushing back does not work? Don’t push back. When they attack, don’t defend. Break the cycle by refusing to react. Just as in the martial arts of judo and jujitsu you avoid directly pitting your strength against your opposition, instead use your skill to step aside, using their strength against them. In practice, negotiation jujitsu deals with the three typical attack maneuvers: 1. The forceful assertion of their position. 2. The attack on your ideas. 3. The personal attack.

“Developing your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) thus not only enables you to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement, it will probably raise that minimum.”

• The forceful assertion of their position - When the other side presents their opinion, do not attack it; treat it as one possible option. Think about ways to improve it. Discover the interests that lie below the surface of their position. Assume that every position is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side. Ask how the position addresses the problem at hand. Examine their position and the extent that it meets the interests of all parties, or how it might be improved to do so. To direct attention toward improving the options hypothetically discuss what would happen if their position was accepted. When they understand what an unrealistic option that is to your side, they may become more willing to accept alternatives • The attack on your ideas - When your ideas are attacked, don’t defend them. Invite criticism and advice. Don’t ask for your idea to be accepted or rejected; ask what’s wrong with it. By examining their negative judgments, you can find their underlying interests and improve your ideas from their point of view. Turn criticism from an obstacle into an essential ingredient of the process. Ask for their advice. Put them in your position and

4 of 5

This summary is restricted to the personal use of Zaira Reyes Villarreal . (zreyes@valtra.com.mx)

LoginContext[cu=1840936,asp=4631,subs=3,free=0,lo=es,co=MX] 2015-06-26 21:03:33 CEST

ask what they would do. This leads them to confront your half of the problem. Perhaps they will be able to devise a solution that meets your concerns. • The personal attack - Resist the temptation to defend yourself when the attacks become personal. Sit back and allow the other negotiator to blow off steam. Listen and show you understand what they are saying. When they have finished recast the personal attack as an attack on the problem.

“Principled negotiation will produce over the long run substantive outcomes as good or better than you are likely to obtain using any other negotiation strategy. In addition, it should prove efficient and less costly to relationships.”

Remember two key tools when employing the negotiation jujitsu strategy: use questions instead of statements, and use silence as a weapon. Questions generate answers while statements create resistance. Questions allow the other side to illustrate its points. Queries can lead the other side to confront the problem. Questions educate instead of criticize. Silence creates the perception of a stalemate. If you ask an honest question and receive an insufficient answer, wait. When people have doubts about what they just said, silence can become quite uncomfortable. Often the other side will feel compelled to break the silence by answering your question in more detail or coming up with a new suggestion. Ask questions, then pause. You are doing some of your most effective negotiating when you are not talking. One-Text Procedure: Call in a Mediator When all else fails the last resort is to call in a third party. Mediators can separate the people from the problem more easily and direct the discussion to interests and options. They can often suggest some impartial basis for decision-making and reduce the number of decisions needed to reach agreement.

“Developing your BATNA is perhaps the most effective course of action you can take in dealing with a more powerful negotiator.”

The "one-text procedure" is designed to enable mediators to achieve these goals. To begin, mediators ask not what the negotiators want, but why they want it. They make it clear that they are not asking either side to give up a position. They are merely investigating the possibility that they may be able to make a recommendation - and even that is undetermined at this point. Mediators use this information to make a list of interest and needs. They then ask each side to criticize the list and make improvements. Criticizing is easier than making concessions. Mediators use this criticism to create a rough draft of an agreement. They acknowledge that the agreement has many faults, but they want each side’s input before continuing. This input is used to create a second draft, still incomplete, but better than the first. The process continues through a third, fourth and fifth plan. The mediators continue until they feel they can improve the draft no more. At this point, they present the plan to both parties. Now each party has only one decision to make: yes or no. The one-text procedure shifts the game away from positional bargaining and simplifies the process of creating options and deciding jointly on one. This procedure is almost essential for large multilateral negotiations.

getabstract getabstract

getabstract

About the Authors

getabstract Roger Fisher teaches negotiation at Harvard Law School and is director of the Harvard Negotiation Project. He was the originator and executive editor of the award-winning television series, The Advocates. He consults through Conflict Management, Inc., and the Conflict Management Group of Cambridge, Massachusetts. William L. Ury is the author of Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. Bruce M. Patton is a coauthor of Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. Getting to Yes getAbstract © 2014

5 of 5

This summary is restricted to the personal use of Zaira Reyes Villarreal . (zreyes@valtra.com.mx)

LoginContext[cu=1840936,asp=4631,subs=3,free=0,lo=es,co=MX] 2015-06-26 21:03:33 CEST