Getting to Yes (Outline)

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
by Fisher, Ury, & Patton
I. The Problem of Reaching an Agreement
 a. Bargaining over positions
   i. Positions are like offers and counter-offers
     1. sometimes called "bids"
   ii. Arguing about positions induces parties to lock themselves into
       positions that may result in less than optimal agreements
   iii. Arguing about positions can take longer than focusing on interests
        because both parties may try to make several offers and
        counter-offers before they reach an agreement that satisfies
        their interests
   iv. Arguing about positions may hurt an ongoing relationship between
       the parties
   v. Positional bargaining is even more difficult when there are more
      than two parties
II. Just being "nice" doesn't help you an optimal agreement
 a. there is "hard" and "soft" positional bargaining (hard = don't give in;
    soft = make concessions)
   i. but neither may reach an optimal agreement
     1. soft  -  you may make too many concessions
     2. hard  -  may damage the relationship
III. Solution: Negotiate on the "merits" of the problem
 a. Use principled negotiations
   i. View participants in negotiations as problem solvers and not as friends
      or adversaries
   ii. View the goal as achieving a wise outcome efficiently and amicably,
       not just reaching an agreement or winning
 b. "Separate the people from the problem."
   i. "Be soft on the people and hard on the problem."
   ii. Proceed whether or not you trust your opponent.
 c. "Focus on interests not positions."
   i. Explore each other's interests (what they really want or need)
     1. this is more than making offers, counter-offers, or threats
   ii. Avoid fixating on a bottom line
 d. "Invent options for mutual gain"
   i. use brainstorming to invent multiple options
   ii. don't judge the options during the brainstorming
   iii. decide later which options are best
 e. Use objective criteria
   i. Focus attention on standards that are independent of the feelings or
      will of the negotiators
   ii. Use logic and reason
     1. yield to an argument or presentation that is based on reason and
        principle - not to one based on pressure
IV. Potential Problems
 a. What if the opponent is more powerful
   i. Protect yourself - don't agree to something you don't want
     1. Don't focus too much on your bottom line or you might give up
        everything right down to your last dollar; rather focus on your
        target point
     2. Know your BATNA
     3. You might feel insecure and more likely to give in if you don't know
        your BATNA
     4. Establish a "tripwire" or point that is something better than your
        BATNA - this point will slow you down and may keep you from giving
        up too much
   ii. "Make the most of your assets"
     1. "the better your BATNA the greater your power"
     2. develop BATNAs
       a. make a list of your options if you don't reach an agreement
         i. use the following to help you do so:
           1. knowledge, time, money, people, connections, and your own
       b. improve some of them and convert them into practical alternatives
       c. tentatively select the one that seems the best
     3. Think about the other party's BATNA
  b. What if the opponent refuses to use principled negotiations?
   i. Use "Negotiation Jujitsu" - don't dig yourself in and push back to
      hard and firm positions; Jujitsu uses the other parties force against
      them - rather than responding to the force of their position let it
      come to you and them work on the underlying interest that is creating
      the force
     1. Don't attack a position - look for their underlying interests
     2. Rather than defending your ideas, ask for criticism and advice
        from the other party
     3. When they attack you personally - let them blow off steam - tell them
        you understand what they are saying - and then recast or reword their
        attack on you so that is changed and reformulated to an attack on the
     4. "ask questions and pause"
     5. Specific things you might say to get them to focus on the problem and
        not the people or a position
       a. "Please correct me if I'm wrong"
       b. "We appreciate what you've done for us."
       c. "Our concern is fairness."
       d. "We'd like to settle this based on some objective standards - not on
          who can do what to whom."
       e. "Trust is a separate issue" or "it's not a question of trust."
       f. "Could I ask a few questions to see if my facts are right?"
       g. "What's the principle behind your action?"
       h. "Let me see if I understand what you are saying."
       i. "Let me get back to you."
       j. "Let me show you where I'm having trouble following your reasoning."
       k. "One fair solution might be ..."
       l. "If we agree ...."
       m. "If we disagree ..."
       n. "We'd be happy to see if we can .... when it's most convenient for
       o. "It's been a pleasure dealing with you."
  c. What if the opponent uses dirty tricks?
    i. Types of dirty tricks
     1. deliberate deception
       a. phony facts
         i. unless you have good reason to trust someone else - don't; insist
            on independent verification as a matter of practice (e.g., "We
            always verify the facts") and not as an attack on an individual
           ("I'll have to verify your claim.")
       b. ambiguous authority - they first told you or implied that they had
          authority to reach an agreement and then later said they'd have to
          check with their superiors
         i. don't assume the other side has authority
         ii. insist on reciprocity - i.e., if the opponent has to check first,
             then you should also have the opportunity to make changes - i.e.,
             the agreement becomes tentative subject to approval by both
             side's superiors or constituencies
       c. dubious intentions about compliance with the agreement - they've
          agreed but will they really follow-through?
         i. insist on methods or procedures to insure future compliance
     2. psychological warfare
       a. stressful situations:
         i. Examples: uncomfortable physical surroundings, the other
            party's turf, etc.
         ii. Response
           1. insist on changing location, time etc.
       b. personal attacks to make you feel uncomfortable
         i. Examples:
          1. "looks like you were up all night - things not going well at the
          2. making you wait for them
          3. interrupting the negotiations so that they can deal with other
          4. not listening and making you repeat yourself
            ii. Response:
             1. recognize it as a tactic - so that it's impact on you is
             2. if appropriate mention it to your opponent and ask that it
                not be repeated
       c. Good guy/Bad guy (a.k.a., Good Cop/Bad Cop)
        i. The "good guy" seeks your help and concessions the "bad guy"
           puts pressure on you and attacks
        ii. Response:
          1. recognize the tactic
          2. when the good guy makes his pitch to you stick to your principled
       d. Threats
        i. Examples
         1. "you will agree to this or else we will ...."
          ii. Responses:
           1. don't respond with counter-threats because they might escalate
              the conflict
           2. ignore them
           3. treat the threat as unauthorized by the other party's
           4. treat the threat as something spoken haste and not serious or
           5. make it risky to communicate threats
             a. e.g., by accurately recording them, taking notes, tape
                recording, reporting them to your constituency
           6. respond by saying that you only negotiate on the merits of the
              issues - not by responding to threats
       e. Positional pressure
         i. Refusal to negotiate - or set up preconditions to begin the
           1. Response:
            a. recognize that it may be a tactic
            b. talk about the opponent's refusal to negotiate to discover
               what their underlying interests are that may be keeping them
               from negotiating - or focus on principles for negotiating
            c. Suggest some options: third party, sending letters back and
               forth, etc.
         ii. High-ball/Low-ball extreme demands
           1. response:
            a. call the tactic to the opponent's attention
            b. ask for a reasoned justification of their position
            c. ask for a more serious offer before you counter-offer
         iii. escalating demands - rather than making concessions as
              negotiations progress - they ask for more or open up issues
              that you thought had been settled
           1. Responses:
            a. call this tactic to the attention of the opponent
            b. suggest a break so that you can consider whether you will
               continue to negotiate with them
          iv. Lock-in tactics, or playing chicken
            1. like making an irrevocable commitment that a party can't back
               away from without harming themselves
            2. Response:
              a. Interrupt it before it becomes locked-in
              b. De-emphasize the other party's commitment and focus on the
                 principle rather than pressure
           v. Calculated delay: - stalling or doing nothing
             1. response:
               a. discuss the tactic with the opposing side
               b. bargain over delays
               c. consider a "fading opportunity" one that will disappear or
                  diminish in value as time passes
            vi. "take-it-or-leave-it"
              a. recognize it and discuss it, or ignore it
              b. look for a face-saving way for the opponent to get off their

Original Source:


Primary Goals sits at the intersection of three core ideas about communication:
  • Leaders create vision by communicating a compelling future to their teams.
  • Teams create success based on how effectively the communicate and coordinate with each other.
  • Entrepreneurial ventures are successful only when they communicate value to people with a concern that the business can take care of
In all cases, it’s about Conversations for Committed Results.  That’s our Primary Goal.  



Copyright 2021 Primary Goals - Privacy Policy