Getting to Yes -- The final stop in the journey

Finally I moved to book "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In" by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It's the first published book in Yes/No negotiation series, however, it is the final results we are seeking for. We start with saying positive No to demand, then we get past No from the other side, now it is the time to getting to Yes to our desire. It was wrote two decades ago, and the principles in the book can very much still apply to real life amazingly.

The common problem in negotiation is people always bargain over positions no matter they pick soft or hard road. Although position bargain might gain what we want, it's more destructive instead of constructive way of working for the following reasons:

1. Arguing over positions produce unwise agreement since all attentions are paid to position and may ignore the underlying concerns and interests.
2. Arguing over positions is inefficient since both sides consume long time to hold their extreme position and make small concession only to keep the process going.
3. Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship since position battles and power forces produce more negative feelings to both sides.
4. When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse since lacking of common position makes the negotiation impossible to develop, agree, and change a position.
5. Being nice is no answer since playing soft may show vulnerable to the other side who plays hard ball and the result may not be wise.

Thus neither soft positional bargaining nor hard one or in between is a good choice during negotiation. The author proposes a new methods: principled negotiation to deal with this dilemma and change the game.

Using Principled negotiation , all participants are problem-solvers and their goals are wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably. The solution focuses four points:

1. People: Separate the people from the problem: Be soft on the people, and hard on the problem.
   
2. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Explore interests while avoid having a bottom line.
   
3. Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do and decide later.
   
4. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard independent of will. Reason and be open to reason; yield to principle, not pressure.
   

Those four propositions are relevant through whole negotiation process including three stage of analysis, planning and discussion.

The second part of book is expanded with detailed explanation of four propositions list below.

Separate the people from the problem:

1. Remember that the other sides are people first. As a human being, negotiators and ourselves have different emotions, values, egos, backgrounds, viewpoints, and unpredictability.
   
2. Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship. The relationship tends to entangled with the problem. Also positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict.
3. Thus we need to separate the relationship from the substance, and base the relationship on accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotions, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook so that we can deal directly with the people problem. Keep in mind that perception, communication, and emotion issues could come from ourselves as well as the other sides.
4. Perceptions: Conflict lies not only in objective reality, but also from people's different perceptions. Thus understanding the other's perceptions and the difference between ours and their helps to resolve the conflict.
   1. Put ourselves in their shoes because how we see world depends on where we sit. As authors say:"People tend to see what they want to see. Out of a mass of detailed information, 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 questions." It reminds me the surprised match for interview process. Most of case interviewers make their minds within the first 5 minutes and spend the rest of time to confirm their perceptions about the interviewees. Sticking to our own perception will limit us into less flexible scope, like the story of the blinds who touch and feel the elephants. Everyone insists what he or she feels about what the elephants look alike is correct since he or she only touch own perceptions. Although to really put us in their shoes is a challenging job since people love to judge. We have to withhold our judgment when we try on their perceptions.
      
   2. Don't deduce the other's intentions from our fears, since people tend to assume that the other side will do whatever we fear most.
   3. Don't blame the other side for our problems, even if the other side is responsible, since it is counterproductive and make the other side defensive. Always separate the problem symptoms from the person.
   4. Discuss each other's perceptions in a frank, honest manner.
      
   5. Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with the other's perceptions to change their perceptions.
   6. Give the others a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process. If we want the other side to accept a disagreeable conclusion, it is crucial that we involve them in the process of reaching that conclusion. Involves the other side early, ask for their advice, and give credit generously for ideas wherever possible.
      
   7. Face-saving: make our proposals consistent with the other's values, since face-saving reflects a person's need to reconcile the stand he takes now with his principles and past deeds. It should not be underestimated.
      


5. Emotion: Negative emotions on one side will generate negative emotions on the other side.
   
   1. First recognize and understand emotions, including the other's and ours. Sometimes writing down what we feel and how we might like to feel helps to control our emotions. Understand what causes the other's and ours emotions helps us move forward without blocking by the emotions.
   2. Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate, including discuss it frankly with the other side. As author states:" Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem."
   3. Allow the other side to let off steam. By allowing them release negative feelings makes it easier to talk rationally later. Author suggests a strategy to adopt is to listen quietly without responding to their attacks, and occasionally to ask the speaker to continue until he has spoken his last word.
   4. Don't react to emotional outbursts. An interesting rule used before is that only one person could get angry at a time.
      
   5. Use symbolic gestures, such as a notes of sympathy, or an apology at small cost produces a constructive emotional impact.
      


6. Communication: "Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different." There are three big problems in communication. First, negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood. Second, even we are talking directly and clearly to the other side, they may not be hearing us at all. Third problem is misunderstanding or misinterpretation. To address those three problems of communication, authors bring the following strategy:
   
   1. Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said, such as " Did I understand correctly that you are saying that....?" No wonder "The cheapest concession you can make to the other side is to let them know they have been heard." "Let me see whether I follow what you're telling me. From your point of view, the situation looks like this...." Don't be afraid of acknowledge, since understanding and acknowledge of hearing does not mean we have to agree. Phrase our understanding positively, then come back with the problem we found out in that understanding make it easier to be accepted.
      
   2. Speak to be understood and be have to work together on a joint opinion.
   3. Speak about ourselves, not about the other side, since a statement about ourselves id most difficult to challenge. "I feel let down" is better than "You broke your word.". "We feel discriminated against" sounds better than "you're a racist."
      
   4. Speak for a purpose. Sometimes unsaid is better than speak too much. As authors point out: "Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve."
      


7. Prevention works best: since the best time to handle people problems is before they become people problems.
   
   1. Build a working relationship because dealing with a stranger is totally different comparing to dealing with a friend. Thus the more quickly we can turn a stranger into someone we know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become. Find ways to meet informally, arrive early to chat and linger after to meet. Authors use Benjamin Franklin's favorite technique-- to ask an adversary if he could borrow a certain book -- as an example.
      
   2. Face the problem, not the people. A more effective way is to think both sides as partners in a side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each. It's not a one time deal. We have to keep working on it, and deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits.
      

Focus on interests, Not positions:

1. For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions:
   
   1. Interests define the problem. The basic problem in a negotiation lies in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears -- which is their interests, while position is one of possible way to satisfy the interests.
      
   2. Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting interests. It's not necessary to assume that the other side's interests are always opposed to ours due to opposite positions.
2. How can we identify interests?
   
   1. Ask "Why?" to put ourselves into the other's shoes. Ask ourselves and the other side why they take a particular position for understanding purpose instead of justification of position.
      
   2. Ask "Why not?" to think about the other's choice. Check the consequences of the decision including the impact on our interests, and the impact on the group's interests.
      
   3. Realize that each side has multiple interests, not just the one arguing for. Understand the variety of somewhat differing interests and take all into account are important.
   4. The most powerful interests are basic human needs, including security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life, etc. Do not assume that money is the only interests.
      
   5. Make a list to sort out the various interests of each side in the estimated order of importance.
      
3. Talking about interests, because communication helps each other understand better.
   
   1. Make our interests come alive since it's our responsibility to have other side understand exactly how important and legitimate our interests are, without imply the other side's interests are unimportant or illegitimate. Be specific with concrete details to make the statement credible. Give the other side chance "Correct me if I'm wrong" to show our openness and test their acceptance on the statement. Persuade them step into our shoes, and let them feel no personal attack, just problem we're facing legitimately demands attention.
      
   2. Acknowledge the other's interests as part of the problem. Asking "Have I understood you correctly? Do you have other important interests?" demonstrates we appreciate their interests, so that they listen better if they feel that we have understood them. It also acknowledges that their interests are part of the overall problem we are trying to solve.
      
   3. Put the problem before our answer. As authors said, "If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later."
      
   4. Look forward, not back. Ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will usually identify a cause instead of a purpose, since 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. We can satisfy our interests better if we talk about where we would like to go rather than about where we have come from. Instead of arguing the past, talk about what we want to have happen in the future.
      
   5. Be concrete but flexible. "Illustrative specificity" means developing specific options and still opening to fresh options.
      
   6. Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Always remember to attack the problem without blaming the people, and be personally supportive such as listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize concern with meeting their basic needs, etc. Authors bring a useful rule of thumb, which is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem. Firm and open coexist.
      

Invent Options for Mutual Gain:

1. Diagnosis: why can't we expand the pie before split it? Why are we stuck with the one-dimension positions? Authors list four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options:
   
   1. Premature Judgment hinders imagination, and we may fear to say anything to be used as commitment or disclosure;
   2. Searching for the single answer means premature closure, and we may fear that free-floating discussion will only delay and confuse the process.
      
   3. The assumption of a fixed pie treat the negotiation as either-or winning situation, and we may not bother to think further at our expense.
   4. Think that "solving their problem is their problem" since both sides only concerns about their own interests. Shortsighted self-concern leads only to one side solution.
      


2. Prescription: authors also list four steps to invent creative options:
   
   1. Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging and deciding them.
   2. Broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer
   3. Search for mutual gains
   4. Invent ways of making the other's decisions easy.
      


3. Separate inventing from deciding: Invent first, decide later. It consists of questions, not assertions; it is open, not closed: "One option is ...What other options have you thought of?...What if we agreed to this?...How about doing it this way?...How would this work?... What would be wrong with that?"
   A brainstorming session with ground rule of postponing all criticism and evaluation of ideas helps to produce many ideas to solve the problem. Authors also provide some guidelines for us to execute an effective brainstorming session:
   
   1. Before Brainstorming:
      1. Define the purpose clearly.
      2. Choose a few participants, such as between 5 to 8 people is a good number.
      3. Change the environment, to make it distinguishing from regular discussions.
      4. Design an informal atmosphere so that people relax and free to talk.
      5. Choose a facilitator to keep the meeting on track and on ground.
         
   2. During Brainstorming:
      1. Seat the participants side by side facing the problem, instead of facing each other into argument.
      2. Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule, and more rules such as encouraging the wild ideas, making the entire session off the record, or refraining from attributing ideas to any participant.
      3. Brainstorm and just let the imagination go.
      4. Record the ideas in full view to stimulate the new idea, reduce the tendency of repeat, and demonstrate the no-criticism rule.
         
   3. After Brainstorming:
      1. Star the most promising ideas and narrow down the ideas worth developing further by group consensus. It's not decision yet.
         
      2. Invent improvements for promising ideas to make them better and more realistic. Constructive criticism like " What I like best about that idea is... Might it be better if...?" helps.
      3. Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide.
         
   4. Consider Brainstorming with the other side. Although it may leads to the fear of disclosing confidential information, or increased risk, joint brainstorming sessions creates more benefits to take both sides' interests into account, create a joint problem-solving, and educate each side about the concerns of the other:
      1. Distinguishing the brainstorming sessions explicitly from the negotiation sessions where people state official views and speak on the record.
         
      2. Make it a habit to advance at least two alternatives at the same time.
      3. Put on table options with which we obviously disagree to show it's just mere possibilities, not proposals.
         


4. Broaden our options, since the key to wise decision-making lies in selecting from a great number and variety of options:
   
   1. Multiple options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The circle chart below this section shows how to invent options in four types of thinking.
   
   
   2. Look through the eyes of different experts, and try to examine the problem from the perspective of different professions and disciplines. This method can be combined with the Circle Chart to produce multiple options.
      
   3. Invent agreements of different strengths, such as a weaker version of agreement in case a sought-for agreement can't be reached immediately. Authors listed the pairs of adjectives to show potential agreements level:

      Stronger	Weaker
      Substantive	Procedural
      Permanent	Provisional
      Comprehensive	Partial
      Final	In principle
      Unconditional	Contingent
      Binding	Nonbinding
      First-order	Second-order

   4. Change the scope of a proposed agreement besides the level of strengths to fractionate the problem into smaller and more manageable units.
      



The circle chart:
What is Wrong              What might be done
-------------------------------------------------------
|Step 2: Analysis        |Step 3: Approaches          |
In|Diagnose the problem:   |What are possible strategies|
Th|Sort symptoms into      | or prescriptions?          |
eo| categories             | What are some theoretical  |
ry|Suggest causes.        ==\  cures?                   |
|Observe what's lacking.==/Generate broad ideas about |
|Note barriers to        |  what might be done.       |
| resolving the problem. |                            |
-----------/\-----------------------||-----------------
-----------||-----------------------\/-----------------
In|Step 1: Problems        |   Step 4: Action ideas     |
Re|What's wrong?           |   What might be done?      |
al|What's current symptoms?/== What specific steps might|
Wo|What're disliked facts  \==   be taken to deal with  |
rl| contrasted with a      |     the problem?           |
d | preferred situation?   |                            |
-------------------------------------------------------



5. Look for mutual gain: to avoid fixed pie thinking.
   
   1. Identify shared interests, make it concrete and future-oriented, and look for solutions that will leave the other side satisfied as well.
   2. Dovetail differing interests to reach agreement through difference. The difference in belief provides the basis for a deal. Authors also listed the common variations in interest to look for in the following table:

      One party cares about:	The other party cares about:
      Form	Substance
      Economic considerations	Political considerations
      Internal considerations	External considerations
      Symbolic considerations	Practical considerations
      Immediate future	More distant future
      Ad hoc results	The relationship
      Hardware	Ideology
      Progress	Respect for tradition
      Precedent	This case
      Prestige, reputation	Results
      Political points	Group welfare

      
      
   3. Ask for the other side's preferences, invent several options all equally acceptable to us and ask the other side which one they prefer. Based on the choice, work more details, and present couple variants to ask for preference again. This circulation helps to improve a plan with joint gains.
      


6. Make their decision easy:
   1. Pick up one identity in the other side, and think about Whose shoes?
   2. What decision? Draft a few possible agreements to aid clear thinking, adapted from some precedents, present them in a legitimate way starting from the simplest one.
      
   3. Making threats is not enough. Concentrate both on making them aware of the consequences they can expect based and improved upon offer, to evaluate an options from both sides' point of view.

Insist on using objective criteria:

1. Deciding on the basis of will is costly, and trying to reconcile differences on the basis of will is unlikely to reach a wise agreement. The solution is to negotiate on some basis independent of the will of either side, which is on the basis of objective criteria.
   


2. Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently. The standards of fairness, efficiency, scientific merit, precedent or community practice helps to settle the problem instead of trying to force each other to back down. In this way, no weak signal for both sides, since standards is reasonable.


3. How to Develop objective criteria to carry on a principled negotiation? Prepare in advance, develop some alternative standards beforehand and think through their application to the case.
   
   1. Fair standards: objective criteria need to be independent of each side's will, and legitimate and practical. It should apply, at least in theory, to both sides. Some example can be market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, what a court would decide, moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, reciprocity, etc.
      
   2. Fair procedures: we can use fair standards for the substantive questions, and fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests. One sample can be to share the pie, one cuts, the other chooses. A variation on this procedure is for the parties to negotiate what they think is a fair arrangement before they go on to decide their respective roles in it. There are quite some basic means of settling differences such as taking turns, drawing lots, flipping a coin, letting someone else decide, etc
4. How to negotiate using objective criteria? Focus on it firmly but flexibly.
   
   1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Ask the other side "What's your theory?" for their proposals or positions. Agree first on principles or standards to apply.
      
   2. Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied, because insisting that an agreement be based on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based solely on the criteria one side advance.
      
   3. Never yield to pressure, only to principle. Pressure can be a bribe, a threat, a manipulative appeal to trust, or a simple refusal to budge. The principled response is to invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria we think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis.