Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
Important Information from Fisher & Ury 
Getting to a Yes
People oen see nego a ons either as so or hard.
There is a third way  Principled nego a on: mutual gains, where your interests conict, you should
insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. Hard on
the merits, so on the people.
I The Problem
Methods of nego a on can be judged by 3 criteria:
1. It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible
2. It should be e%cient
3. it should improve or at least not damage the rela onship between the par es
Posi onal bargaining fails to meet the basic criteria of producing a wise agreement, people lock
themselves. The more you defend & clarify your posi on, the more you commi)ed you become. The
more a)en on to posi ons, the less a)en on to underlying concerns.
Arguing over posi ons = ine%cient (takes a lot of me) + endangers rela onships (contest of will,
bi)er feelings).
Addi onally  The more people involved in a nego a on, the more serious the drawbacks to
posi onal bargaining.
Some people think being soer and nicer will be the solu on. However, when caring for the
rela onship to much, an agreement might not be as e0ec ve as possible.
Hard game player dominates the so one.
The di0erences:
Nego a ons are about the substance (topic of nego a on) and the procedure to handle the
substance (the nego a on method).
Should you use hard posi onal bargaining or so?  NEITHER! Luckily, there is an alterna ve 
principled nego a on or nego a on on the merits
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
Key aspects:
People
Interests
Op ons
Criteria
Separate the people from the problem.
Focus on interests, not posi ons.
Generate a variety of possibili es before deciding what to do.
Insist that the result be based on some objec ve standard
Stages of a nego a on process:
Analysis
Think about & diagnose the situa on, consider the aspects of the situa on.
Planning
Planning & deciding what to do and how to do it.
Discussion
Discuss op ons with the other person, try to understand the side of the other.
II Separate the people from the problem
Keep in mind: you are not dealing with abstract representa ves of the "other side," but with human
beings. Failing to deal with others sensi vely as human beings prone to human reac ons can be
disastrous for a nego a on.
Apart from wan ng an agreement about the substance, a nego ator has an interest in a good
rela onship as well  the ongoing rela onship is important (think about long-term clients, family or
foreign na ons).
Problem: par es' rela onship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance.
Posi onal bargaining puts rela onship and substance in conict.
How to deal with it?
Base rela onship on accurate percep ons and deal with the people problem directly (clear
communica on, use psychological knowledge to manage rela onship).
3 important categories: percep on, emo on & communica on. And keep in mind that the
men oned techniques apply as well to you as to your counterpart.
Percep on
Keep in mind: di0erences are deBned by the di0erence between your thinking and theirs. People
oen think they need to gain more knowledge about the topic or the object they nego ate about,
when in fact they need try to understand the way their counterpart thinks. As useful as looking for
objec ve reality can be, it is ul mately the reality as each side sees it that cons tutes the problem in
a nego a on and opens the way to a solu on.
What to do?
 Put yourself in their shoes
If you want to inuence them, you also need to understand empathe cally the power of
their point of view and to feel the emo onal force with which they believe in it.
How to do this?  try to withhold judgement for a while as you try on their views. And
remind that understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it.
Don't deduce their inten ons from your fears.
Don't blame them for your problem  is counterproduc ve.
When discussing the problem  separate the symptoms from the person with whom you
are talking.
 Discuss each other’s percepons
In a honest manner without blaming the other person for their point of view. People tend not
to speak about the things that are not in the way of geDng to an agreement. When you do
agree on a certain point, men on it! The counterpart likes to hear it and it might be a good
investment.
 Look for opportunies to act inconsistently with their percepons
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen


Perhaps the best way to change their percep ons is to send them a message di0erent from
what they expect.
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they parcipate in the process
If they are not involved in the process, they are hardly likely to approve the product. Even if
the terms of an agreement seem favourable, the other side may reject them simply out of a
suspicion born of their exclusion from the draing process.
It becomes easier when both par es feel ownership of the ideas. If a solu on includes
enough sugges ons of both sides, each part will feel as if it is theirs.
Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values
Face-saving might have a nega ve tone in it, but it is actually not the case. It is a very
important aspect. Face-saving reects a person's need to reconcile the stand he takes in a
nego a on or an agreement with his principles and with his past words and deeds. The
nego ator explains how his/her decision is consistent with their principles.
Emo on
What to do?
 First recognize and understand emoons, theirs and yours
Analyse which emo ons you feel and which your counterpart might feel. It may be useful to
write it down. Also think about how you would like to feel instead. Then ask yourself what
produces these emo ons.
 Make emoons explicit and acknowledge them as legimate
Talk about your and their emo ons, and the emo ons of the people that are involved. Freed
from the burden of unexpressed emo ons, people will become more likely to work on the
problem.
 Allow the other side to let o) steam
LeDng o0 steam may make it easier to talk ra onally later. Perhaps the best strategy to
adopt while the other side lets o0 steam is to listen quietly without responding to their
a)acks. Let them release all the feelings. This will look way more professional than walking
away or interrup ng them.
 Don't react to emoonal outbursts
Releasing emo ons can prove risky if it leads to an emo onal reac on. If not controlled, it
can result in a violent quarrel. By responding with emo onal outburst it implies that you have
lost self-control, so you lose some face.
 Use symbolic gestures
Symbolic gestures are opportuni es to improve a hos le emo onal situa on at small cost 
for example an apology (even when you don’t feel personally responsible).
Communica on
Nego a on is a process of communica ng back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint
decision. There are 3 big problems in communica on:
1. Nego ators may not be talking to each other
2. Nego ators may not hear each other (for example because they are busy Bguring out what
to say next).
3. Misunderstanding
What to do about the problems?
 Listen acvely and acknowledge what is being said.
Summarize what the other par es says and check whether you’ve heard it correctly. Make it
your task not to formulate your response, but to ac vely seek to try to understand them. Let
them know you have heard them. When telling your point without making clear you have
heard their point, they will start repea ng themselves and might think you did not hear them
correctly. As you repeat what you understood them to have said, phrase it posi vely from
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen



their point of view, making the strength of their case clear. Only aer you have done this,
you can start by explaining if and why you don’t agree. Keep in mind that understanding is
not the same as agreeing.
Speak to be understood
Keep in mind that you do not have to persuade a third party, but that you are having a
conversa on with a person with whom you have a joint problem and with whom you are
trying to formulate a joint opinion. It is important to establish private and conBden al means
of communica ng with the other side. You can also improve communica on by limi ng the
size of the group mee ng.
Speak about yourself, not about them
It is more persuasive to describe a problem in terms of its impact on you than in terms of
what they did or why. If you make a statement about them that they believe is untrue, they
will ignore you or get angry; they will not focus on your concern. But if you focus on your
feelings, this is hard to challenge or ignore.
Speak for a purpose
Before making a signiBcant statement, know what you want to communicate or Bnd out, and
know what purpose this informa on will serve.
Preven on works best
The best me for handling people problems is before they become people problems.
How to do it?
 Build a working relaonship
Knowing the other side personally really does help. The me to develop such a rela onship is
before the nego a on begins.
 Face the problem, not the people
An e0ec ve way for the par es to think of themselves is as partners in a hardheaded, sideby-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each. Seeing themselves as engaged in
side-by-side e0orts to solve a mutual problem, the nego ators will become be)er able to
reconcile their conic ng interests as well as to advance their shared interests. A good way
to make this clear to your counterpart is to speak about it and to say: “Let's look together at
the problem of how to sa sfy our collec ve interests”.
It helps to sit literally on the same side of a table.
Separa ng the people from the problem is not something you can do once and forget about; you
have to keep working at it.
III Focus on interests, not posions
The di0erence between posi ons and interests is crucial. Interests deBne the problem. Interests are
for example; desires and concerns. Interests mo vate people; they are the silent movers behind the
hubbub of posi ons. Your interests are what caused you to take your posi on.
Reconciling interests rather than posi ons works for two reasons:
1. for every interest there usually exist several possible posi ons that could sa sfy it.
2. behind opposed posi ons lie many more interests than conic ng ones.
A close examina on of the underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that
are shared or compa ble than ones that are opposed.
How to deBne interests?
 Ask "Why?"
Ask yourself why the other party wants something or ask the other party directly.
 Ask "Why not?" Think about their choice.
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen



If you are trying to change their minds, the star ng point is to Bgure out where their minds
are now. In construc ng the other side's presently perceived choice the Brst ques on to ask
is "Whose decision do I want to aect?" The second ques on is what decision people on the
other side now see you asking them to make. If you have no idea what they think they are
being called on to do, they may not either. That alone may explain why they are not deciding
as you would like.
Now analyse the consequences, as the other side would probably see them, of agreeing or
refusing to make the decision you are asking for (the impact of your interests).
Realize that each side has mulple interests
In almost every nego a on each side will have many interests, not just one. A common error
in diagnosing a nego a ng situa on is to assume that each person on the other side has the
same interests. Thinking of nego a on as a two-person, two-sided a0air can be illumina ng,
but it should not blind you to the usual presence of other persons, other sides, and other
inuences. To understand a nego ator's interests means to understand the variety of
somewhat di0ering interests that he needs to take into account.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs
If you can take care of such basic needs, you increase the chance both of reaching agreement
and, if an agreement is reached, of the other side's keeping to it. The basic human needs:
- security
- economic well-being
- a sense of belonging
- recogni on
- control over one's life
Make a list
To sort out the various interests of each side, it helps to write them down as they occur to
you.
Talking about interests
The purpose of nego a ng is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when
you communicate them.
How?
 Make your interests come alive
It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legi mate your
interests are. Important: be specic! You want them to feel not that you are a)acking them
personally, but rather that the problem you face legi mately demands a)en on.
 Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem
If you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstra ng that you
appreciate theirs. Demonstra ng that you have understood their interests, helps to
acknowledge that their interests are part of the overall problem you are trying to solve.
You can do this by saying: "As I understand it, your interests are…..”
 Put the problem before your answer.
If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and
reasoning Brst and your conclusions or proposals later.
 Look forward, not back
When in a discussion, people are more likely to respond to what the other side has said or
done than to act in pursuit of their own long-term interests. However, you will sa sfy your
interests be)er if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you
have come from.
 Be concrete but 2exible
In a nego a on you want to know where you are going and yet be open to fresh ideas. How
can you move from iden fying interests to developing speciBc op ons and s ll remain
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen

exible with regard to those op ons? To convert interests in op ons you can ask yourself: "If
tomorrow the other side agrees to go along with me, what do I now think I would like them
to go along with?”. To keep your exibility, treat each op on you formulate as simply
illustra ve. Having thought about your interests, you should go into a mee ng not only with
one or more speciBc op ons that would meet your legi mate interests but also with an open
mind. An open mind is not an empty one.
Be hard on the problem, so3 on the people
You can be just as hard in talking about your interests as any nego ator can be in talking
about his posi on. Commit yourself to your interests. It is advised to strongly advocate your
interests. Two nego ators, each pushing hard for their interests, will oen s mulate each
other's crea vity in thinking up mutually advantageous solu ons. A)ack the problem
without blaming the people. Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your
apprecia on for their me and e0ort, emphasize your concern with mee ng their basic
needs, and so on. Show them that you are a)acking the problem, not them. This might seem
contradictory and psychologically it is indeed. It will create cogni ve dissonance within the
other party. And in order to reduce the cogni ve dissonance, they will be more likely to
dissociate themselves from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it.
IV Invent opons for mutual gain
Expand the pie before dividing it! Skill at inven ng op ons is one of the most useful assets a
nego ator can have.
In most nego a ons there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inven ng of an abundance of
op ons:
1. Premature judgement
Judgment hinders imagina on. Under the pressure of a forthcoming nego a on, your cri cal
sense is likely to be sharper, which makes it harder to come up with new op ons. Your
crea vity may be even more s ed by the presence of those on the other side. In a tense
situa on like this you are not likely to start inven ng imagina ve solu ons. You may also fear
that by inven ng op ons you will disclose some piece of informa on that will jeopardize
your bargaining posi on.
2. Searching for the single answer
Nego ators oen see their job as narrowing the gap between posi ons, not broadening the
op ons available. They fear that free-oa ng discussion will only delay and confuse the
process. Leading to premature closure  choosing an op on without having considered
other op ons.
3. The assumpon of a 9xed pie
A third explana on for why there may be so few good op ons on the table is that each side
sees the situa on as essen ally either/or — either I get what is in dispute or you do. A
nego a on oen appears to be a "Bxed-sum" game; my loss is your gain (and the other way
around).
4. Thinking that "solving their problem is their problem"
A Bnal obstacle to inven ng realis c op ons lies in each side's concern with only its own
immediate interests. Short-sighted self-concern leads a nego ator to develop only par san
posi ons, par san arguments, and one-sided solu ons.
How to invent crea ve op ons?
1. Separate the act of invenng opons from the act of judging them
o Separate inven ng from deciding
Since judgment hinders imagina on, separate the crea ve act from the cri cal one;
separate the process of thinking up possible decisions from the process of selec ng
among them. Invent Brst, decide later.
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
How?  brainstorm session  Brst focus on inven ng as much op ons as possible
and do not judge them right away. The judgement comes later in the process.
Some ps to take into account before brainstorming:
(1)DeBne your purpose, (2)Choose a few par cipants, (3)Change the environment,
(4)Design an informal atmosphere (5)Choose a facilitator.
During brainstorming: (1)Seat the par cipants side by facing the problem, (2)clarify
the ground rules, including the no-cri cism rule, (3) brainstorm, try to come up with a
long list of ideas (4) Record the ideas in full view, on a piece of paper/whiteboard.
Aer brainstorming: (1) Star the most promising idea, no deciding yet, just indicate
ideas worth developing further, (2) Invent improvements for promising ideas, (3) Set
up a me to evaluate ideas and decide.
o Consider brainstorming with the other side
Joint brainstorming sessions have the great advantages of producing ideas which
take into account the interests of all those involved, of crea ng a climate of joint
problem-solving, and of educa ng each side about the concerns of the other. BUT:
dis nguish the brainstorming session explicitly from a nego a ng session where
people state o%cial views and speak on the record.
2. Broaden the opons on the table rather than look for a single answer
The key to wise decision-making lies in selec ng from a great number and variety of op ons.
o Mul ply op ons by shu%ling between the specic and the general: The Circle Chart.
The task of inven ng op ons involves four types of thinking:
1. thinking about a par cular problem
2. descrip ve analysis — you diagnose an exis ng situa on in general terms
3. consider what ought, perhaps, to be done
4. come up with some speciBc and feasible sugges ons for ac on
The Circle Chart provides an easy way of using one good idea to generate others. One
good op on on the table thus opens the door to asking about the theory that makes
this op on good and then using that theory to invent more op ons.
o
Look through the eyes of dierent experts
Examine your problem from the perspec ve of di0erent professions and disciplines.
o
Invent agreements of dierent strengths
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
o
Change the scope of a proposed agreement
For example: split your problem into smaller and perhaps more manageable units.
Agreements may be par al, involve fewer par es, cover only selected subject
ma)ers, apply only to a certain geographical area, or remain in e0ect for only a
limited period of me.
3. Look for mutual gain
The third major block to crea ve problem-solving lies in the assump on of a Bxed pie: the
less for you, the more for me. There almost always exists the possibility of joint gain. How?
o Iden fy shared interests
Formulate the shared interests as goals. Stressing your shared interests can make the
nego a on smoother and more amicable.
o Dovetail diering interests
In the case of the sisters and the orange (they end up spliDng it, only aer they
realize one sister wants the peal and the other wants the fruit) as in many others, a
sa sfactory agreement is made possible because each side wants dierent things.
Common varia ons in interest to look for:
o
Ask for their preferences
Look for items that are of low cost to you and high beneBt to them, and vice versa.
Di0erences in interests, priori es, beliefs, forecasts, and aDtudes toward risk all
make dovetailing possible. A nego ator's mo)o could be "Vive la di0erence!"
4. Make their decision easy
Since success for you in a nego a on depends upon the other side's making a decision you
want, you should do what you can to make that decision an easy one. Therefore you want to
put yourself in their shoes, so the proposed op ons do take their point of view into account.
o Whose shoes?
Pick one person — probably the person with whom you are dealing — and see how
the problem looks from his or her point of view. If you place yourself Brmly in the
shoes of your opposite number, you will understand his problem and what kind of
op ons might solve it.
o
What decision?
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
o
Your task is to give them not a problem but an answer, to give them not a tough
decision but an easy one.
It is usually easier, for example, to refrain from doing something not being done than
to stop ac on already underway. Try to come up with ideas that are easily
manageable in the current situa on.
Shape solu ons so that they will appear legi mate. The other side is more likely to
accept a solu on if it seems the right thing to do — right in terms of being fair, legal,
honourable, and so forth.
Look for a decision or statement that the other side may have made in a similar
situa on, and try to base a proposed agreement on it.
Making threats is not enough
We oen try to inuence others by threats and warnings of what will happen if they
do not decide as we would like. But, o0ers are usually more e0ec ve.
Tip: Write out a sentence or two illustra ng what the other side's most powerful
cri c might say about the decision you are thinking of asking for + think of a defence.
Recap: generate many op ons before selec ng among them. Invent Brst; decide later. Look for
shared interests and di0ering interests to dovetail. And seek to make their decision easy.
V Insist on using objecve criteria
Trying to se)le di0erences of interest on the basis of will has high costs. The solu on is to nego ate
on some basis independent of the will of either side — that is, on the basis of objec ve criteria. The
approach is to commit yourself to reaching a solu on based on principle, not pressure. The more you
bring standards of fairness, e%ciency, or scien Bc merit to bear on your par cular problem, the
more likely you are to produce a Bnal package that is wise and fair. The more you and the other side
refer to precedent and community prac ce, the greater your chance of beneB ng from past
experience. And an agreement consistent with precedent is less vulnerable to a)ack.
Developing objec ve criteria:
 Be prepared
So develop some alterna ve standards beforehand and think through their applica on to
your case.
 Fair standards
You will usually Bnd more than one objec ve criterion available as a basis for agreement. For
example, objec ve criteria could be based upon market value, moral standards, scien Bc
judgement, e%cacy, tradi on etc. At minimum, objec ve criteria need to be independent of
each side's will and they should be legi mate and prac cal. Objec ve criteria should apply, at
least in theory, to both sides.
 Fair procedures
To produce an outcome independent of will, you can use either fair standards for the
substan ve ques on or fair procedures for resolving the conic ng interests. As you consider
procedural solu ons, look at other basic means of se)ling di0erences: taking turns, drawing
lots, leDng someone else decide, and so on. Also think of the simple thing used with children
dividing a cake, one cuts the other chooses. LeDng someone else play a key role in a joint
decision is a well-established procedure with almost inBnite varia ons (like an expert,
arbitrator, mediator).
Negoang with objecve criteria, some points to keep in mind:
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen



Frame each issue as a joint search for objecve criteria.
You can say: “We both have di0erent interests but let's Bgure out what a fair price would
be”. This will give you a shared goal.
Some ideas:
- Ask for the theory a seller has behind the price
- Frist agree on standards/principles
Reason and be open to reason.
Come to the table with an open mind, only this will make it a joint search.
Insis ng that an agreement be based on objec ve criteria does not mean insis ng that it be
based solely on the criterion you advance. When each party is advancing a di0erent
standard, look for an objec ve basis for deciding between them.
Other possible op on: Agree on someone you both regard as fair and give him or her a list of
the proposed criteria. Ask the person to decide which are the fairest or most appropriate for
your situa on.
It is the combina on of openness to reason with insistence on a solu on based on objec ve
criteria that makes principled nego a on so persuasive and so e0ec ve at geDng the other
side to play.
Never yield to pressure
Pressure can take many forms: a bribe, a threat, a manipula ve appeal to trust, or a simple
refusal to budge. In all these cases, the principled response is the same: invite them to state
their reasoning, suggest objec ve criteria you think apply, and refuse to budge except on this
basis. Principled nego a on allows you to hold your own and s ll be fair.
VI What If They Are More Powerful?
In response to power, the most any method of nego a on can do is to meet two objec ves:
1. To protect you against making an agreement you should reject
- using a bo)om line makes you less open to possible solu ons & inhibits
imagina on. Bo)om line is likely to be set too high/low. While adop ng a bo)om
line may protect you from accep ng a very bad agreement, it may keep you both
from inven ng and from agreeing to a solu on it would be wise to accept.
- Be)er op on  know your BATNA (Best Alterna ve To a Nego ated
Agreement). That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should
be measured.
Mistakes: One frequent mistake is psychologically to see your alterna ves in the
aggregate, greater danger is that you are too commi)ed to reaching agreement.
- Formulate a trip wireIn order to give you early warning that the content of a
possible agreement is beginning to run the risk of being too una)rac ve, it is
useful to iden fy one far from perfect agreement that is be)er than your BATNA.
2. To help you make the most of the assets you do have, so that any agreement you reach will
sasfy your interests as well as possible.
- The be)er your BATNA, the greater your power
- Develop your BATNA  Vigorous explora on of what you will do if you do not
reach agreement can greatly strengthen your hand:
 inven ng a list of ac ons you might conceivably take if no agreement is
reached
 improving some of the more promising ideas and conver ng them into
prac cal alterna ves
 selec ng, tenta vely, the one op on that seems best
If they think you lack a good alterna ve when in fact you have one, then you
should almost certainly let them know.
- Consider the other side's BATNA
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
The stronger they appear in terms of physical or economic power, the more you beneBt by
nego a ng on the merits. Having a good BATNA can help you nego ate on the merits. Developing
your BATNA is perhaps the most e0ec ve course of ac on you can take in dealing with a seemingly
more powerful nego ator.
VII What If They Won't Play?
There are three basic approaches for focusing their a)en on on the merits:
1. You yourself can concentrate on the merits, rather than on posions.
This method, the subject of this book, is contagious; it holds open the prospect of success to
those who will talk about interests, op ons, and criteria. In e0ect, you can change the game
simply by star ng to play a new one.
2. Negoaon Jujitsu
How to deal with an a)acking counterpart:
o Do not push back
o Don't a)ack their posi on, look behind it. Look for the interests behind it, seek out
the principles which it reects, and think about ways to improve it. Treat their
posi on as one op on and seek out and discuss the principles underlying the other
side's posi ons.
o Don't defend your ideas, invite cri cism and advice. Examine their nega ve
judgments to Bnd out their underlying interests and to improve your ideas from their
point of view. Or: Another way to channel cri cism in a construc ve direc on is to
turn the situa on around and ask for their advice
o Recast an a)ack on you as an a)ack on the problem; Listen to them, show you
understand what they are saying, and when they have Bnished, recast their a)ack on
you as an a)ack on the problem.
o Ask ques ons and pause; ask ques ons instead of statements. Statements generate
resistance, whereas ques ons generate answers.
If you have asked an honest ques on to which they have provided an insu%cient
answer, just wait  Pause.
3. Focuses on what a third party can do
You will probably call in a third party only if your own e0orts to shi the game from
posi onal bargaining to principled nego a on have failed. A mediator can separate the
people from the problem and direct the discussion to interests and op ons.
An example of such a process is called the one-text procedure  mediator/ third party takes
in to account all points of both par es and makes a dra. Then he asks: yes or no?. The onetext procedure not only shis the game away from posi onal bargaining, it greatly simpliBes
the process both of inven ng op ons and of deciding jointly on one.
VIII What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
There are many tac cs and tricks people can use to try to take advantage of you. People usually
respond in two ways:
1. To just put up with it
2. To respond in kind
Three steps in nego a ng the rules of a nego a on game where the other party seems to play a
tricky tac c:
1. Recognize the tac c
2. Raise the issue explicitly, and ques on the tac c's legi macy and desirability
3. Nego ate over it  focus on procedure instead of substance.
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
The ma)ers discussed in this summary apply to this nego a on as well! (Separate the people from
the problem, focus in interests not on posi ons, invent op ons for mutual gain, insist on having
objec ve criteria).
As a last resort, turn to your BATNA (your Best Alterna ve To a Nego ated Agreement) and walk out.
Some common tricky taccs
 Deliberate decepon
Misrepresenta on about facts, authority, or inten ons.
But: Less than full disclosure is not the same as decep on.


Psychological warfare
These tac cs are designed to make you feel uncomfortable, so that you will have a
subconscious desire to end the nego a on as soon as possible.
- Stressful situa on  Think about the loca on and environment in which the
nego a on will take place. Manipulate the surroundings in a way that it makes
you feel comfortable.
- Personal a)acks  recognizing the tac c will help nullify its e0ect; bringing it up
explicitly will probably prevent a recurrence
- The good-guy/bad-guy rou ne  The good-guy/bad-guy rou ne is a form of
psychological manipula on. If you recognize it, you won't be taken in.
- Threats. But threats can lead to counterthreats in an escala ng spiral that can
unhinge a nego a on and even destroy a rela onship.
Warnings are much more legi mate than threats and are not vulnerable to
counterthreats
How to deal with threats: For threats to be e0ec ve they must be credibly
communicated. Some mes you can interfere with the communica on process.
You can ignore threats.
Perhaps the best response to a threat, however, is to be principled.
Posional pressure taccs
- Refusal to negoate
What can you do when the other side refuses to nego ate altogether?  (1)
recognize the tac c as a possible nego a ng ploy, (2) talk about their refusal to
nego ate, (3) insist on using principle
- Extreme demands
Bringing the tac c to their a)en on works well here. Ask for principled
jus Bca on of their posi on un l it looks ridiculous even to them.
- Escalang demands
A nego ator may raise one of his demands for every concession he makes on
another. He may also reopen issues you thought had been se)led. When you
recognize this, call it to their a)en on and then perhaps take a break while you
consider whether and on what basis you want to con nue nego a ons AND
insist on principle.
- Lock-in taccs
Commitment tac c designed to make it impossible to yield. Like threats, lock-in
tac cs depend on communica on. In response to a commitment tac c,
therefore, you may be able to interrupt the communica on or you could make a
joke of it and don’t take the lock-in seriously or resist lock-ins on principle.
- A calculated delay
Frequently one side will try to postpone coming to a decision un l a me they
think favourable. Wai ng for the right me is a high-cost game.
Make delaying tac cs explicit and nego a ng about them.
Look for objec ve condi ons that can be used to establish deadline.
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
-
"Take it or leave it."
How to deal with it? Consider ignoring it at Brst. If you do bring up the tac c
speciBcally, let them know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached and
look for a face-saving way, such as a change in circumstances, for them to get out
of the situa on.
Gedownload door: tijmenvanderschaaff | tijmenvds@live.nl
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)