Almost three decades after its initial publication, ‘Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In’ by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, & Bruce Patton has instructed millions of individuals on how to negotiate more effectively. It is a seminal work in contemporary business literature and is founded upon the research conducted by the Harvard Negotiation Project, an organization that specializes in resolving conflicts and negotiations at every level.
The following article is the synthesis of the first Chapter, namely ‘Don’t Bargain Over Positions’.
The first chapter of the book addresses the problem of positional bargaining in negotiations. The chapter argues against the common practice of taking fixed positions, arguing for them, and making concessions to reach a compromise. Taking a position on something and then sticking to it leads to harmful agreement. Whereas, an ideal method of negotiation should produce a wise agreement, efficiency, and the improvement or preservation of the relationship between parties. It contends that positional bargaining often fails to meet these criteria.
The writer highlighted the limitations and risks of positional bargaining, i.e.
- Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes: Negotiators often lock themselves into their positions during negotiations, becoming more committed and difficult to change. It becomes a matter of satisfying the ego. This leads to a focus on ‘saving face’ and reconciling future actions with past positions, making it less likely for agreements to align with the parties’ original interests.
- Arguing over positions is inefficient: Positional bargaining involves starting with extreme positions, stubbornly holding them, deceiving the other party, and making small concessions to keep negotiations going. These factors stall settlements, as the more extreme the opening positions and smaller concessions, the longer it takes to reach an agreement.
- Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship: Positional bargaining is a contest of will, where negotiators assert their will and refuse to change, often straining relationships and potentially causing businesses to break up. People stop communicating with each other and that leads to bitter feelings.
- When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse: Negotiation often involves multiple parties, including constituents, higher-ups, boards, or committees. The more people involved in a negotiation, the more serious the drawbacks to positional bargaining.
- Being nice is no answer: This point is a very tricky one. There are two types of bargaining: soft and hard. The problems of hard bargaining are explained before. However, the soft negotiating game emphasizes the importance of building and maintaining relationships, often used in family and friends negotiations. This approach is efficient and often leads to quick results, but it can result in sloppy agreements. Additionally, pursuing a soft form of positional bargaining can make one vulnerable to someone who plays a hard game, which can favor the hard player. If a soft response to hard positional bargaining is used, the outcome may not be wise.
The answer to the previous point is explained in the following statement:
- There is an alternative: Negotiation involves two levels: addressing the substance and the procedure for dealing with it. The first negotiation may involve salary, lease terms, or payment. The second negotiation focuses on how to negotiate the substantive question, either through soft positional bargaining or hard positional bargaining. Each move within a negotiation is a meta-game, affecting the rules of the negotiation and potentially causing a game-changing outcome. This allows for a more balanced approach to negotiations that may serve to keep the negotiations in an ongoing mode, or it may constitute a game-changing move.
Now the game is in the hands of the negotiator, as how he or she can change the game as:
“The answer to the question of whether to use soft positional bargaining or hard is “neither.” Change the game”.
The Harvard Negotiation Project has developed a method of negotiation called principled negotiation, which is designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. This method is based on four basic points: people, interests, options, and criteria.
The first point addresses the fact that human beings are not computers and often have different perceptions and communication difficulties. Emotions become entangled with the objective merits of the problem, making it difficult to communicate clearly. Separating the people from the problem is crucial. The second point focuses on interests rather than positions, as a compromise between positions may not produce an agreement that effectively addresses the human needs that led people to adopt those positions. The third point addresses the difficulty of designing optimal solutions under pressure by setting aside a designated time for brainstorming multiple possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests. The fourth point insists on using objective criteria to ensure a fair outcome.
The four propositions are relevant from the beginning of negotiations until the time either an agreement is reached or the effort is broken off. This period can be divided into three stages: analysis, planning, and discussion.
During the analysis stage, the parties gather information, organize it, and think about the situation. They consider the people’s problems, interests, and criteria proposed as a basis for agreement. In the planning stage, the same four elements are addressed again, generating ideas and deciding what to do. In the discussion stage, the parties communicate back and forth, looking toward agreement. Differences in perception, feelings of frustration and anger, and communication difficulties can be acknowledged and addressed. Both parties should come to understand each other’s interests, jointly generate mutually advantageous options, and seek agreement on objective standards for resolving opposed interests.
To conclude, the first chapter of the book stresses the importance of the ‘principled negotiation method’, unlike positional bargaining, it focuses on basic interests by mutually satisfying options, and fair standards. This approach leads to wise agreements, allowing for efficient consensus without transactional costs.
Continue…
(Note: the next article will explore the role of language during bargaining over positions or problems)
The writer is a Linguist and Senior Research Fellow at the School for Law and Development
