PART 1: GETTING READY OVERVIEWFIVE BARRIERS TO COOPERATION 1. Your reaction. The first barrier lies within you. Human beings are reaction machines. When you’re under stress, or when you encounter a NO, or feel you are being attacked, you naturally feel like striking back. Usually this just perpetuates the action-reaction cycle that leaves both sides losers. Or, alternatively, you may react by impulsively giving in just to end the negotiation and preserve the relationship. You lose and, having demonstrated your weakness, you expose yourself to exploitation by others. The problem you thus face in negotiation is not only the other side’s difficult behavior but your own reaction, which can easily perpetuate that behavior. 2. Their emotion. The next barrier is the other side’s negative emotions. Behind their attacks may lie anger and hostility. Behind their rigid positions may lie fear and distrust. Convinced they are right and you are wrong, they may refuse to listen. Seeing the world as eat-or-be-eaten, they may feel justified in using nasty tactics. 3. Their position. In joint problem-solving, you face the problem and attack it together. The barrier in the way is the other side’s positional behavior: their habit of digging into a position and trying to get you to give in. Often they know no other way to negotiate. They are merely using the conventional negotiating tactics they first learned in the sand-box. In their eyes, the only alternative is for them to give in—and they certainly don’t want to do that. 4. Their dissatisfaction. Your goal may be to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, but you may find the other side not at all interested in such an outcome. They may not see how it will benefit them. Even if you can satisfy their interests, they may fear losing face if they have to back down. And if it is your idea, they may reject it for that reason alone. 5. Their power. Finally, if the other side sees the negotiation as a win-lose proposition, they will be determined to beat you. They may be guided by the precept “What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.” If they can get what they want by power plays, why should they cooperate with you? THE BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGY As in the Japanese martial arts of judo, jujitsu, and aikido, you need to avoid pitting your strength directly against your opponent’s. Since efforts to break down the other side’s resistance usually only increase it, you try to go around their resistance. That is the way to break through. For each of the five barriers, there is a corresponding step in the strategy: 1. Step One. Since the first barrier is your natural reaction, the first step involves suspending that reaction. To engage in joint problem-solving, you need to regain your mental balance and stay focused on achieving what you want. A useful image for getting perspective on the situation is to imagine yourself standing on a balcony looking down on your negotiation. The first step in the breakthrough strategy is to "Go to the Balcony". 2. Step Two. The next barrier for you to overcome is the other side’s negative emotions—their defensiveness, fear, suspicion, and hostility. It is all too easy to get drawn into an argument, but you need to resist this temptation. Just as you’ve regained your mental balance, you need to help the other side regain theirs. To create the right climate for joint problem-solving, you need to defuse their negative emotions. To do this, you need to do the opposite of what they expect. They expect you to behave like an adversary. Instead, you should take their side by listening to them, acknowledging their points and their feelings, agreeing with them, and showing them respect. If you want to sit side by side facing the problem, you will need to Step to Their Side. 3. Step Three. Now you want to tackle the problem together. This is hard to do, however, when the other side digs into their position and tries to get you to give in. It’s natural to feel like rejecting their position, but this will only lead them to dig in further. So do the opposite. Accept whatever they say and reframe it as an attempt to deal with the problem. For example, take their position and probe behind it: “Tell me more. Help me understand why you want that.” Act as if they were your partners genuinely interested in solving the problem. The third step in the breakthrough strategy is to Reframe. 4. Step Four. While you may now have engaged the other side in joint problem-solving, you may still be far from reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement. The other side may be dissatisfied, unconvinced of the benefits of agreement. You may feel like pushing them, but this will only make them more resistant. So do the opposite. In the words of the Chinese sage, “build a golden bridge” from their position to a mutually satisfactory solution. You need to bridge the gap between their interests and yours. You need to help them save face and make the outcome look like a victory for them. The fourth step is to Build Them a Golden Bridge. 5. Step Five. Despite your best efforts, the other side may still refuse to cooperate, believing they can beat you at the power game. You may be tempted at this point to escalate. Threats and coercion often backfire, however, and lead to costly and futile battles. The alternative is to use power not to escalate, but to educate. Enhance your negotiating power and use it to bring them back to the table. Show them that they cannot win by themselves but only together with you. The fifth step is to Use Power to Educate. PROLOGUE MAPPING OUT THE WAY TO AGREEMENT There are five important points along the way to a mutually satisfactory agreement: interests, options for satisfying those interests, standards for resolving differences fairly, alternatives to negotiation, and proposals for agreement. 1. Interests Negotiation typically begins when one side’s position comes into conflict with the other side’s. In conventional bargaining, your position may be all you need to know in advance. But joint problemsolving revolves around the interests that lie behind each side’s positions. The distinction is critical: Your position is the concrete things you say you want—the dollars and cents, the terms and conditions. Your interests are the intangible motivations that lead you to take that position—your needs, desires, concerns, fears, and aspirations. In order to end up with an agreement that satisfies both sides, you need to begin by figuring out each side’s interests. - Figure out your interests. - Figure out their interests. Negotiation is a two-way street. You usually can’t satisfy your interests unless you also satisfy the other side’s. It is therefore just as important to understand their interests as your own. 2. Options The purpose of identifying each side’s interests is to see if you can devise creative options to satisfy them. An option is a possible agreement or part of an agreement. Inventing options for mutual gain is a negotiator’s single greatest opportunity. Effective negotiators do not just divvy up a fixed pie. They first explore how to expand the pie. 3. Standards Once you have expanded the pie, you need to think about how to divide it up. How will you jointly select an option with the other side when your interests are opposed? Your client wants to pay less for your work; you would like them to pay more. How do you resolve the issue? Perhaps the most common method is to use a contest of wills. Each side insists on its position, trying to get the other to give in. The problem is that nobody likes to give in. A contest of wills thus quickly becomes a conflict of egos. The person who eventually gives in remembers it and tries to even the score the next time—if there is a next time. Successful negotiators head off a contest of wills by turning the selection process into a joint search for a fair and mutually satisfactory solution. They rely heavily on fair standards independent of either side’s will. An independent standard is a measuring stick that allows you to decide what is a fair solution. Common standards are market value, equal treatment, the law, or simply the way the issue has been resolved before. The great virtue of standards is that, instead of one side giving in to the other on a particular point, both can defer to what seems fair. It is easier for your client to accept a standard like market rate than it is to pay a certain fee just because you say that’s what you charge. So think in advance about what standards you could appeal to in your negotiation. Do your homework on market rates, scientific criteria, costs, technical measures, and precedents. Come armed to persuade. 4. Alternatives All too often people go into a negotiation looking for agreement and examine their alternatives only if things go badly. This is a classic mistake. Knowing what your alternatives are can determine your success in satisfying your interests. The purpose of negotiation is not always to reach agreement. For agreement is only a means to an end, and that end is to satisfy your interests. The purpose of negotiation is to explore whether you can satisfy your interests better through an agreement than you could by pursuing your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). A. Identify your BATNA. Keep your BATNA in your pocket. When you’re under heavy attack and feel panicky, you can pat your pocket and say to yourself, “I’m okay if it doesn’t go okay.” B. Boost your BATNA. A good BATNA usually does not already exist; it needs to be developed. If your BATNA is not very strong, you should take steps to improve it. For instance, don’t just identify your BATNA as seeking another job in the same industry. Go to the trouble of getting an actual job offer. If you are selling your house, don’t stop showing it just because one person has indicated serious interest; keep looking for another potential buyer. Or, if your company is at risk of being taken over by a corporate raider, look for friendly buyers or consider borrowing money to take your company private. C. Decide if you should negotiate. Once you’ve formulated your BATNA, you should ask yourself, “Should I negotiate at all?” D. Identify their BATNA. Knowing the other side’s BATNA can be just as important as knowing your own. It gives you an idea of the challenge you face: developing an agreement that is superior to their best alternative. It helps you avoid the dual mistakes of underestimating how good it is and overestimating how good it is. 5. Proposals A. What do you aspire to? Many of us tend to adopt rather modest goals, wishing to avoid “failing.” Unfortunately, low aspirations tend to be self-fulfilling. What you don’t ask for, the other side is unlikely to give you. Not surprisingly, those who begin with realistically high aspirations often end up with better agreements. How high is realistic? “Realistic” means within the bounds set by fairness and by the other side’s best alternative. Aim high. So begin by asking yourself: “What agreement do I aspire to? What would genuinely satisfy my interests and at the same time meet enough of the other side’s basic concerns that there is at least a chance that they would agree? B. What would you be content with? Often you may not get everything you would like. It is therefore useful to ask yourself a second question: “What agreement, perhaps far from perfect, would still satisfy my basic interests sufficiently that I would be reasonably content?” C. What could you live with? The third proposal should be based directly on your assessment of your BATNA: “What agreement would satisfy my interests only marginally better than my BATNA could? What agreement could I live with, but just barely?” REHEARSE Preparation is easier to do when you’re talking it over with someone else. Others bring newperspectives, compel you to address points of difficulty that you might otherwise avoid, and offer you moral encouragement. So think about scheduling a preparation session with a colleague or friend. It has the added advantage of ensuring that you do prepare. In your session, consider rehearsing what you will say to the other side and how you will respond to what they say. After all, lawyers rehearse tough cases, politicians rehearse tough media interviews, executives rehearse tough presentations to stockholders—why shouldn’t you rehearse a tough negotiation? The best place to make mistakes is in rehearsing with a friend or colleague, not in negotiating for real. So ask your colleague to play the role of the other side for a few minutes and try out your powers of persuasion, focusing on interests, options, and standards. After you have finished, ask your colleague to tell you what worked and what didn’t. What did it feel like to be on the receiving end of your words? What should you do differently? And then try it out again until you get it right. If you don’t have a colleague or friend to rehearse with, try writing out what you plan to say and rehearse by yourself. Anticipate what tactics the other side may try and think in advance of how best to respond. Having prepared in advance, you are less likely to be caught by surprise. Instead you can say to yourself, “Ah! I knew that was coming” and deliver your prepared response. That is the value of preparation. PART 2: USING THE BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGY STRATEGY 1: DON'T REACT GO TO THE BALCONY Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret. —Ambrose Bierce Three Natural Reactions Human beings are reaction machines. The most natural thing to do when confronted with a difficult situation is to react—to act without thinking. There are three common reactions: 1. Striking Back When the other side attacks you, your instinctive reaction is to attack right back, to “fight fire with fire” and “give them a taste of their own medicine.” If they take a rigid and extreme position, you do the same. 2. Giving In The opposite of striking back is giving in. The other side may succeed in making you feel so uncomfortable with the negotiation that you give in just to be done with it. They pressure you, implying that you are the one who is blocking agreement. Do you really want to be the one responsible for dragging out the negotiations, disrupting the relationship, missing the opportunity of a lifetime? Wouldn’t it just be better to say yes? 3. Breaking Off A third common reaction is to break off relations with the difficult person or organization. If it’s a marriage, we get a divorce. If it’s a job, we resign. If we are involved in a joint venture, we dissolve it. The Dangers of Reacting In reacting, we lose sight of our interests. Consider the Pentagon’s reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979—81. Shortly after the crisis began, a news reporter asked a Pentagon spokesperson what the armed forces were doing to help. The spokesperson answered that there was not much they could do without jeopardizing the lives of the American hostages. The Pentagon, he continued, was working on tough measures to be carried out after the hostages were released. But he wasn’t thinking clearly: Why would the Iranian students release the hostages if they believed that the United States would retaliate soon afterward? The Pentagon made the all-too-common mistake of confusing getting even with getting what you want. Often the other side is actually trying to make you react. The first casualty of an attack is your objectivity—the faculty you need most to negotiate effectively. They are trying to throw you off balance and prevent you from thinking straight. They are trying to bait you like a fish so that they can control you. When you react, you are hooked. Much of your opponent’s power derives from the ability to make you react. Have you ever wondered how a small terrorist group in the Middle East can command worldwide attention and create sleepless nights for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth—simply by nabbing a passing American on the street? The hostage-takers have hardly any power in and of themselves — their power comes from the reaction of the American public. Even if reacting doesn’t lead to a gross error on your part, it feeds the unproductive cycle of action and reaction. Ask the wife why she shouts at her husband and she may answer, “Because he shouts at me.” Ask the husband and he will give the same answer: “Because she shouts at me.” By reacting, you become part of the problem. Just as it takes two to tango, it takes two to tangle. GO TO THE BALCONY In the ancient Japanese art of swordsmanship, students were instructed to look at an opponent as if he were a far-off mountain. Musashi, the greatest samurai of all, called this a “distanced view of close things.” Such is the view from the balcony. Going to the balcony means distancing yourself from your natural impulses and emotions. NAME THE GAME Often you don’t even realize you are reacting, because you are too enmeshed in the situation. The firsttask, therefore, is to recognize the tactic. In ancient mythology, calling an evil spirit by its name enabled you to ward it off. So, too, with unfair tactics—identify them and you break the spell they cast. Three Kinds of Tactics There are dozens of tactics, but they can be grouped into three general categories, depending on whether they are obstructive, offensive, or deceptive: 1. Stone walls. A stone-wall tactic is a refusal to budge. The other side may try to convince you that they have no flexibility and that there is no choice other than their position. Stone walls can take the form of a fait accompli: “What’s done is done. It can’t be changed.” Or a resort to company policy: “I can’t do anything about it. It’s company policy.” Or a reference to a previous commitment: “I told the membership that I would resign as union negotiator before I would accept less than an eight percent raise.” The other side may engage in endless foot-dragging and delay: “We’ll get back to you.” Or they may issue a final declaration: “You can take it or leave it!” Any other suggestion on your part is met with a no. 2. Attacks. Attacks are pressure tactics designed to intimidate you and make you feel so uncomfortable that you ultimately give in to the other side’s demands. Perhaps the most common form of attack is to threaten you with dire consequences unless you accept their position: “Do it or else!” Your opponents may also attack your proposal (“Your figures are way out of line!”), your credibility (“You haven’t been in this job long, have you?”), or your status and authority (“We want to talk to the real decision maker!”). Attackers will insult, badger, and bully until they get their way. 3. Tricks. Tricks are tactics that dupe you into giving in. They take advantage of the fact that you assume your counterpart is acting in good faith and is telling the truth. One kind of trick is manipulating the data—using false, phony, or confusing figures. Another is the “no authority” ploy, in which the other side misleads you into believing they have the authority to decide the issue, only to inform you after you have given up as much as you can that in fact someone else must decide. A third trick is the “add on,” the last-minute additional demand that comes after your opponent has led you to believe you have already reached agreement. Recognize the Tactic The key to neutralizing a tactic’s effect on you is to recognize it. If you recognize the other side’s tactic as a stone wall, you are less likely to believe that they are inflexible. If you recognize an attack, you are less likely to fall prey to fear and discomfort. If you recognize a trick, you will not be taken in by the deception. Know Your Hot Buttons To properly neutralize the effect of the other side’s tactic on you, you need to recognize not only what they are doing but also what you’re feeling. The first clue that we are reacting usually comes from our bodies. Our stomachs get tied up in knots. Our hearts start to pound. Our faces flush. Our palms sweat. These are all visceral responses signaling that something is wrong and that we are losing our composure in the negotiation. They are cues that we need to go to the balcony. Each of us has certain emotional susceptibilities, or “hot buttons.” Some of us react bitterly to even minor criticism, or see red when we think someone is making fun of us. Some of us can’t stand to have our ideas rejected. Others of us give in because we feel guilty, or because we are worried people won’t like us, or because we don’t want to cause a scene. If you understand what your “hot buttons” are, you can more easily recognize when your opponent is pushing them. Recognizing them in turn allows you to control your natural reaction. If you hate being called disorganized and you know you hate it, you can prepare yourself to deal with it. When someone calls you chaotic, you can simply shrug it off. We live and work in competitive environments. So expect verbal attacks and don’t take them personally. Remember that your accusers are hoping to play on your anger, fear, and guilt. They may want you to lose control of your emotions so that you cannot negotiate effectively. As children we learned when a playmate insulted us to say: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” It is a simple lesson we would do well to remember as adults. When you are being attacked, it may help to see your opponent as someone who doesn’t know any better. Consider the approach taken by a woman whose boss periodically savaged her in front of her peers: “I was carrying him home in my head, driving myself and my family crazy…. But then I decided he wasn’t my life. I began to detach myself and say, ‘Poor guy, he doesn’t know a better way to behave.’” No matter what he did, she wouldn’t react: “He saw that he wasn’t getting to me and his bullying behavior began to subside. Buy Time to Think 1. Pause and Say Nothing As Thomas Jefferson once put it: “When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, a hundred.” Follow the biblical dictum: “Be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to act.” 2. Rewind the Tape You can pause for only so long. To buy more time to think, try rewinding the tape. Slow down the conversation by playing it back. Tell your counterpart: “Let me just make sure I understand what you’re saying.” Review the discussion up to that point. 3. Take a Time-out If you need more time to think, you should take a break. Too many negotiations go on and on as each person reacts to the other’s provocations. A time-out gives both sides a chance to cool off and go to the balcony. Negotiations are more productive when they are broken up by frequent time-outs. 4. Don’t Make Important Decisions on the Spot Don’t Get Mad, Don’t Get Even, Get What You Want STRATEGY 2: DON'T ARGUE STEP TO THEIR SIDE Listen Actively Too often negotiations proceed as follows: Party A sets out their opening position. Party B is sofocused on figuring out what they will say that they don’t really listen. When Party B’s turn comes to lay out their position, Party A thinks, “They didn’t respond to what I said. They must not have heard me. I’d better repeat it.” Then Party B concludes that they, too, have not been properly heard, so they repeat their position. And on it goes—in a dialogue of the deaf. “Everything has been said before,” says a character in a novel by André Gide, “but since nobody listens, we have to keep going back and beginning all over again.” You have an opportunity to interrupt the chorus of monologues if you are willing to be the first to listen. Give the Other Side a Hearing Listening to someone may be the cheapest concession you can make. We all feel a deep need to be understood. By satisfying that need, you can help turn the negotiation around. Paraphrase and Ask for Corrections It is not enough for you to listen to the other side. They need to know that you have heard what they have said. Acknowledge Their Point After listening to the other side, the next step is to acknowledge their point. You may be reluctant to do this because of your strong disagreement. But by omitting this step you miss a critical opportunity. Every human being, no matter how impossible, has a deep need for recognition. By satisfying that need you can help create a climate for agreement. Acknowledging the other person’s point does not mean that you agree with it. It means that you accept it as one valid point of view among others. It sends the message “I can see how you see things.” It is conveyed in phrases such as “You have a point there” or “I know exactly what you mean” or “I understand what you’re saying.” Acknowledge Their Feelings Don’t ignore the other side’s emotions. Behind their attack often lies anger; behind their stonewalling often lies fear. Until you defuse their emotions, your reasonable arguments will fall on deaf ears. Offer an Apology Perhaps the most powerful form of acknowledgment is an apology. This is a lesson we all learn as children. If you say the magic words “I’m sorry,” you can continue playing the game. Unfortunately, it is a lesson we often forget as adults. Take the Columbia law professor who put the following question to his contracts class: “Seller promises Buyer to deliver widgets at the rate of one thousand a month. The first two deliveries are perfect. However, in the third month Seller delivers only nine hundred and ninety widgets. Buyer becomes so incensed that he rejects deliveries and refuses to pay for the widgets already delivered. If you were Seller, what would you say?” The professor was looking for a discussion of the various common-law theories that would, as he put it, “allow Seller to crush Buyer.” He looked around the room for a volunteer, but found none. “As is so often the case with first-year students,” he reported, “I found that they were all either writing in their notebooks or inspecting their shoes. There was, however, one eager face, that of an eight-yearold son of one of my students. He was in class because his mother couldn’t find a sitter. Suddenly he raised his hand. Such behavior, even from an eight-year-old, must be rewarded. ‘Okay,’ I said, ‘what would you say if you were the seller?’ ‘I’d say, “I’m sorry.”’ As the child seemed to know instinctively, “crushing” an opponent is not the right answer. We often overlook the simple power of an apology. The buyer was outraged because he felt wronged. What such people most often want is the recognition that they have been wronged. Only when thatacknowledgment has been made will they feel safe in negotiating. An apology thus creates the conditions for a constructive resolution of the dispute. Your apology need not be meek, nor an act of self-blame. To a disgruntled customer, you could say, “I’m sorry you’ve had this problem. You’re one of my favorite customers and the last person I’d want to see unhappy. What can we do to make it up to you?” Even if the other side is primarily responsible for the mess you are in, consider apologizing for your share. Your bold gesture can set in motion a process of reconciliation in which they apologize for their share. Project Confidence You may be afraid that acknowledging the other side is an act of weakness. To the contrary, acknowledgment reflects your strength. To ensure that they recognize this, project confidence as you acknowledge them. In dealing with an attack, for example, put as reasonable an expression on your face as you can muster. Adopt a calm, confident posture and tone. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and use your attacker’s name. Fearlessness disarms. Agree Wherever You Can Agree Without Conceding You don’t need to concede a thing. Simply focus on issues on which you already agree. Accumulate Yeses The key word in agreement is “yes.” “Yes” is a magic word, a powerful tool for disarming the other side. Look for occasions when you can say yes to them without making a concession. “Yes, you have a point there.” “Yes, I agree with you.” Say yes as often as possible. Tune in to Their Wavelength Agreement can be nonverbal too. If you observe two friends deep in conversation, you will often notice something peculiar. If one friend leans on an elbow, the other does too. If one speaks in a low voice, the other’s voice gets lower too. Almost unconsciously they align themselves with each other in order to communicate more effectively. Each is sending the other a subtle message: “I am like you.”Much of the message comes across in the form, not the content, of the communication. Observe the other side’s communicative manner. If they speak slowly, you may want to slow down your own speaking rate. If they talk softly, you may want to lower your voice. Observe their body posture too. If they lean forward to emphasize a point, consider leaning forward, too, to show your interest. Don’t mimic. Just adapt your own communicative style to be more like theirs. Your goal is to tune in to the same wavelength. It also pays to be sensitive to the other side’s language. If they are speaking in a colloquial fashion, you may want to make your language more colloquial. If they are from a different culture, it helps to learn and use a few polite phrases from their language in order to show your interest and respect. People also use different “sensory languages,” depending on whether they process information primarily through their eyes, ears, or feelings. If the other side uses primarily visual terms such as “Can’t you see what I’m saying?” or “Let’s focus on that,” try to match them with similar phrases: “I do see your point” or “I can picture what you’re saying.” If they use primarily auditory terms such as “Listen to this,” respond with a phrase such as “I hear you.” Or if their language is oriented around feelings, as in “That doesn’t feel right to me,” answer with phrases like, “I’m not comfortable either.” Connect with your counterparts by using the language they understand best. Acknowledge the Person In listening to the other side, acknowledging their points, and agreeing whenever you can, you are in fact acknowledging them as people. You are showing them respect. Sometimes, however, you may want to acknowledge them in a more direct fashion. Acknowledge Their Authority and Competence Build a Working Relationship One of the best ways to acknowledge the other side is to build a working relationship. Invite them out for coffee or lunch, or meet for a drink after work. You can use such occasions to talk about hobbies and families, or whatever their interests are. Take time for small talk before the negotiation session begins and as it ends. Little gestures of goodwill can go a long way. A good working relationship is like a savings account you can draw on in moments of trouble. When we deal with someone we know and like, we tend to attribute adverse events to extenuating circumstances: “Oh, I guess he didn’t show up for the meeting because he was ill.” When we deal with someone we don’t like, we tend to attribute the same events to the person’s basic nature: “He wants to keep me waiting to show me who has the upper hand.” In short, if you have a positive relationship, your counterpart will be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You can thus prevent misunderstandings. The best time to lay the foundation for a good relationship is before a problem arises. So if your job is likely to bring you into conflict with an individual, nurture the relationship from the earliest possible point. A production manager ought to have a healthy working relationship with his opposite number in marketing; a union chief, with her management counterpart; and a school principal, with the school board. When the other person is being difficult, you want to be able to say “Come on, Chris. We’ve always gotten on. We go back a long way.” EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS—WITHOUT PROVOKING 1. Don’t Say “But,” Say “Yes... And” One of the most common methods of expressing your differences is to preface your views with the word “but.” When your customer says “Your price is too high,” you may be tempted to refute her statement with your own: “But this product is the highest quality you’ll find!” Unfortunately, when your customer hears a “but,” she may hear “I think you are wrong for the following reasons.” Not surprisingly, she may stop listening. The other side will be more receptive if you first acknowledge their views with a “yes” and then preface your own with an “and.” After your customer complains about the high price, you could say, “Yes, you’re absolutely correct that our price is higher. And what that increment buys you is higher quality, greater reliability, and better service!” 2. Make “I” Statements, Not “You” Statements As you express your views, you will be less likely to provoke the other side if you speak about yourself rather than about them. After all, your own experience is all you really know about anyway. 3. Stand Up for Yourself Don’t hesitate to stand up for yourself. Standing up for yourself does not negate your acknowledgment. Acknowledgment from someone perceived as confident and strong is more powerful than acknowledgment from someone perceived as weak. The combination of seemingly opposite responses—acknowledging your counterpart’s views and expressing your own—is more effective than either alone. Consider the parents faced with a bawling five-year-old who does not want to be left at home with a baby-sitter. Should they give in and stay home? Should they threaten to spank the child or try to appease him? A leading child psychologist suggests a third strategy. With empathy, tell the crying child: “I know you wish we were not going out tonight. Sometimes when we are not here, you get scared. You wish we would stay with you, but your father and I are going to enjoy a dinner with friends tonight. We’ll have dinner at home with you tomorrow.” Acknowledge the other person’sviews and stand up for your own. ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR DIFFERENCES WITH OPTIMISM Create a Favorable Climate for Negotiation STRATEGY 3: DON'T REJECT REFRAME TO CHANGE THE GAME, CHANGE THE FRAME Remember the batting secret of the great home-run hitter, Sadahara Oh. Oh looked on the opposing pitcher as his partner, who with every pitch was serving up an opportunity for him to hit a home run. Oh changed the game by reframing the situation To change the negotiation game, you need to do the same thing. Do the opposite of what you may feel tempted to do. Treat your opponent like a partner. Instead of rejecting what your opponent says, accept it—and reframe it as an opportunity to talk about the problem. Reframing means redirecting the other side’s attention away from positions and toward the task of identifying interests, inventing creative options, and discussing fair standards for selecting an option. Just as you might put a new frame around an old picture, you put a problem-solving frame around the other side’s positional statements. Instead of rejecting their hard-line position, you treat it as an informative contribution to the discussion. Reframe it by saying, “That’s interesting. Why do you want that? Help me understand the problem you are trying to solve.” The moment they answer, the focus of the conversation shifts from positions to interests. You have just changed the game. ASK PROBLEM-SOLVING QUESTIONS The most obvious way to direct the other side’s attention toward the problem is to tell them about it. But making assertions can easily arouse their resistance. The better approach is to ask questions. Instead of giving the other side the right answer, try to ask the right question. Instead of trying to teach them yourself, let the problem be their teacher. Ask “Why?” Instead of treating the other side’s position as an obstacle, treat it as an opportunity. When they tell you their position, they are giving you valuable information about what they want. Invite them to tell you more by asking, “Why is it that you want that?” “What is the problem?” or “What are your concerns?” Find out what really motivates them. How you ask something is just as important as what you ask. If direct questions sound confrontational, put them in an indirect form: “I’m not sure I understand why you want that,” “Help me to see why this is important to you,” or “You seem to feel pretty strongly about this—I’d be interested in understanding why.” It helps to preface your question with an acknowledgment: “I hear what you’re saying. I’m sure the company policy has a good purpose—could you please explain it to me?” In showing your interest and respect, remember that your tone, facial expressions, and body language are just as important as your words. Asking questions to uncover interests is like peeling the layers of an onion. You uncover one layer after another, as in the following conversation: “Why do you want to leave the job?” asked the senior partner in a New York law firm. “Because I need more money and you can’t give me enough of a raise,” replied the young associate. “What’s the problem?” “Well, my wife and I just had another child, and we need to move into a larger apartment.” “So what’s the problem?” “We can’t find one that’s rent-controlled.” Once the senior partner had gotten to the bottom of the problem, he used his network to find theassociate an apartment that fit the bill. The associate ended up staying with the firm for thirty more years, becoming a senior partner himself. Persistent probing of underlying interests helped produce a mutually satisfying agreement. Don’t forget the interests of the other side’s constituents. The other side’s hard-line position may have less to do with their own concerns than with those of their boss, board of directors, stockholders, union members, or family. Ask about their interests too. Ask “Why Not?” If the other side is reluctant to reveal their interests, take an indirect tack. If asking why doesn’t work, try asking why not. Propose an option and ask “Why not do it this way?” or “What would be wrong with this approach?” People reluctant to disclose their concerns usually love to criticize. If you are immersed in a budget negotiation and ask “Why shouldn’t we cut the budget for marketing?” the marketing chief may well answer, “I’ll tell you why. Sales will plunge, the board will start breathing down our necks, and I’ll end up typing up a new résumé.” Without being aware of it, she has just given you valuable information about her interests—her concerns about sales, her worries about pressure from the board, and her fear of losing her job. Ask “What If?” The next step is to engage the other side in discussing options. To introduce a host of possible solutions without challenging their position, use one of the most powerful phrases in the English language: “What if?”Suppose your customer announces, “That’s all the money we have in the budget to pay for this consulting project. We can’t pay a penny more!” Ask, “What if we were to stretch out the project so that the excess could go into next year’s budget?” Or “What if we were to reduce the magnitude of the project to fit within your budget constraints?” Or “What if we can help you show your boss how the benefits to your company justify asking for a budget increase?” If you can get your customer to address any one of these questions, you will have succeeded in changing the game. Suddenly you are exploring options together. Ask for Their Advice Another way to engage the other side in a discussion of options is to ask for their advice. It is probably the last thing they expect you to do. Ask “What would you suggest that I do?” “What would you do if you were in my shoes?” Or “What would you say to my constituents?” Ask “What Makes That Fair?” The other side’s position may strike you as unreasonable. Instead of rejecting it, however, you can use it as a jumping-off point for a discussion of standards of fairness. Act as if they must believe their position is fair—they usually do. Tell them: “You must have good reasons for thinking that’s a fair solution. I’d like to hear them.” Suppose, for example, an important client expects free service to be thrown in with the price of the product. You may feel you can’t say no without offending. Yet if you say yes, it will be an expensive decision. So you ask, “What’s your thinking about what makes that fair? Does our competition throw in the service for free?” You are using a standard of fairness—in this case, market practice—so that your customer can see that the demand is unfair. As the French philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote more than three centuries ago: “People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered by themselves than by those found by others.” Make Your Questions Open-Ended Not just any question will do. A problem-solving question needs to be open-ended and eye-opening. How you phrase the question determines the answer. When a company or government official says, “You can’t do that; it’s against our policy,” you may be tempted to ask, “Can’t the policy be changed?” And the answer you will undoubtedly receive is a resounding no. If you had thought about it beforehand, you might have anticipated the answer. In effect, your question set you up for a no. Your counterpart can easily answer no to questions prefaced by “is,” “isn’t,” “can,” or “can’t.” So ask a question that cannot be answered by no. In other words, make it open-ended. Preface your question with “how,” “why,” “why not,” “what,” or “who.” Your counterpart cannot easily answer no to questions such as “What’s the purpose of this policy?” “Who has the authority to grant an exception?” and “How would you advise me to proceed?” Too often people ask questions for which the other side has a ready-made response. Consider the example of a British arms-control negotiator who, no matter what he proposed to his Soviet counterpart, always received the same monosyllabic answer: “Nyet.” After a year of this treatment, the Briton took the Soviet aside and expressed his exasperation. The Soviet negotiator replied, “It is just as frustrating for me to negotiate with such inflexible instructions from Moscow. The problem is that you’re always asking me questions for which I have instructions. Why don’t you ask me questions for which I have no instructions?” Puzzled, the British diplomat nevertheless complied at their next negotiating session, posing a new, eye-opening question. The Soviet negotiator thanked him politely and told him that since he had no instructions on how to answer, he would have to return to Moscow. There, he was able to persuade his Kremlin superiors to give him the flexibility needed to reach agreement. Taking a cue from the two diplomats, you need to ask questions for which the other side has no “instructions,” no pat answer. Your questions should make them think—just as Biden’s queries compelled Gromyko to contend with the senators’ reservations. In considering your questions, the other side may change their thinking and become more amenable to agreement. Tap the Power of Silence Only half the power of a problem-solving question lies in the question itself. The other half can be found in the pregnant silence that follows as the other side struggles with the question and mulls over their answer. A common mistake is to deprive them of this creative time. If they do not respond, you may feel a growing discomfort from the silence. In normal conversation, when you see that yourquestion has made your companion uncomfortable, you let him or her off the hook by breaking the silence. You should resist this temptation and wait for an answer from your negotiating counterpart. After all, you have asked a perfectly legitimate question. Let the silence and discomfort do their work. The other side may eventually respond with information about their interests, or a possible option, or a relevant standard. The moment they do, they are engaged in the game of problem-solving negotiation. Remember, it takes only one answer to get you going. So be persistent. If one question doesn’t yield the results you are seeking, try another angle, just as a skillful interviewer would. If you observe the practice of successful negotiators, you will find that they ask countless questions. REFRAME TACTICS Problem-solving questions enable you to reframe the other side’s position in terms of interests, options, and standards. But you also need to deal with their tactics, the stone walls, attacks, and tricks they use to get you to give in. How do you reframe their tactics so as to direct their attention toward the problem? Go Around Stone Walls Ignore the stone wall. If the other side declares “Take it or leave it!” or “You have until five o’clock, or the deal is off!” you cannot be sure whether they mean it or are just bluffing. So test their seriousness by ignoring the tactic. Keep talking about the problem as if you didn’t hear what they said, or change the subject altogether. If they are serious, they will repeat their message. Reinterpret the stone wall as an aspiration. Suppose a union leader announces to you: “I’ve told my people that if I don’t come back with a fifteen percent raise, they can have my head on a silver platter.” He has locked himself in. If you challenge his commitment, you will only make it harder for him to back away. Instead, reinterpret his commitment as an aspiration and direct attention back to the problem: “We all have our aspirations, I guess. Management is under pressure from the downturn in the economy and would love to cut wages. But I think we’ll both be better off being realistic and taking a hard look at the merits of the pay issue. What are other companies paying their workers for the same job?” Your reinterpretation makes it easier for him to make a graceful exit from his commitment. Or imagine you have to deal with a rigid deadline laid down by your opponent. Instead of rejecting it, you can soften it by reinterpreting it as a target: “We would all like to conclude this negotiation by then. That would be ideal. We’d better get to work immediately.” Then turn to the problem with great gusto to show your goodwill. Take the stone wall seriously, but test it. A third approach is to test the stone wall to see if it’s real. For instance, treat your opponent’s deadline seriously, but as it approaches, arrange to be called away for an urgent phone call or meeting. Hostage negotiators, for example, will find some credible but “uncontrollable” event, such as a bank holiday, that makes it impossible for them to assemble the ransom money in time to meet the terrorists’ deadline. One leading negotiator explains, “We like deadlines. The shorter, the better. Because once you’ve broken the deadline, you’ve knocked them off their game plan.” Another way to test a stone wall without directly challenging it is to ask questions. If a car salesperson declares that the price is final, you can ask whether you could get financing or a good trade for your old car. If the salesperson begins to show flexibility, you will have determined that the price may not in fact be final. Don’t forget that you can sometimes turn the other side’s stone wall to your advantage. If they have given you an inflexible deadline, for example, you can say, “I’d like to be able to convene the board to make you a more generous offer, but in view of the time problem, this is the best I can do at the moment.” Or “To meet your deadline, we’ll need your help. Can you take care of pick-up and delivery?” Deflect Attacks What if your opponent threatens you, insults you, or blames you for something that has gone wrong? How can you reframe an attack, shifting the focus away from you toward the problem? Ignore the attack. One approach is to pretend you didn’t hear the attack and go on talking about the problem. Suppose you’re a union leader dealing with a difficult boss who threatens to fire half the work force unless you give in to his demand for wage cuts. Drawing attention to the threat would just make it harder for him to back away. Replying “Don’t be ridiculous. You’d never do it!” may only spur him on to prove he meant what he said. Instead, you should ignore the threat and focus on the company’s financial plight: “I know you’re under pressure to make your numbers look better. Tell me a little about our situation.”If the other side sees that their abusive tactics do not work, they will often stop. Take the buyer who liked to keep his vendors waiting outside his office in order to unsettle them and make them more pliable on the terms of the deal. One vendor decided to ignore the tactic, bringing a novel along to read. When the buyer finally ushered her in, the vendor made a show of reluctantly closing the book, as if she had not been inconvenienced in the slightest. When the buyer took a long phone call in the middle of the meeting, out came the novel. After two or three such meetings, the buyer realized the tactic wasn’t working and stopped using it. Reframe an attack on you as an attack on the problem. A second approach is to reinterpret the attack. Suppose you are trying to win departmental approval for a new product, and a co-worker takes you to task: “Don’t you know any better than to submit a proposal that will never fly?” You could become defensive and hostile. Or you could ignore the personal criticism, acknowledge the point, and reinterpret it as an attack on the problem: “You may have a point there. How would you improve the proposal to make it fly?” Your attacker is making two claims: first, that your proposal is no good; and second, that you are no good. You have the power to choose which claim you want to address. By choosing the more legitimate concern about the proposal, you can effectively sidestep the personal attack and direct your opponent’s attention toward the problem. Reframe a personal attack as friendly. Another way of reframing a personal attack is to misinterpret it as friendly. Take the eighteenth-century general who had fallen into disfavor with the great Prussian warrior king, Frederick the Great. Coming upon the king, the general saluted him with the greatest respect, but Frederick turned his back. “I am happy to see that Your Majesty is no longer angry with me,” murmured the general. “How so?” demanded Frederick. “Because Your Majesty has never in his life turned his back on an enemy,” replied the general. Disarmed, Frederick took the general back into his favor. In everyday life you can reframe a personal attack as a show of concern and shift the focus back to the problem. For example, if your opponent tries to unsettle you by saying “You know, you don’t look too good. You sure you feel all right?” you could answer, “Thanks for your concern. I feel great now that we’re getting close to agreement.” Reframe from past wrongs to future remedies. Your opponent’s attack often takes the form of blame. In a discussion of the household budget, a husband accuses his wife: “You waste money on useless knickknacks! Remember that seventy-five-dollar ceramic cat you bought?” The wife retorts,“Well, what about you, Mr. Showboat, taking all your pals out for drinks last week? How much did that cost?” And on they go for hours, sniping about the past. The budget is forgotten. The opportunity always exists to reframe the issue from the past to the future, from who was wrong to what can be done about the problem. The wife can say to her husband: “Yes, Ben, we both agreed it was too much to pay for the ceramic cat. I won’t make the same mistake again. Now what about next month’s budget? How do we make sure we keep to it?” When your opponent criticizes you for a past incident, don’t miss the opportunity to ask “How do we make sure it never happens again?” Reframe the blame as joint responsibility for tackling the problem. Reframe from “you” and “me” to “we.” When husband and wife are quarreling about their budget, all you hear is “You did this!” and “I did not!” A simple change in language from “you” and “me” to “we” can help. The wife asks, “How do we make sure we stay within the budget?” “We” creates a side-by-side stance, drawing attention to common interests and shared goals. A simple and powerful way to reframe the situation from “you” or “me” to “we” is through body language. When people argue, they usually stand or sit face-to-face, physically expressing their confrontation. So find a natural excuse to sit side by side. Pull out a document or proposed agreement and sit down next to your counterpart to review it. Or sit next to your spouse on the sofa instead of shouting across the kitchen counter. Talking side by side will not magically transform the situation, but it will reinforce the idea that you are partners facing a tough challenge together. Expose Tricks Ask clarifying questions. Ask questions to check and clarify the other side’s assertions. If you are purchasing a company and the seller has included outstanding accounts receivable in the company’s net worth, say in a nonjudgmental tone, “You must have good reasons for believing that these accounts receivable will in fact be paid. I’d be interested in knowing why you think so.” Check their assumptions when they quote “infallible” authorities or methodologies such as computers and spreadsheets. Don’t hesitate to press a little. And watch for ambiguities in their answers as well as outright evasions. If you spot a contradiction, don’t challenge it directly. Just act confused: “I’m sorry, I’m afraid I don’t understand. Could you explain how this relates to what you said before?” One way to test your suspicions is to ask the other side questions to which you already know the answers. You can learn a lot from observing how they shade their responses. Make a reasonable request. You have one advantage in dealing with tricksters that you don’t have with people who are openly uncooperative, and that is their stake in appearing reasonable. So take them at their word and put it to the test, thereby placing them in a dilemma. Either they live up to their pretense of cooperation or they drop the sham altogether. In other words, you can administer a “reasonable request test.” Design a reasonable request that the other side would agree to if they were genuinely cooperative. If, for instance, you suspect they might be concealing debts that are difficult to collect, say “If you don’t mind, I’d like to have my accountant look over your books and check the accounts receivable, just as a standard business routine.” If the seller refuses to let your accountant go over their books, they will look uncooperative, and you can conclude that you can’t rely on what they have told you. Turn the trick to your advantage. If you see through your opponent’s trick, you can often turn it to your advantage. Suppose you are representing the wife in a divorce case. The husband promises to pay child support, but you have reason to believe he will fail to do so. When you raise your concern, his lawyer protests that the husband will certainly pay. “Are you certain?” you ask. “Absolutely, my client is an honorable man,” replies his lawyer. “Then he will surely not object to adding a clause that in the case of three months’ nonpayment, my client will receive his equity in the house in substitution for child support.” The more vigorously the lawyer has affirmed the husband’s reliability, the harder it will be to object. NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE RULES OF THE GAME If, despite all your efforts, your opponent continues to resort to stone walls, attacks, and tricks, you need to reframe the conversation in yet another way. Recast it as a negotiation about the negotiation. There are actually two “negotiations” going on. One is the negotiation about substance: the terms and conditions, dollars and cents. The second is the negotiation about the rules of the game. How is the negotiation to be conducted? If you watch parents and children, for instance, negotiating over everyday issues such as bedtime, you will observe that they are also constantly renegotiating the extent to which temper tantrums, threats, and bribes are acceptable tactics. Usually this second negotiation remains tacit. If you haven’t been successful in changing the game, however, you need to make this negotiation explicit. You need to talk about your opponent’s behavior. Often it is sufficient simply to bring it up. Bring It Up People who use tactics are usually probing to see exactly what they can get away with. In order to get them to stop, you may need to let them know you know what they are doing. Bringing up their tactic sends the message “I wasn’t born yesterday. I know the game you’re playing. Your tactic isn’t going to work.” If they want an agreement, they will drop the tactic, because using it will only make agreement more difficult to reach. Don’t accuse the other side. Just make note of what they are doing. If a person constantly interrupts you, look him in the eye, use his name, and say “Mike, you interrupted me.” Or ask “May I finish my sentence?” Use a nonconfrontational, matter-of-fact tone. If Mike does it again, patiently remind him, perhaps with a little gentle prodding, “Hey, you’re interrupting me.” Think of yourself as a friend giving him some useful feedback. Call him on his behavior—nicely. Negotiate About the Negotiation If bringing it up isn’t sufficient, then you may need to have a full-fledged negotiation about the rules of the game. Take your opponent aside and say, “It seems to me the way we’re negotiating isn’t going to lead to the kind of outcome we both want. We need to stop arguing about the issues and discuss the rules of the game.” More informally, you could say, “Something’s bothering me, and I’d like to talk it over with you.” Negotiate about the process just as you would about the substance. Identify interests, generate options for how best to negotiate, and discuss standards of fair behavior. If, for example, your opponent refuses to talk about anything except positions, you might explain, “My interest is in achieving a mutually satisfactory agreement efficiently and amicably. As I see it, in order for us to accomplish this we have to be willing to listen to each other, share information about our interests, and brainstorm together. We ought to be able to expand the pie, not just divide it up. If I understand your interests better, I can help you meet them, and you can do the same for me. Shall we give it a try?” Without questioning your opponent’s honesty, discuss the fairness of particular tactics: “What if I were to ask for additional concessions after we reached agreement? Would you consider that a legitimate tactic?” Make a specific request for how you would like the other side to change their behavior. If they continue to attack you personally, you can say calmly, “I’m willing to talk about this whenever you are willing to stop attacking me.” If you are a CEO approached by a corporate raider seeking information about your company, you could say, “Look, if you’re willing to rule out a hostile takeover, I’ll be happy to talk candidly. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that you’ll use the information I give you against me.” Once you have agreed on the rules, you can return to negotiating over the substance in a more constructive and productive manner. STRATEGY 4: DON'T PUSH BUILD THEM A GOLDEN BRIDGE OBSTACLES TO AGREEMENT We often blame our negotiating counterpart’s resistance on personality or basic nature, but behind the impasse usually lie some very good reasons. Consider the four most common ones: 1. Not their idea. The other side may reject your proposal simply because “it wasn’t invented here.” 2. Unmet interests. You may be overlooking one of your counterpart’s basic interests. 3. Fear of losing face. No one wants to look bad to his or her constituents. 4. Too much too fast. Your counterpart may resist because the prospect of agreeing appears overwhelming. The decision seems too big and the time too short. It may seem easier just to say no. Your challenge is to persuade the other side to cross the chasm that lies between their position and the agreement you want. That chasm is filled with dissatisfaction, uncertainty, and fear. BUILD A GOLDEN BRIDGE Frustrated by the other side’s resistance, you may be tempted to push—to cajole, to insist, and to apply pressure. But pushing may actually make it more difficult for the other side to agree. It underscores the fact that the proposal is your idea, not theirs. It fails to address their unmet interests. It makes it harder for them to go along without appearing to be giving in to your pressure. And it makes the prospect of agreement seem, if anything, more overwhelming. Consequently, the other side is likely to resist all the more. In fact, they may welcome your pressure, for it takes them off the hook of having to make a difficult decision. Instead of pushing the other side toward an agreement, you need to do the opposite. You need to draw them in the direction you want them to move. Your job is to build a golden bridge across the chasm. You need to reframe a retreat from their position as an advance toward a better solution. Building a golden bridge isn’t easy. In a tough negotiation, you might ideally bring in a mediator to help resolve your differences. But that may be neither appropriate nor feasible. So, in the absence of a third party, you need to mediate your own agreement. Instead of starting from where you are, which is everyone’s natural instinct, you need to start from where the other person is in order to guide him toward an eventual agreement. One of the best descriptions of this process comes from a French novel. In it, a master diplomat explains, “I turn towards the other person; I become familiar with his situation; I mold myself on his destiny and, living in his place, I begin to experience his fortune and misfortune. Henceforth my concern is not so much to impose my point of view on him, as to persuade him to adopt the one I consider best for him —which always agrees with the interests of my own cause.” Building a golden bridge means making it easier for the other side to surmount the four common obstacles to agreement. It means actively involving them in devising a solution so that it becomes their idea, not just yours. It means satisfying their unmet interests. It means helping them save face; and it means making the process of negotiation as easy as possible. INVOLVE THE OTHER SIDE Ask for and Build on Their Ideas Once you have elicited your counterpart’s ideas, you need to build on them. This doesn’t mean accepting them as they are. Rather, select the ideas you find most constructive, and starting with them, head off in the direction you want to go. It is easier to get your boss to change her position if you say “Building on your idea, what if we…?” Or “I got this idea from something you said at the meeting the other day...” Or “As a follow-up to our discussion this morning, it occurred to me that…” Show the other side how your proposal stems from or relates to one of their ideas. Building on their ideas does not mean shortchanging your own. It means building a bridge from their thinking back to yours. Keep in mind the seventeenth-century abbot about whom the Pope said, “When the conversation began, he was always of my opinion, and when it ended, I was always of his. Ask for Constructive Criticism As you develop your ideas, keep the other side involved by inviting their criticism. Stress that you are asking not for a yes or no decision but for feedback. Encourage constructive comments by asking problem-solving questions, such as “Which interests of yours does this approach fail to satisfy?” “In what respect is it not fair?” “How would you improve on it?” and “Is there any way we can make it better for your side without making it worse for mine?” Offer Them a Choice If the other side resists telling you their ideas or giving you feedback on yours, try to involve them by offering them a choice. For instance, if they have been putting off talking with you, begin by asking for small decisions: “Is ten o’clock on Tuesday better for you than three o’clock on Wednesday?” and “Would you prefer to meet at your office or mine?” SATISFY UNMET INTERESTS Even if the other side is fully involved in the process of shaping an agreement, they still may resist coming to terms. Often their resistance stems from an unmet interest that you have overlooked. Don’t Dismiss Them as Irrational When you are frustrated by an inflexible opponent, it is easy to blame the impasse on his or her irrational nature: “My boss is crazy. No one can deal with him,” or “Teenagers are just hopeless. It’s no use reasoning with them.” If you conclude that your opponent is impossible to deal with, you will not bother to probe for unmet interests. It is easiest to reach this conclusion with hostage-takers: “You can’t negotiate with terrorists— they’re madmen.” Certainly, their behavior may be irrational from our perspective, but it may makeperfect sense from theirs. As long as there is a logical connection in their eyes between their interests and their actions, then we can influence them. One leading hostage negotiator, who represents corporations worldwide whenever their executives are seized, says, “They’re all rational. Everyone negotiates. Even the ‘dregs’ give value for money.” If hostage-takers are susceptible to being influenced, then your boss and teenager probably are too. So don’t give up easily. Put yourself in the other side’s shoes and ask yourself honestly: “Would I agree to this if I were them? Why not?” And remember that their values may differ from yours, which might lead them to reject what you consider acceptable. If you take a hard look, as the Campbell’s negotiator did, you may well uncover interests that make it understandable from their perspective to say no. Try to address the other side’s objections and satisfy their interests while still meeting your own. Terrorists, for example, are usually motivated by the deep desire to get public recognition for their cause. Often the secret to persuading them to release hostages is to let them know that their message has been heard, and that killing the hostages would only discredit them in the eyes of the public. Many seemingly intractable hostage-taking incidents have ended after the terrorists received air time on TV and radio. Don’t Overlook Basic Human Needs Don’t Assume a Fixed Pie 1. Look for low-cost, high-benefit trades. 2. Use an if-then formula. Another way to expand the pie is to use an “if-then” formula. Suppose that you are a marketing consultant negotiating with a client over your fee. You would normally charge fifteen thousand dollars, but your client is unwilling to pay more than ten thousand. Her resistance stems largely from uncertainty about whether your efforts will truly help her. Instead of trying to persuade her that she is wrong, address her skepticism with an if-then formula: “What do you say we make my fee ten thousand dollars as a base, but if your sales increase twenty percent over the next six months, then you agree to add a ten-thousand-dollar bonus?” Your client readily agrees, because the increased sales would make it easy to justify paying you the bonus. You take a risk, but if you are successful, you stand to earn even more than you originally requested. In sum, don’t fight the other side’s skepticism; take advantage of it by inventing a pie-expanding solution. HELP THEM SAVE FACE Help Them Back Away Without Backing Down 1. Show how circumstances have changed. One face-saving approach is to explain that originally your counterpart may have been right but that circumstances have changed. Suppose your most important customer insists on revisions in your company’s standard sales contract but the lawyer at company headquarters has told you there will be no alterations. Instead of challenging the lawyer’s decision directly, identify new conditions that enable the lawyer to justify a new approach: “Your no-changes policy has always been the right one for a regulated marketplace. Now that the Feds have deregulated this sector, however, we’re facing much tougher competition. Do we really want to risk losing one of our biggest customers?” 2. Ask for a third-party recommendation. A time-honored method of face-saving is to call in a third party—a mediator, an independent expert, a mutual boss or friend. A proposal that is unacceptable coming from you may be acceptable if it comes from a third party. 3. Point to a standard of fairness. In the absence of a third party, you can use the next-best thing: a fair standard. Suppose you are at loggerheads with an insurance claims agent over compensation for your stolen car. She refuses to pay more than $5,000 but you think $7,000 is fair. So you say, “Why don’t we let the marketplace decide? You check the classified ads for similar cars, and I’ll do the same. Help Write Their Victory Speech Your counterpart’s constituents may attack the proposed agreement as unsatisfactory. So think about how your counterpart can present it to them in the most positive light, perhaps even as a victory. What could you offer that would help make your counterpart’s explanation a victory speech? Anticipate what your counterpart’s critics are likely to say and present persuasive counterarguments. If, for example, you are an investment banker negotiating with your boss for a raise and bonus, think what your boss’s partners might say if he agreed to your proposal: “You’re being too lavish with the firm’s money.” “You’re going to make us look bad when our people find out how well yours did.” Then think of answers your boss could give: “He deserves it. He brought in five milliondollars’ worth of business last year.” “If we don’t reward him for his hard work, we’ll lose him to the competition.” When you ask your boss for more money, prepare him by raising likely criticisms and presenting the counterarguments. Don’t forget the value of giving credit. Even if the solution is your idea, consider letting the other side share the credit—or take all of it. Even if there is nothing you can give the other side, you can often shape appearances so that they do not seem to lose. When British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was pestered by a supporter who wanted a noble title, Disraeli told him: “You know I cannot give you a baronetcy, but you can tell your friends that I offered you one and you refused it. That’s much better.” GO SLOW TO GO FAST Guide Them Step-by-Step If reaching agreement on the whole package seems impossible at first, try breaking the agreement upinto steps. A step-by-step approach has the merit of making the impossible gradually seem possible. Each partial agreement can open up opportunities that were not evident at the outset. Don’t Ask for a Final Commitment Until the End Sometimes the step-by-step approach won’t work because the other side is reluctant to make even a small agreement, thinking, “If I give an inch, you’ll take a mile.” If this is the case, don’t press them for an immediate concession. Set them at ease by reassuring them that they need not make a final commitment until the very end when they can see exactly what they will get in return. If the other side resists a step-by-step approach, make clear that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Don’t Rush to the Finish The closing phase of a negotiation is often characterized by a rush. The business meeting is coming to an end. A strike deadline is pending. One of the parties needs to catch a plane. Or you may simply sense an agreement is near and begin to sprint toward it like a runner at the end of a race. Whatever the reason for the rush, it is easy to make mistakes in this atmosphere. If you hurry the other side, they will often react by exploding over something trivial or by suddenly finding fault with part of the agreement. In order not to lose them, you need to slow down, back off, and give them a chance to think. Encourage them to consult with their constituents. Their constituents may have instructed them to maintain a rigid position. If they come back with a very different agreement, their people may well reject it. A caucus allows the other side to educate their constituents about the merits of the proposed agreement and to secure their support. In the rush, it is also easy to conclude that you have reached agreement when in fact you haven’t. As your lawyers set to drafting the contract the following morning, they may discover that you andyour counterpart have different interpretations of the agreement. This can lead to accusations of bad faith that leave you worse off than if you hadn’t declared agreement in the first place. There is a simple way to avoid this problem. When you think you have reached agreement, take a moment to sum up: “Let’s make sure we both have the same understanding of what we have agreed on.” Then go over each issue carefully. If possible, set down your agreement in writing. Movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn once quipped, “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Whatever you do, make sure the terms are as clear and specific as possible. A little bit of clarity at this stage can prevent a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding later. STRATEGY 5: DON'T ESCALATE USE POWER TO EDUCATE The power game is supposed to work as follows: You threaten or try to coerce the other side and then they back down. However, unless you have a decisive power advantage, they usually resist and fight back. They get angry and hostile, reversing your attempts to disarm them. They cling even more stubbornly to their position, frustrating your efforts to change the game. They become increasingly resistant to reaching agreement, not only because you may be asking for more but because agreement would now mean accepting defeat. The harder you make it for them to say no, the harder you make it for them to say yes. That is the power paradox. USE POWER TO EDUCATE The key mistake we make when we feel frustrated is to abandon the problem-solving game and turn to the power game instead. Overcoming the power paradox means making it easier for the other side to say yes at the same time that you make it harder for them to say no. Making it easy to say yes requires problem-solving negotiation; making it hard to say no requires exercising power. You don’t need to choose between the two. You can do both. Treat the exercise of power as an integral part of the problem-solving negotiation. Use power to bring the other side to the table. Instead of seeking victory, aim for mutual satisfaction. Use power to bring them to their senses, not to their knees. If the other side refuses to come to terms despite all your efforts, it is usually because they believe they can win. They believe that their best alternative to negotiation—their BATNA—is superior to your golden bridge. You need to convince them that they are wrong. Use your power to educate the other side that the only way for them to win is for both of you to win together. Assume the mind-set of a respectful counselor. Act as if they have simply miscalculated how best to achieve their interests. Focus their attention on their interest in avoiding the negative consequences of no agreement. Don’t try to impose your terms on them. Seek instead to shape their choice so that they make a decision that is in their interest and yours. Using power to educate the other side works in tandem with building them a golden bridge. The first underscores the costs of no agreement, while the second highlights the benefits of agreement. The other side faces a choice between accepting the consequences of no agreement and crossing the bridge. Your job is to keep sharpening that choice until they recognize that the best way to satisfy their interests is to cross the bridge. LET THEM KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES Ask Reality-Testing Questions The best and cheapest way to educate the other side is to let them teach themselves. Ask questions designed to get them to think through the impact of not reaching agreement. Let reality be their teacher. The three most common reality-testing questions are: 1. “What do you think will happen if we don’t agree?” 2. “What do you think I will do?” If you think your counterpart might be underestimating the strength of your BATNA, ask, “If we can’t reach agreement, what do you expect me to do to satisfy my interests?” or “What would you advise me to do?” A boss faced with an employee who has been missing work might ask, “What do you expect me to do if you’re absent again?” or “What would you do if your employee was absent and you couldn’t get the project done?” If the other side has threatened you, ask them how they think you will respond if they carry out the threat: “Sure, you could go on strike, but if you do that, what would you expect us to do? Do you think we’ll just sit on our hands?” Use questions to show them that you are not as vulnerable to threats as they may think and that your logical countermove would leave both sides worse off. “We have a sixmonth inventory, and we’ll be able to keep the plant running with management personnel. It will hurt us for sure, but it will hurt the workers more. So where will that leave us?” Let them know that if you reported their threat to your constituency, it would only backfire: “If I convey that to my board members, they’ll feel they’re being blackmailed and you won’t find them easier to deal with.” 3. “What will you do?” If you think the other side is overestimating their alternative, question them about it: “What are you likely to do in the absence of agreement? How much will that cost you? How will that satisfy your interests?” Obviously they will tend to exaggerate the strength of their BATNA, so probe a little to expose its negative points: “You could take this matter to court, of course, but how long will that take? And what about the legal expenses? And even if you’re sure you’re right, will a jury necessarily see it your way?” Warn, Don’t Threaten A threat is an announcement of your intention to inflict pain, injury, or punishment on the other side. It is a negative promise. A warning, in contrast, is an advance notice of danger. A threat comes across as what you will do to them if they do not agree. A warning comes across as what will happen if agreement is not reached. A warning, in other words, puts some distance between you and your BATNA. It objectifies the consequences of no agreement so that they appear to result from the situation itself. It is easier for your opponent to bend to objective reality than to back down to you personally. While a threat is confrontational in manner, a warning is delivered with respect. Present your information in a neutral tone and let the other side decide. The more dire the warning, the more respect you need to show. A threat is telling a recalcitrant production director: “If you don’t agree to increase production, I’m going to take it up with headquarters.” The production director is likely to react: “Who do you think you are, telling me how to run my department?” The director may get angry, and you may be dragged into a corporate brawl. A warning, in contrast, is telling the director: “If the agreed-upon production quota isn’t met, this division will really suffer, and we’ll all be in trouble with headquarters.” This way you are more likely to induce the director to return to try to solve the problem with you. Demonstrate Your BATNA If the other side ignores your warning, you will need to take the next step: Make your power credible by demonstrating your BATNA. A demonstration shows what you plan to do without your having to carry it out. It educates the other side at minimum cost to you and minimum pain to them. In Japan, for instance, workers often carry on a “strike” while they continue working. They wear black armbands in order to let management know the depth of their grievances. The armbands also remind management how much potential power the employees wield over the economic future of the company. Such symbolic strikes have proven surprisingly effective in bringing management to the table for serious negotiations about workers’ grievances. If your BATNA is to go to court, you can demonstrate it by involving a lawyer in the negotiation. One neighborhood association, intent on persuading a resistant highway department to build underpasses rather than highly visible overpasses, hired a prominent lawyer to accompany its spokesperson as he delivered a petition to the department. Not a word was said about taking the dispute to court, but the message came through loud and clear. The highway department decided to reverse its original decision. To demonstrate your BATNA in the midst of negotiations, you can walk out. This tactic is not to be used lightly. You should not be bluffing but rather sending the other side and their constituents a strong signal that you are serious about resorting to your BATNA. When you walk out, you do not need to slam the door. Just say, “I’m sorry, but the way in which we have been negotiating is not likely to lead to a constructive outcome. I’m ready to negotiate anytime you are. Here’s my phone number. Please give me a call when you’re ready. Until then, I guess I’ll have to pursue my alternatives.” Leave the door open for the other side to call you back, or for your boss to call their boss, or for a third party to bring you back together. Another way to demonstrate your BATNA is to prepare to carry it out so that the other side discovers your plans in advance. Take the situation of an exclusive department store that had a discriminatory employment policy, hiring minorities only for the most menial jobs. A community organization protested, but the store refused to negotiate. In response, the organization mobilized three thousand minority shoppers and planned to bus them, dressed up in their finest clothes, to the store on one of its busiest Saturdays. The shoppers would browse for hours, keeping the salespeople occupied. The store’s regular clientele would enter the store, take one look at the milling crowd, and leave. The leaders of the community organization included in their planning sessions someone who they knew would leak their plans to the store. When the store managers learned of the scheme, they requested immediate negotiations with the community organization and quickly agreed to hire a sizable number of minority salespeople and executive trainees. Remember that power, like beauty, exists in the eyes of the beholder. If your BATNA is to have its intended educational effect of bringing the other side back to the table, they need to be impressed with its reality. USE YOUR BATNA, DEFUSE THEIR REACTION If your opponent still refuses to negotiate, you have no choice but to use your BATNA. The dissatisfied workers would strike. The neighborhood association would file a lawsuit against the highway department. The community organization would carry out its shopping expedition to the department store. The marketing chief would ask headquarters to order the manufacturing division to increase production. The problem, however, is that your open exercise of power is likely to provoke the other side into fighting back, even when their doing so makes no sense. Their emotions may take over, blinding them to the costs of fighting and the benefits of negotiating. Their “irrational” resistance may end up frustrating your attempt to educate them through the use of power. How you use power is therefore all-important. The more power you use, the more you need to defuse the other side’s resistance. Deploy Your BATNA Without Provoking 1. Use the minimum power necessary Next to not using your BATNA at all, the best approach is to use it as little as possible. Use the minimum power necessary to persuade your opponent to return to the negotiating table. Usually this means exhausting all your alternatives before escalating. 2. Use legitimate means. The more legitimate your use of power, the less likely the other side will resist it, and the more likely it will induce them to negotiate. Neutralize Their Attacks A power contest is a two-way street. The other side may strike at you in retaliation for your power move or simply in order to force you to accept their terms. You will need to defend yourself. Counterattacking, however, will often result in a futile confrontation. The more effective approach is to neutralize your opponent’s attack without striking back. If you think your customer will threaten to go over your head to get a better deal, talk to your boss beforehand. Secure her commitment that she will refer the customer back to you. When the customer makes his threat, you are ready: “Please feel free to talk to my boss. I have already discussed the matter with her, and I’m confident she will tell you the same thing I have.” Without attacking the customer, neutralize his ability to coerce you. Tap the Third Force You may not have enough leverage by yourself. Fortunately, almost every negotiation takes place within a larger community that constitutes a potential “third force” in your negotiation. Involving other people is often the most effective way to deter your opponent’s attacks and bring about agreement without provoking a counterreaction. 1. Build a coalition. 2. Use third parties to stop attacks. 3. Use third parties to promote negotiation. KEEP SHARPENING THEIR CHOICE Let Them Know They Have a Way Out Power is useless if it drives the other side into a corner and makes them resist you with all their might. Leaving your opponent a way out is a time-honored precept. In the military chronicles of ancient China, the story is recorded of a general who surrounded a group of rebels at a city called Yuan Wu. Unable to capture the city, the general was reprimanded by his king: “Now you have massed troops and encircled the enemy, who is determined to fight to the death. This is no strategy! You should lift the siege. Let them know that an escape route is open, and they will flee and disperse. Then any village constable will be able to capture them!” The general followed this advice and took Yuan Wu. For every ounce of power you use, you need to add an ounce of conciliation. Let Them Choose Paradoxically, just when the other side appears to be coming around, you are well advised to back off and let them make their own decision. Respect their freedom to choose between the consequences of no agreement and the golden bridge. In the final analysis, the choice must be theirs. When family members and friends confront an alcoholic in an organized intervention, they urge him to seek help, describe the consequences of his not agreeing, but ultimately respect his freedom to choose. Don’t just give the other side an either/or decision. Allow them to shape the details. Although the family may have packed the alcoholic’s bags and made reservations for his treatment, they leave him with a choice of at least two treatment centers. This lets him assume ownership of the decision. Even When You Can Win, Negotiate An imposed outcome is an unstable one. Even if you have a decisive power advantage, you should think twice before lunging for victory and imposing a humiliating settlement on the other side. Not only will they resist all the more, but they may try to undermine or reverse the outcome at the first opportunity. Earlier this century, the world learned this lesson at enormous cost; an imposed peace after World War I broke down and led to World War II. The most stable and satisfactory outcomes, even for the stronger party, are usually those achieved by negotiation. Benjamin Disraeli, the nineteenth-century British prime minister, summed up the lesson for negotiators: “Next to knowing when to seize an advantage, the next most important thing is knowing when to forgo an advantage.” In the midst of a power contest, it is vital for you to remember that your purpose is not victory through superior power but satisfaction through superior negotiation. FORGE A LASTING AGREEMENT Keep Implementation in Mind Reaching agreement is one thing; implementing the agreement is another. The other side may fail to carry out the terms. A delinquent customer may promise you, “The check will be in the mail tomorrow.” A bankrupt business-person may claim, “I’m sure receipts will come in next week.” But can you rely on their words? You need to design an agreement that induces the other side to keep their word and protects you if they don’t. You don’t need to act distrustful; act independently of trust. 1. Design the deal to minimize your risks. Don’t just rely on a court to enforce your agreement; litigation can be long and costly. If you have doubts about the other side’s reliability, structure the deal so you don’t have to carry out your side of the agreement until they fulfill theirs. If you are a buyer, arrange to delay your payments or put them in escrow until the seller has delivered all the promised goods. If you have recently made a sale to an erratic customer, don’t build up a lot of inventory for their sake. Wait until they develop a track record of prompt payment. To protect yourself further, you can build guarantees into the agreement. Instead of relying on someone’s promise to buy your house or company, ask for a nonrefundable security deposit. If you are being hired into an uncertain job, propose a “golden parachute” clause that specifies what you will receive if the company folds or you are fired. Make it more difficult for your counterpart to back out by involving others. Try to secure the signatures of the key players on the other side. Invite people or institutions that your counterpart cares about to witness the agreement. Announce the deal publicly. Don’t let the other person treat your doubts as a personal attack. If the person says “Trust me,” you can answer “Of course I trust you,” and explain that it is just normal business practice: “Personally I am sure nothing will go wrong with our arrangements, but my lawyer insists on the routine of including the following guarantees.” Or, if your future employer insists a handshake and an oral promise of a golden parachute is sufficient, say, “You’re absolutely right, and I have full faith in what you are saying. Writing a memo to the file will be helpful, however, if you’re promoted tomorrow and I get a new boss.” 2. Build in a dispute resolution procedure. Guarantees offer you a final resort if your counterpart breaks the agreement—but they don’t give you a first resort. For that, you need to establish in advance a dispute resolution procedure. Your contract should spell out exactly what will happen if one party feels the other is not living up to the terms of the agreement.A typical dispute resolution procedure might specify that you will first try to negotiate a resolution of your differences. If, after thirty days, you are unable to reach agreement, you will call in a mediator. If the mediator is unsuccessful in thirty more days, you will submit your dispute to binding arbitration by a mutually acceptable third party. Oil companies about to engage in a joint venture have set up partnership committees to handle any disagreements that arise; if a dispute persists, it is referred to two senior executives, one from each company, who try to mediate a settlement. Only if that fails do the companies resort to arbitration. You should consider including a dispute resolution procedure in every agreement you make. Reaffirm the Relationship A difficult negotiation can easily strain your relationship. If the other side leaves the table with sour feelings, they may not do a good job of selling the deal to their constituents or implementing it. They may carry out the letter but not the spirit of the agreement. AIM FOR MUTUAL SATISFACTION, NOT VICTORY PART 3: TURNING ADVERSARIES INTO PARTNERS There is a story of a man who left seventeen camels to his three sons. He left half the camels to his eldest son, a third to his middle son, and a ninth to his youngest. The three set to dividing up their inheritance but soon despaired of their ability to negotiate a solution—because seventeen could not be divided by two or three or nine. The sons approached a wise old woman. After pondering the problem, the old woman said, “See what happens if you take my camel.” So then the sons had eighteen camels. The eldest son took his half—that was nine. The middle son took his third—that was six. And the youngest son took his ninth—that was two. Nine and six and two made seventeen. They had one camel left over. They gave it back to the wise old woman. Like the seventeen camels, your negotiations will often seem intractable. Like the wise old woman, you will need to step back from the negotiation, look at the problem from a fresh angle, and find an eighteenth camel. The breakthrough strategy can be your eighteenth camel. It allows you to step to the balcony and view your difficult negotiation from a new perspective. You break through by going around the other side’s resistance, approaching them indirectly, acting contrary to their expectations. The theme throughout is to treat your opponent with respect—not as an object to be pushed, but as a person to be persuaded. Rather than trying to change the other side’s thinking by direct pressure, you change the environment in which they make decisions. You let them draw their own conclusions and choose for themselves. Your goal is not to win over them, but to win them over. To accomplish this goal, you need to resist normal human temptations and do the opposite of what you naturally feel like doing. You need to suspend your reaction when you feel like striking back, to listen when you feel like talking back, to ask questions when you feel like telling your opponent the answers, to bridge your differences when you feel like pushing for your way, and to educate when you feel like escalating. Breakthrough negotiation is hard work. Successful negotiators are patient and persistent. Progress usually comes gradually. Small breakthroughs can add up to a major breakthrough. In the end, even negotiations that once seemed impossible can often yield a mutually satisfactory agreement. To illustrate how all five steps of the strategy hang together, the book in the end presents two quite different examples of negotiations: a negotiation with an employer over a raise and a negotiation with an armed criminal over hostages.
No comments:
Post a Comment