Getting to Yes -- The final stop in the journey (Continued)

After Roger Fisher and William Ury explain four detailed propositions in their book "Getting to Yes":
Separate the people from the problem
Focus on interests, Not positions
Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Insist on using objective criteria

In the third part of the book, authors dig deeper to certain complexity in real world:
What if they are More powerful? Develop BATNA -- Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.

1. Protect ourselves against making an agreement we should reject. Do not fall into the persuasive song like "Let's all agree and put an end to this."
   
   1. The cost of using a bottom line: Having a bottom line makes it easier to resist pressure and temptations of the moment. At the same time, a bottom line is a position that is not to be changed and too rigid, which may keep us from inventing and from agreeing to a solution it would be wise to accept.
      
   2. Know our BATNA: since the reason we want negotiate is to produce something better than the results we can obtain without negotiating, BATNA is the standard against any proposed agreement should be measured, and still be flexible enough.
      
   3. The insecurity of an unknown BATNA: One frequent mistake is psychologically to set our alternatives in the aggregate while the reality is we can only choose one if we failed to reach the agreement. Another mistake is that we are too committed to reaching agreement and be pessimistic about the result.
   4. Formulate a trip wire: identify one solution far from perfect agreement and better than BATNA, test this trip-wire package before accepting any agreement worse than the trip wire.
      
2. Make the most of the assets we do have so that any agreement we reach will satisfy our interests as well as possible.
   
   1. The better BATNA, the greater our power: since the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement.
      
   2. Develop BATNA: by inventing a list of actions we might conceivably take if no agreement is reached, then improving some of the most promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives, and selecting tentatively the one alternative that seems best. The desirability of disclosing our BATNA to the other side depends upon the assessment of the other side's thinking.
      
   3. Consider the other side's BATNA: by knowing the other's alternatives, we can realistically estimate what we can expect from the negotiation.
      

What if they Won't play? Use principled negotiation, Negotiation Jujitsu, and one-text mediation procedure step by step.

1. If the other side insists on position, not merits, there are three approaches to focus their attention on the merits.
   1. Focus on what we can do, change the game, concentrate on the merits rather than on positions. That is principled negotiation authors talk in whole book.
      
   2. Focus on what they may do, and counter the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. This strategy called negotiation jujitsu.
      
   3. Focus on what a third party can do: consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on interests, options, and criteria. One tool third party may use called one-text mediation procedure.
      
2. Negotiation Jujitsu: Don't push back for the attack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Step aside and channel the their force into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent standards.
   
   1. Don't attack their position, look behind it when the other side asserting their position forcefully. Treat it as one possible options instead of rejecting or accepting it. Assume every position the other side takes is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side; ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand; seek out and discuss the principles underlying the positions; treat the position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so.
      
   2. Don't defend our ideas, invite criticism and advice if the other side attack our ideas. Instead of asking the other to accept or reject the idea, ask them what's wrong with it, then examine their negative judgments to find our the underlying interests and to improve our ideas from their point of view. Channel criticism in a constructive direction by turning the situation around and ask for the other's advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in our position.
      
   3. Recast an attack on us as an attack on the problem if the other side attack us personally. Allow the other to let off steam, listen to them, show the understanding what they are saying, and convert the attack to the problem.
      
   4. Ask questions instead of statement, since statements generate resistance whereas questions generate answers. Silence is also one of the best weapons and use pause if needed. Some of the most effective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking.
      
3. Consider the one-text procedure if above strategy does not work.
   
   1. More easily than one of those directly involved, a third party can separate the people form the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. A third party can also suggest some impartial basis for resolving differences, and separate inventing from decision-making.
      
   2. The mediator listens to both sides, prepared a draft to which no side was committed, asked for criticism instead of the concession, and improved the draft again and again until the mediators felt they could improve it no further, then present it as the recommendation. It is essential for large multilateral negotiations since the mediators do not have to get anyone's consent to start using the one-text procedure.
      
4. Authors present couple useful phrases and strategies to be used in principled negotiation.
   1. "Please correct me if I'm wrong" makes us open to correction and persuasion, and establishes a dialogue based on reason.
      
   2. "We appreciate what you've done for us" gives personal support to the person on the other side to separate the people from the problem.
      
   3. "Our concern is fairness" takes a basic stand on principle and announces the intention to stick to it, while it is still open to persuasion along the lines of the principle.
   4. "We would like to settle this on the basis of independent standards, not of who can do what to whom" shows more important thing is to be fairly treated without react on attack directly.
   5. "Trust is a separate issue" reaffirm the appreciation while remains firm on the principle. It is not a question of trust. "The issue is the principle" direct the conversation back to merits.
   6. "Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?" Ask questions instead of statements of fact which shows threatening.
   7. "What is the principle behind your action?" Question the other side about the reasons of their positions instead of either accept or reject their positions.
   8. "Let me see if I understand what you are saying", or "If I've understood you correctly", " is there something I've missed or misunderstood?" restates the other side to show the understanding and ensure no miscommunication.
   9. "Let me get back to you" since a good negotiator rarely makes an important decision on the spot.
   10. "Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning": present all reasons first before offering a proposal.
   11. "Given all the considerations we've discussed, one fair solution might be..." to present a proposal not as ours, but as one of fair options which deserves the joint consideration.
   12. "If we agree... If we disagree...We feel confident we can settle this matter fairly with you to your satisfaction and ours": the trickiest part is the alternative if no agreement is reached without upsetting the negotiations.
   13. "As long as we've agreed on the appropriate..., We'd be happy to see if we can leave when it's most convenient for you" shows the willingness to discuss ways of meeting the other side's interest. It also help the other side save face.
   14. "It has been a pleasure dealing with you. We do appreciate all that you've done for us, and I'm pleased that we've settled this problem fairly and amicably" ends the negotiations on a final conciliatory note, and maintains a working relationship for the future.
       

What if they use dirty tricks? Taming the hard bargainer.

1. There are a lot of tactics and tricks people can use during negotiations. Most people response to tricky bargaining in two ways:
   
   1. To put up with it: hope that if we give in this time, the other side will be appeased and will not ask for more, give the other side the benefit of the doubt or get angry and promise ourselves never to deal with them again. For now, just hope for the best and keep quiet.
      
   2. To respond in kind to the other side: in the end either one side yields or negotiation breaks off.
2. There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game when the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic:
   
   1. Recognize the tactic since we have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it.
      
   2. Raise the issue explicitly, bring it up with the other side can make the tactic less effective or the other side stop using it.
      
   3. Question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability, and negotiate about the rules of the game. Focus on procedure instead of substance, while the goal remains to produce a wise agreement efficiently and amicably.
      
3. The method to deal with tricky tactics remains the same:
   1. Separate the people from the problem. Don't attack people personally for using a tactic we consider illegitimate. Question the tactic, not their personal integrity.
      
   2. Focus on interest, not positions. Look for the mutual interests.
      
   3. Invent options for mutual gains. Suggest alternative games to play.
   4. Insist on using objective criteria, and be hard on principle. Try out the principle of reciprocity on them, and frame the principle behind each tactic as a proposed rule for the game.
   5. Use BATNA as the last resort, but still leave the room open for negotiation in the future.
      
4. Authors listed three main categories of tricky tactic to prepare and identify:
   1. Deliberate deception: misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions.
      1. Phony facts: make some knowingly false statement. A practice of verifying factual assertions reduces the incentive for deception, and the risk of being cheated. Separate the people from the problem, do not trust the other side unless we have good reason, and make the negotiation proceed independent of trust.
         
      2. Ambiguous authority: the other side may allow us to believe that they have full authority to compromise when they don't, and announce the need to seek other approval once they've pressed the negotiation hard and we believe reached the firm agreement to give them "a second bite at the apple". So do not assume that the other side has full authority just because they are there negotiating with us. Before starting on any give-and-take, find out about the authority on the other side by asking legitimately "just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?" If the other side do announce unexpectedly that they are treating what we thought was an agreement as a basis for further negotiation, insist on reciprocity by saying "We'll treat it as a joint draft to which neither side is committed. You check with your boss and I'll sleep on it and see if I come up with any changes I want to suggest tomorrow."
         
      3. Dubious intentions: where the issue is one of possible misrepresentation of their intention to comply with the agreement, it is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement itself. Make the problem explicit and use the other side's protestations to get a guarantee, and add contingency to protect ourselves.
      4. Less than full disclosure is not the same as deception since good faith negotiation does not require total disclosure. An example is the answer to questions such as "what is the most you would pay if you had to?" can be:"Let's not put ourselves under such a strong temptation to mislead. If you think no agreement is possible, and that we may be wasting our time, perhaps we could disclose our thinking to some trustworthy third party, who can then tell us whether thee is a zone of potential agreement."
         
      
      
   2. Psychological warfare is designed to make us feel uncomfortable, so that we will have a subconscious desire to end the negotiation as soon as possible.
      1. Stressful situations: Ask ourselves if we feel under stress, and if so, why. If we find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so to suggest the change. The best strategy is to identify the problem, be willing to raise it with the other side, and then negotiate better physical circumstances in an objective and principled fashion.
         
      2. Personal attacks: use verbal or nonverbal communication to make the other side feel uncomfortable. Recognizing the tactic will help nullify its effect; bringing it up explicitly will probably prevent a recurrence.
         
      3. The good-guy/bad-guy routine: it is a form of psychological manipulation. When the good guy makes the pitch, just ask the same question we asked the bad guy:"I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, but I still want to know why think it is a fair solution. What is your principle?"
      4. Threats: it can lead to counter threats in an escalating spiral that can unhinge a negotiation and even destroy a relationship. Warnings are much more legitimate than threats:" should we fail to reach agreement, it seems highly probable to me that..."
         
      
      
   3. Positional pressure tactics: is designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions.
      
      1. Refusal to negotiate or set preconditions for negotiations: recognize the tactic as a possible negotiating ploy; talk about their refusal to negotiate by communicate either directly or through third parties and find out their interests in not negotiating; suggest some options to discuss the issues, and insist on using principles.
         
      2. Extreme demands: use extreme initial position to lower the expectations at the risk of undermining their credibility, or kill the deal. Bring the tactic to the other side's attention, and ask for principled justification of their position until it looks ridiculous even to them.
         
      3. Escalating demands: raise one of the demands for every concession the negotiator makes on another, and reopen issues we thought had been settled, to decrease the overall concession and make the other side want to agree quickly. If we recognize this tactic, call it to the other side's attention and then perhaps take a break while we consider whether and on what basis we want to continue negotiations.
      4. Lock-in tactics: it is illustrated by Thomas Schelling's example of two dynamite trucks barreling toward each other on a single-land road. The question becomes which truck goes off the road to avoid an accident. Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation. In response to a commitment tactic, you can interpret the commitment as to weaken it, or crack a joke and not take the lock-in seriously. Always resist lock-in on principle.
      5. Hardhearted partner: One common tactic used to justify not yielding to your requests is for the other side to say that he or she personally would have no objection but his or her hardhearted partner will not allow it. Recognize the tactic, get the agreement to the principle involved in writing, then if possible speak directly with the hardhearted partner.
      6. A calculated delay: one side try to postpone coming to a decision until a time they think favorable. Waiting for the right time is a high-cost game. In addition to making delaying tactics explicit and negotiating about them, consider creating a fading opportunity for the other side. Look for objective conditions that can be used to establish deadlines.
      7. "Take it or leave it": consider ignoring it at first. Keep talking as if we didn't hear it, or change the subject by introducing other solutions. If we do bring up the tactic specifically, let the other side know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached and look for a face-saving way for them to get out of the situation.
         

So far, the authors are talking about those knowledge we knew it all the time. However, they organize common sense and common experience in a way that provides a usable framework for thinking and acting.
Also, learn from doing so is important after we read the book.
As authors pointed out:"in most instances to ask a negotiator who's winning is as inappropriate as to ask who's winning a marriage." Remind ourselves that the first thing we are trying to win is a better way to negotiate, a way that avoids us having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what we deserve and of being decent.

In the fourth part of the book, authors answered ten real world questions how to apply the four propositions from the book.

Questions about Fairness and Principled negotiation:
1. Does positional bargaining ever make sense? In virtually every case, the outcome will be better for both sides with principled negotiation. The issue is whether it is worth the extra effort. Authors listed some questions to consider:
   
   1. How important it is to avoid an arbitrary outcome? If we are negotiating over some serious issue or high stakes, we will not want to haggle over arbitrary positions no matter how much easier it might be to reach agreement.
      
   2. How complex are the issues? The more complex the subject matter, the more unwise it is to engage in positional bargaining.
      
   3. How important is it to maintain a good working relationship? Sometimes maintaining ongoing relationship may be more important than the outcome of any one deal, negotiation on the merits helps avoid a choice between giving in or angering the other side. In single-issue negotiations among strangers where the transaction costs of exploring interests would be high and where each side is protected by competitive opportunities, simple haggling over positions may work fine.
   4. What are the other side's expectations, and how hard would they be to change? If both parties have a long history of hard-fought, we may want to set a realistic timetable for change that may span several complete negotiations.
   5. Where are you in the negotiation? Bargaining over positions does the least if it comes after you have identified each other's interests, invented options for mutual gain, and discussed relevant standards of fairness.
      
2. What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
   1. In most negotiations there will be no one right or fairest answer. People will advance different standards by which to judge what is fair. Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another to the extent that it is more directly on point, more widely accepted, and more immediately relevant in terms of time, place, and circumstance.
      
   2. Agreement on the best standard is not necessary. Differences in values, culture, experience, and perceptions may well lead parties to disagree about the relative merits of different standards. Criteria are just one tool that may help the parties find an agreement better for both than no agreement.
3. Should I be fair if I don't have to be?
   1. The main purpose of principled negotiation is to get what we are entitled to while still getting along with the other side. Presented with the opportunity to get more than what we think is fair, we should not take it immediately without careful thought. In fact, we should weigh the possible benefits against the potential costs of accepting the windfall:
      
   2. How much is the difference worth to us? Weigh the benefits against the risk of incurring some of the costs, and then consider whether there might not be better options once we are certain of these potential benefits.
      
   3. Will the unfair result be durable? Since the other side may be unwilling to carry out the unfair agreement later, we also need to figure out the cost to enforce the agreement or replace it.
      
   4. What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationship? such as the reputation for fair dealing.
      
   5. Will your conscience bother you? Even the moral thinking of taking unfair advantage of the others makes us regret sometimes.
      
Questions about Dealing with People:
4. What do I do if the people are the problem?
   1. Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement. Such a relationship cannot be bought by making substantive concessions or by pretending that disagreements do not exist. Nor should we try to coerce a substantive concession by threatening the relationship. Separate people from the problem, and substantive issues need to be disentangled from relationship and process issues.
      
   2. Substantive issues such as terms, conditions, prices, dates, numbers, and liabilities should be separated from relationship issues such as balance of emotion and reason, ease of communication, degree of trust and reliability, attitude of acceptance or rejection, relative emphasis on persuasion or coercion, and degree of mutual understanding. There should not be a trade-off between pursuing a good substantive outcome and pursuing a good relationship. Sometimes we may decide to give in based on good relationship, however, we should never give in for the purpose of trying to improve a relationship.
      
   3. Negotiate the relationship in their merits if the people problems still exist despite the efforts to negotiate on the merits. Raise the concerns, discuss it without judging, explain the perceptions and propose external standards to determine how should we deal with each other. Frame the discussion as looking forward instead of back, and operate on the assumptions that the other side may not intend all the consequences and they can change their approach if they see the need. Always prepare BATNA.
   4. Distinguish how we treat them from how they treat us. Do not emulate nonconstructive behavior. Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer and to avoid the reward for unwanted behavior.
   5. Deal rationally with apparent irrationality. Recognize the negotiators are people first and could act impulsively, and try to be rationally ourselves. Do not assume people are acting irrationally, think them as seeing the situation differently. The perception may be different or problematic, while the response to the perception is not wrong.
      
5. Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?
   
   1. It is not a question of whether to negotiate, the answer is yes. It is the question of how should we negotiate since negotiation does not mean giving in. If questions of personal safety can be resolved, and we have a good case, we are more likely to influence the terrorists than they are to influence us, or work out an arrangement in which neither side gives in.
      
   2. Negotiate with someone like Hitler depends on the alternatives. Some interests we have may be worth fighting and even dying for. If such interests are at stake and cannot be met by less costly means, we should be prepared to fight if that will help or even if it won't help. However, if we can achieve a substantial measure of interests through nonviolent means, we should consider the means seriously over the option of war.
      
   3. Negotiate where people are acting out of religious conviction is a yes. Even people's religious convictions are unlikely to be changed through negotiation, or religion servers only as a handy boundary line for dividing groups of people, the actions they take may be subject to influence. Negotiation does not require compromising the principles, rather it is achieved by finding a solution that is arguably consistent with each side's principles.
   4. Then, when does it make sense not to negotiate and how much effort to put into it? It depends on how good our BATNA is and how likely we think that negotiation will produce better result. Analyse and think through both sides' BATNA carefully, then decide whether negotiation makes sense.
      
6. How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? Different people have different interest and styles of communication.
   
   1. Get in step with the other side's way of thinking. Be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns, norms of behavior, and mood of those with whom we are dealing. Adapt our behavior accordingly and pay attention to the differences such as fast or slow pacing, high or low formality, close or distant physical proximity while talking, binding and inclusive oral or written agreements, direct or indirect bluntness of communication, short term or longer term time frame, business only or all-encompassing scope of relationship, expected private or public place of doing business, negotiators equals in status or the most competent people for the task, and the rigidity of commitments either written in stone or meant to be flexible.
      
   2. Adapt the general advice to the specific situation, and implement the general principles on the specific context.
      
   3. Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, know and respect them, but avoid stereotyping individuals and making assumptions beforehand.
   4. Question our assumptions and listen actively. Be open to learning that the other are quite unlike what we expected.
      
Questions about Tactics:
7. How do I decide things like "Where should we meet?" "Who should make the first offer?" and "How high should I start?"
   
   1. The answer is case by case. Good tactical advice required knowledge of specific circumstances.
   2. Strategy depends on preparation. Firstly, strategy is a function of preparation and it suggests itself. Secondly, a clever strategy cannot make up for lacking of preparation.
      
   3. Learn the rule of being well prepared with external measures of value. And do not fall into the trap of measuring success only by how far the other party has moved from their original position.
      
8. Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
   
   1. Think about closure from the beginning, then work backwards. Focus on the goals, and imagine what it might be like to implement an agreement.
      
   2. Consider crafting a framework agreement. Draft possible terms of an agreement as the negotiation goes to surface the important issues, keep discussion focused, give a sense of progress, provide the record of discussions, and reduce the chance of later misunderstanding.
      
   3. Move toward commitment gradually. Seek a consensus proposal that reflects all points made and meets each side's interests on that issue as well as possible. If we are unable to reach consensus on a single option, try at least to narrow the range of options under consideration and then go on to another issue. Along the way, avoid demands or locking in, instead offer options and ask for criticism. Agree explicitly that all commitments are tentative to encourage options. Write "Tentative draft No commitments" at the top of a framework agreement.
   4. Be persistent in pursuing the interests but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution. Separate the interests from ways to meet them.
      
   5. Make an offer naturally grown from the discussion at some point. An early offer might be limited to the pairing of a couple of key issues.
      
   6. Be generous at the end. When we sense the close to the end, consider giving the other side something we know to be of value to them and still consistent with the basic logic of our proposal. Make clear that this is a final gesture to avoid the other side raise expectations of further concessions.
      
9. How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
   
   1. Start small, when stakes are small, when we have a good BATNA, when the other side is likely to be amenable. Try new ideas and approaches one at a time.
      
   2. Make an investment. Willing to take a fresh look at what we do or to consider changing it, at the risk of temporarily get worse, but offer more long term potential.
      
   3. Review the performance. What worked? What did not? What might we have done differently? Keep the record.
   4. Prepare! Plan how to build and maintain a good working relationship with the other side. Write out the list of interests and invent the list of options. Look for a variety of external benchmarks or criteria and think through. Even ask the partners to roleplay the negotiation.
      
Questions about Power:
10. Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And How do I enhance my negotiating power?
    
    1. Some things we can't get, since no matter how skilled we are, there are limits to what we can get through negotiation. We should not expect success unless we are able to make the other side an offer which is more attractive than their BATNA. Concentrate instead on improving our BATNA and changing their.
       
    2. How we negotiate makes a big difference between coming to terms and not, or between an outcome favorable to us or not, or good relationship or not, when there is a chance for agreement.
       
    3. Resources are not the same as negotiation power. Negotiation power is the ability to persuade someone to do something.
       
    4. Do not ask "who's more powerful". To be optimistic to let our reach exceed our grasp. Without wasting a lot of resources on hopeless causes, recognize that many things are worth trying for ever if we may not succeed.
    5. There are many sources of negotiation power. One is having a good BATNA. Each of four elements: people, interest, options, and objective criteria, is also a source of negotiation power. If the other side is strong in one area, we can try to develop strength in another. And another source is the power of commitment.
    6. There is power in developing a good working relationship between the people negotiating. Understanding, emotions, communications, people problems are all contribute to negotiation. More negotiation power for one side does not necessarily mean less for the other side. The better the working relationship, the better able each side is to influence the other.
       
    7. Good communication and good listening helps to understand interests, other side's concerns. There is power in understanding interests.
       
    8. There is power in inventing an elegant option. Brainstorming increase the ability to influence others.
       
    9. There is power in using external standards of legitimacy, as a sword to persuade others, and as a shield to help us resist pressure to give in arbitrarily. Convincing the other side that we are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments we can make.
    10. There is power in developing a good BATNA. Efforts to improve one's own alternatives and to lower the other side's estimate of theirs are critical ways to enhance our negotiation power.
    11. There is power in making a carefully crafted commitment. We can commit to what we will do by making a firm offer. We can make a negative commitment as to what we will not do carefully. We can clarify precisely what commitments we would like the other side to make. Clarify what we will do and make it easier for the other side to commit. The more concrete the offer, the more persuasive. Make the offer as a fading opportunity by indicating when and how it will expire. Clarify what we will do if the other side does not accept the offer. Consider committing to what we will not do. At some point, it may be best to put a final offer on the table and mean it. Clarify what we want them to do which makes sense.
        
    12. Make the most of our potential power, and use each source of power in harmony with other sources. Also we can be mor effective if we believe in what we are saying and doing.