Running head: Getting More
CONF 741 Negotiations: Getting More: A Good Book but Not a Revolutionary One
Maria J. Pallotta
George Mason University
1 May 2014
Getting More
2
Getting More: A Good Book but Not a Revolutionary One
Introduction
Getting More by Stuart Diamond provides clear, no-nonsense advice on how to achieve
more success in negotiation scenarios more often. His writing style is simple and easy to
understand, and he uses copious examples to prove all of his points, almost to a fault. Clearly, he
is writing for an everyday audience, not an audience who would typically fill his MBA classes at
Ivy League schools. As such, his book enables almost anyone with a basic education to learn
how to succeed in negotiations and therefore improve their lives. Diamond breaks down
negotiation theory into its component steps, even providing a small wallet-sized note card of 20
steps he calls the Four Quadrant Negotiation Model. While overall his book is worth reading
and is easily recommendable to almost anyone, it does have its share of inconsistencies as well
as some contradictions. Perhaps most disappointingly, Diamond claims that his method is
entirely different from typical negotiation theory when most of what he claims is not unique at
all—he simply gives things different names and describes them differently. He additionally
makes claims throughout the book, especially in chapter 1, that his method is a panacea—and
one that has never been written about before. In this, he exaggerates and sounds a bit like a
snake-oil salesman trying to sell an unoriginal idea in a shiny new package.
The author defines negotiation in a superb way, expanding the definition with effective
synonyms like “persuasion, communication, or selling” (p. 12). By framing it this way,
Diamond shows the reader that negotiations occur daily, when we previously did not realize we
were even negotiating, like each time we interact with a customer service representative or any
person in the retail service sector. This is Diamond’s strongest point in his entire book, because
Getting More
3
it redefines negotiation and classifies many daily interactions into this category. Even more
astute and enlightening is his framing of these small negotiations as analogous to at-bats for a
professional baseball player. He parallels it to the statistic of a player making one more hit every
nine games (36 at-bats): A .280 hitter becomes a .310 hitter and thus becomes qualified for the
Hall of Fame. As Diamond summarizes, “I’m not trying to hit home runs in negotiations. . . .It’s
a good lesson for negotiation, and a good lesson for life. A few incremental improvements and
you will be fabulously more successful” (p. 21). This point may well comprise the only truly
original idea that Diamond writes of in Getting More.
Specious Claims
While Diamond explains the nature of negotiation exceptionally well, he uses too much
hyperbolic language to describe how his method is a cure-all and practically miraculous. He
uses personal testimonials as well as his own claims: “the breadth of new insights that come
from this Model can be profound” (p. 167); “this negotiation course has changed [students’]
lives” (p. 30); “These processes are not perfect. . . .But if you keep trying to use them, they will
make your life better in many unforeseen ways. So use these tools now. Don’t wait” (p. 30);
“The benefits of this course are potentially immeasurable. . . .I see here the keys to unlock
everything I want” (p. 30); “Even the smartest, most capable and respected people around make
mistakes if they don’t use the kinds of tools in this book” (p. 26); and finally, the following
statement from Diamond that demonstrates early on that he is functioning as a salesman himself
by attempting to convince his readers to finish reading his book: “Now let’s start going over the
List so that I can persuade you to think differently” (p 15). In effect, the book itself is a
negotiation. He is clearly trying to sell us his product. However, his cure-all, exaggerated
Getting More
4
statements are too extreme and too oversimplified. This technique gives him less credibility and
lowers his scholarly status. But surely it sells more books.
The main area in which Diamond contradicts himself is when he discusses meeting goals
in a particular negotiation versus preserving relationships during and after negotiations. For
example, he states that “anything you do in a negotiation should explicitly bring you closer to
your goals for that particular negotiation” (p. 6), and points out that “the point of negotiation is to
get what you want. Why should you negotiate to create a relationship if it won’t help you meet
your goals?” (p. 16). In these sentences, Diamond appears to favor the immediate outcome of
the negotiation at hand and not worry about the future or the relationship. Yet in the same
chapter, he also appears to say the opposite when he claims that “using power or leverage can
ultimately destroy relationships. . . .To be ultimately more effective. . . , you have to get people
to want to do things” (p. 6). He then goes on to state that “if you meet your goals today at the
expense of the long term, you have served yourself poorly” (p. 17). What he may be attempting
to say is that some negotiators are manipulative, hard-bargaining people who are not worth
negotiating with or forming relationships with. But that is merely speculation based on his
overall themes in the book; he still creates confusion when he talks of meeting one’s goals today
no matter what, yet simultaneously warns of destroying relationships in the long term.
Power
There is another main area in Getting More where Diamond oversimplifies his point—or
at least does not think broadly enough about it. He claims that “power, or leverage, is greatly
overrated as a negotiation device. . . . the moment you use raw power over someone, the
relationship is usually over” (p. 11). It seems that he wants to emphasize the word “raw” here, as
Getting More
5
his later discussions of emotional payments imply using them to gain a sort of power, or
influence, over another. Persuasion is, in fact, a form of power. If he means raw power to be a
different term, then he should italicize it like he does with many other words throughout his
book. The word “raw” implies overtness, directness, or even cruelty, but because he does not
explain his interpretation, the reader is left to guess. His point on raw power is probably
appropriate for most settings, including the corporate world and certainly in all personal
relationships. However, within some realms, power structures still necessarily function in a
hierarchical way, like that found in the military and other security organizations. A colonel has
power over his or her subordinates; all officers do, and this is based on the authority vested in
them to carry out what are often difficult, dangerous missions. Therefore, the senior person
possesses the leverage, while subordinates are often permitted to discuss the issues. This may
include persuasion, selling an idea, and negotiation tactics, but the senior officer ultimately holds
the power of the final decision, and the relationship necessarily continues. This structure is
entirely appropriate in some situations, and it is a shame that Diamond does not allow for them
or seem to imagine that they might exist, especially when he preaches throughout the book to be
creative.
BATNAs
Another major area of Diamond’s strategy with which I disagree is his dismissal of using
a BATNA (i.e., a best alternative to a negotiated agreement). BATNAs are discussed often in
the literature, as they comprise a validated, recommended, successful technique for most writers
on negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 2011; Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010; Simons & Tripp, 2010;
Thompson & Leonardelli, 2004). He thinks using this term makes a negotiator focus too much
on walking away when they should remain at the table. While this is a valid point, he seems to
Getting More
6
dismiss the idea that walking away sometimes is better than settling for a sub-par agreement.
Fisher and Ury (2011) discuss how a solid BATNA actually increases your power in a
negotiation: “The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily on how attractive
to each is the option of not reaching agreement” (p. 104). Indeed, the ability to walk away from
the negotiation table relatively satisfied—while the other side knows of this ability and power—
is often essential to successful negotiations. However, perhaps this line of reasoning is lost on
Diamond, as he is not a fan of power or leverage.
Then again, Diamond may be contradicting himself once again when he later discusses
his invented term, WATNA, (i.e., the worst alternative to a negotiated agreement). In essence,
he is stating the same truths and realities inherent in a BATNA. In the fourth point of his Four
Quadrant Negotiation Model, he calls it “What if no deal? Worst case?” (p. 160). Why does he
not equally say “Best case?” It seems he may be simply wanting to re-invent something that
already exists and then naming it something else. He is merely splitting hairs and restating the
definition of BATNA when he writes, “[WATNA] shows the risks of not achieving an
agreement. Better yet is to think about all the other alternatives, from best to worst, and the
likelihood of achieving each. You want to be realistic” (p. 162). Once again, this technique
lessens his credibility.
Dale Carnegie Redux
In summing up the entire book, it is evident that Diamond’s theories have much in
common with others’ ideas, most notably Dale Carnegie’s from 1936, when he first published
How to Win Friends and Influence People (1981). Throughout his best-selling work, Carnegie’s
overarching theme was to make other people feel important and to show a genuine interest in
Getting More
7
them as people. Carnegie cemented this point by quoting acclaimed philosophers like John
Dewey (“The deepest urge in human nature is ‘the desire to be important,’” p. 19) and William
James (“The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated,” p. 20).
Diamond says essentially the same thing throughout Getting More when he speaks of valuing
others:
You want to give people more when they value you. In family situations, when people
get upset, it is because they feel devalued. In job situations, people grumble because they
feel devalued. (p. 41)
There are plenty of other examples of Carnegie’s ideas sprinkled throughout Diamond’s book,
some of them repetitive: “People like to give things to others who listen to them, who value
them, who consult with them” (Diamond, 2012, p. 32); “he didn’t start by discussing the deal
terms. Instead, he tried to get to know the other person—his hopes, dreams, fears” (p. 26); “You
make small talk. Not just because you read somewhere that it’s smart to make small talk. You
do it because you are interested in them” (p. 43); and “I evaluate all interactions in a different
way now. My awareness of others is incredibly acute” (p. 31).
Compare these ideas to some of Carnegie’s words: “You can make more friends in two
months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other
people interested in you” (p. 56); “She didn’t want to hear me talk about my travels. All she
wanted was an interested listener, so she could expand her ego and tell about where she had
been” (p. 90); and “There is no mystery about successful business intercourse. Exclusive
attention to the person who is speaking to you is very important. Nothing else is so flattering as
that” (p. 91). Of course, the idea of listening to others, most of whom want nothing more than to
Getting More
8
talk about themselves, assumes that the listener does not want to talk primarily about him or
herself; good listeners are able to achieve sincerity and a genuine ability to subordinate their
desires for the other person’s. Diamond likens it to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King,
Jr., the first of whom “took the jewel in the crown—India—from the British Empire without ever
raising his voice or ever raising a weapon” (p. 103). These are fantastic examples to strive to
emulate; however, only a few of the best leaders and listeners can aspire to such success.
Repeating Others’ Ideas
There are a plethora of other themes in Diamond’s book where he makes the exact same
points in negotiation theory as other writers have done, many of which appeared in our textbooks
and other assigned readings. The list is long, and the remainder of this paper will discuss the
most important ones. In his fourth chapter, “Hard Bargainers and Standards,” Diamond
discusses the “power of using other people’s standards,” (p. 85), pointing out that people tend to
avoid contradicting themselves, effectively losing face or appearing like hypocrites:
If you give people a choice between being consistent with their standards—with what
they have said and promised previously–and contradicting their standards, people will
usually strive to be consistent with their standards. (p. 84).
Cialdini (2010) states the same principle: “Most people, once they take a stand or go on record
in favor of a position, prefer to stick to it” (p, 171). He further states that this behavior is more
likely the more public and voluntary it is. Another recommendation is to have the other side
write a memorandum after a negotiation, as “people live up to what they have written down” (p.
172). Having people commit to what they say, pledge, or write down is an effective negotiation
tactic that Diamond, as well as others, encourage their readers to do regularly.
Getting More
9
Likewise, Diamond’s recommendations on using objective criteria in negotiations echoes
Fisher and Ury (2011). The latter state that “the solution is to negotiate on some basis
independent of the will of either side—that is, on the basis of objective criteria” (p. 83).
Furthermore, “the agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of
either side,” (p. 13), basing the terms on a fair standard such as “market value, expert opinion,
custom, or law” (p. 14). A comparison with Diamond results in similar advice, although
Diamond adds in more of his cure-all-type language: He uses a McDonald’s fresh French fries
example and speaks of using standards the other side has established, that “when
invoked…usually work like magic” (p. 84).
Another area of agreement between Diamond and other negotiation scholars is that of
framing. Diamond uses the phrase “the pictures in the other person’s head” numerous times
throughout his book; while this is his unique phrase, it says essentially the same thing as other
authors. For example, Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry (2010) describe these pictures, or
interpretations, as the “result of differences in people’s backgrounds, personal histories, [and]
prior experiences” (p. 115), describing a frame as “a way of labeling these different individual
interpretations of the situation” (p. 115). Diamond uses simpler terms to convey that “the more
successful negotiator packages the information in a way that creates a different picture in the
other person’s head” (p. 95). He then gives an example of how to frame a medical case
positively (i.e., stating a 90 percent survival rate versus a 10 percent death rate), pointing out that
stating things in a positive way affects people’s feelings and perceptions positively. This is
exactly the same message that Neale and Bazerman (2010) convey, except that the latter two use
documented research to demonstrate that “negatively framed negotiators were less concessionary
and reached fewer agreements than positively framed negotiators” (p. 120). Additionally,
Getting More
10
“negotiators who had positive frames perceived the negotiated outcomes as more fair than those
who had negative frames” (p. 120). Once again, Diamond re-states what others have written
about previously while claiming that “these teachings are very different from what you have read
or studied about negotiation” (p. 2).
Diamond’s phrase regarding the pictures in others’ heads is synonymous with other
themes throughout the literature. Successful businessmen and negotiators appear to agree that
seeing the situation from another’s point of view is essential. Empathy is key. Fisher and Ury
(2011) describe normal people’s perceptions and how they are colored by cognitive dissonance:
“People tend to see what they want to see. . . .they tend to pick out and focus on those facts that
confirm their prior perceptions and to disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions
into question” (p. 25). Carnegie (1981) quotes famous historical figures stating the same points:
Henry Ford attributed his immense success to “the ability to get the other person’s point of view
and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own” (p. 38). Lloyd George, Prime
Minister of Great Britain during WWI, spoke of the necessity “to bait the hook to suit the fish”
(p. 34). Andrew Carnegie learned that “the only way to influence people is to talk in terms of
what the other person wants” (p. 35). In sum, they all understood that “the world is full of
people who are grabbing and self-seeking. So the rare individual who unselfishly tries to serve
others has an enormous advantage” (p. 46). They “put themselves in the place of other people,
. . .understand the workings of their minds, [and] need never worry about what the future has in
store” (p. 46). These writers agree with Diamond but merely use different phrasing: “The ability
to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important
skills a negotiator can possess” (Fisher & Ury, 2011, p. 25).
Getting More
11
Negotiations over E-mail
Diamond’s discussion of e-mail negotiations also overlaps with the research on the topic.
However, the research develops the topic in much more detail. Diamond discusses e-mail as a
“cold process” (p. 257), and describes its lack of tone. He does not spend much time at all
delving into the research or discussing why e-mail is often an ineffective source of
communication, especially when emotions are involved; however, his recommendations are
beneficial, stating simply that “E-mail has no tone. It’s sort of like tofu—it takes on the flavor of
what the recipient is feeling at the moment” (p. 73). This insight is good advice and is in
keeping with Diamond’s overall message—that negotiations necessarily involve emotion, and
those emotions should be handled directly. In e-mail communication, the emotion of the
recipient may significantly alter the real message that the sender wanted to convey. Where
Diamond differs from other authors is in his recommendation not to use e-mail at all if possible.
Of course, this is often impossible given the worldwide nature of modern business, as well as the
necessity to save money and time by using the Internet for negotiations instead of international
travel and face-to-face meetings.
The research on e-mail negotiations accepts that e-mail is often a necessity in
negotiations, and many authors have contributed to the body of knowledge regarding best
practices for this medium (Ebner, Bapphu, Brown, Kovach, & Schneider, 2009; Lewicki,
Saunders, & Barry, 2010; Thompson & Nadler, 2002; Volkema, Fleck, & Hofmeister, 2011).
They all discuss the importance of establishing rapport early in the process through small talk
and friendly personal overtures to the other person. Ebner, et al. (2009) point out that this effort
is even more critical with high-context cultures like those in Asia (high-context cultures favor
more time getting to know others personally to establish trust, whereas low-context cultures such
Getting More
12
at the United States tend to prefer less small talk in favor of more logic and directness). The
schmoozing that is often required in successful e-mail negotiations is of primary importance for
Americans to understand and use effectively (Thompson and Nadler, 2002), even if they do not
agree with it; yet, Diamond avoids the nuances of this deeper understanding and simply
discourages its use. In this case, Diamond’s advice is impractical and at odds with the modern
international marketplace—in many cases, negotiating over e-mail is the only realistic option.
Emotion
Diamond makes one of his strongest points when he devotes an entire chapter to emotion.
Instead of treating it as something external that needs to be managed or defeated, he openly
acknowledges that “emotions and perceptions are far more important than power and logic in
dealing with others” because “the world is mostly about emotions, not the logic of ‘win-win’” (p.
5). Fisher and Ury (2011) also emphasize the importance of emotions, but they treat it as more
situational, i.e., emotions play a significant role only in some negotiations: “In a negotiation,
particularly in a bitter dispute, feelings may be more important than talk” (p. 31). Shapiro (2010)
acknowledges the importance of accepting emotion in negotiations at all times instead of trying
to suppress them or make them disappear. He feels that any advice to try to defeat emotion is
“untenable and often makes things worse” (p. 140). The key is to embrace emotion and use it to
one’s advantage. Diamond’s message is slightly dissimilar in this case in that he embraces
emotion more completely, accepting its presence and influence in all negotiations.
Diamond spends time in this chapter discussing emotional manipulation, advising against
it. This advice is identical to the literature (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2011). Diamond
describes this type of strategic emotion as “variations of ‘good cop, bad cop’” (p. 137),
Getting More
13
explaining that they mostly “destabilize situations and make them unpredictable” (p. 137).
These tactics and other uses of negative emotion increase rejection rates and further encourage
people to “reject good deals out of spite” (p. 138), especially once they realize that they have
been manipulated. This tit-for-tat response is basic to human nature and well-researched in the
literature on prisoners’ dilemmas and commons dilemmas (Brams, 1993). Thompson and
Leonardelli (2004) liken the result to two people pulling on a Chinese finger trap at the same
time: “The unfortunate result is mutual escalation of conflict” (p. 1). Like Lewicki, Saunders,
and Barry (2011) advise, Diamond agrees that it is best to openly acknowledge someone’s
attempt to use a manipulative tactic by asking them directly if they are playing a game like ‘good
cop, bad cop.’ Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry additionally warn that attempting to use this
technique requires too much energy and may have a pyrrhic effect: “Negotiators using this tactic
can become so involved with their game playing and acting that they fail to concentrate on
obtaining their negotiation goals” (p. 54). Yet again, Diamond’s guidance on emotion is much
more similar to accepted theory and research than he leads his readers to believe.
Conclusion
Getting More (2012) is a worthwhile book to read, especially since it is accessible to a
wide mainstream audience. It uses clear, unambiguous language, as well as a host of specific
examples to illustrate each point. Diamond oftentimes gives more than one example for each
principle he explains, which further makes essential negotiation practices easy to understand. As
such, reading this book is time well-spent for all audiences, even if the author exaggerates many
of his claims and states that his ideas are original and better than the other ones previously
published. Because he also does not cite specific research, this book is less credible than the
best-selling Getting to Yes (2011), which is regularly cited throughout the literature and research.
Getting More
14
For those in graduate school, a higher level of research and credibility is needed than Getting
More provides. While both books are worth recommending and reading, Getting to Yes is the
better choice overall, but Getting More might be appropriate for more mainstream audiences. In
the aggregate, both offer many of the same recommendations regarding successful negotiations
and treating others with respect. If both books help people relate better to each other and solve
their issues amicably and to mutual benefit, then both should be available as much as possible to
their appropriate audiences.
Getting More
15
References
Brams, S. (1993). Theory of moves. American Scientist, 81, 562-570.
Carnegie, D. (1981). How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Cialdini, R. (2010). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Negotiation: Reading, Exercises,
Cases. Lewicki, Roy, et al (Eds.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 168-176.
Diamond, S. (2012). Getting More: How You Can Negotiate to Succeed in Work and Life. New
York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Ebner, N., Bhappu, A., Brown, J., Kovach, K., & Schneider, A. (2009). You’ve got agreement:
Negotiating via email. Marquette University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper
Series, Paper No. 09-16.
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to Yes. B. Patton (Ed.). Penguin Group: New York, NY.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Barry, B. (2010). Best practices in negotiation. Negotiation:
Reading, Exercises, Cases. Lewicki, Roy, et al (Eds.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 443452.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Barry, B. (2010). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Shapiro, D. (2010). The negotiation checklist. Negotiation: Reading, Exercises, Cases.
Lewicki, Roy, et al (Eds.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 139-146.
Getting More
16
Simons, T. & Tripp, T. (2010). The negotiation checklist. Negotiation: Reading, Exercises,
Cases. Lewicki, Roy, et al (Eds.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 34-47.
Thompson, L. & Leonardelli, G. (2004). Why negotiation is the most popular business
school course. Ivey Business Journal, Jul-Aug, 1-7.
Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and
application. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 109-124.
Volkema, R., Fleck, D., & Hofmeister, A. (2011). Getting off on the right foot: The effects of
initial email messages on negotiation process and outcome. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 54(3), 299-313.