Whether we like it or not, we are all negotiators. Trading is an inevitable fact of life. We discussed a raise with our boss, you try to reach an agreement with a stranger about the price of your vehicle for sale, you try to convince a policeman not to fine you for parking badly, the mayor tries to convince his councilmen to a project, two oil companies plan to form an alliance, the representatives of the member countries of the United Nations Security Council try to convince each other of the possibility of a war. These are all examples of negotiations that happen every day. We all negotiate something every day even without us noticing.
Negotiating is a basic means of getting what you want from others; It is a bilateral communication designed to reach an agreement.
Despite the fact that the negotiation is carried out every day, it is not easy to carry it out well, and the common strategies to do it, generally leave people unsatisfied, antagonized or fatigued, and sometimes all three.
We all perceive two ways of negotiating: soft or hard. The soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and therefore makes immediate concessions to reach an agreement. You want a friendly resolution, but you often end up exploited and feeling defeated. The tough negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills, where the party that takes the most extreme positions and holds them firm for longer, gets more. However, he regularly ends up producing an equally harsh response, exhausting him and his resources, and damaging his relationship with the other party.
There is a third way of negotiating, which is neither hard nor soft, but both at the same time. The method of negotiating principles, developed in the Harvard Negotiation Project, is to resolve issues on their merits and not through a blunt process focused on each party saying what it will do and what it will not do. He suggests seeking mutual benefits whenever possible, and that where there are conflicting interests, these should be resolved based on fair patterns and independent of the will of each party. The method of negotiating principles is rigid with respect to merit and benign with respect to people, and proposes how to obtain what has been proposed while maintaining decency. It allows us to be fair while protecting ourselves from those who want to take advantage of this.
Every negotiation is different, but the basic elements do not change. Principle negotiation can be used when there is one or several points of conflict; when there are two parties in negotiation or more: whether there is a pre-established ritual of proceeding, such as collective bargaining, or an impromptu contest, such as when dealing with assailants. The method is applicable whether the other person has more or less experience, and whether he is a tough negotiator or a friendly one. It is a strategy of general utility. Unlike other trading strategies, if the other party learns this method, its use is not more difficult, but on the contrary easier.
Don't trade from one position
Whether a negotiation is about a contract, a family dispute, or a peace agreement between nations, people routinely engage in negotiation from one position. Each party takes a position, discusses it, and makes concessions to reach an agreement.
The classic example of this type of negotiation is the haggling that takes place between a customer and the owner of an antique shop:
| Client | Merchant |
| How much do you ask for this bronze plate? | |
| That's a beautiful antique, isn't it? I guess I could give it for $ 750 | |
| Come on, it's dented. I will give you $ 150 for it. | |
| Wow! You might consider a serious offer, but certainly $ 150 is not a serious offer. | |
| Well I could offer $ 200 but I would never pay $ 750. Give me a real price. | |
| Haggle a lot ma'am. $ 600 in cash. Take it or leave it. | |
| $ 250 | |
| It cost me much more than that. Make me a serious offer | |
| $ 375. It is the maximum I will offer. | |
| Do I already notice the engraving on the plate? Next year, pieces like this will be worth twice what you pay for today. |
And so they will continue. Maybe they come to an agreement, or maybe they don't.
Any negotiation method can be judged objectively by three criteria: it must reach a sensible agreement, if the agreement is possible. It must be efficient. It must improve or, at least, not damage the relationship between the parties. (A sensible agreement can be defined as a treatment that satisfies as much as possible the legitimate interests of each party, that resolves conflicting interests, that is durable and that takes into account the common interests)
The most common form of trading, illustrated in the example, depends on taking a sequence of positions in succession and then giving in.
Arguing from one position produces ill-advised agreements
When negotiators deal from their positions, they tend to lock themselves in those positions. The more we clarify our position and defend it against attack, the more we will stick to it. The more we try to convince the other party of the impossibility of us changing our initial position, the more difficult it will be to do so.
The more attention paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to satisfying the concerns of the implied parties. The deal is less likely.
Arguing from one position is inefficient
The common method of negotiation can lead to both agreement and failure, and the process takes a long time anyway.
Trading from positions creates incentives that stagnate solutions. Position trading is about improving the likelihood that any situation will be favorable, starting to negotiate in an extreme position, holding it stubbornly, deceiving the other party about the true position, and making small concessions just to keep the negotiation going.. Each of these factors interferes with how quickly an agreement should be reached.
Arguing from one position jeopardizes the personal relationship
Discussions from one position become a contest of wills. Each party tries, through absolute willpower, to compel the other party to change its position. Anger and resentment often arise, when one party is bowed down by the rigid will of the other, while their own legitimate feelings are ignored. Then the negotiation for positions becomes strained and sometimes breaks the personal relationships between the parties.
When multiple parties intervene, trading from positions is even worse
In almost every negotiation more than two people intervene. Several and different parties can sit down to negotiate and each side can be more complex, consisting of chiefs, executive councils or committees with whom to deal. The more people involved in a negotiation, the more serious the disadvantages of negotiating from positions.
If 150 countries negotiate, as in some United Nations meetings, negotiating from positions is practically impossible. The consent of all is necessary to reach an agreement and only the refusal of one not to achieve it. Reciprocal concessions are difficult: for whom to make a concession? In such situations, negotiation from positions leads to the formation of coalitions between the parties, whose shared interests are sometimes more symbolic than real. Because there are so many members in a group, it is much more difficult to develop a common position.
Being nice is not the solution
Some people recognize the high costs of rigid trading from positions and try to avoid this by adopting a gentle style of trading. Rather than viewing the other party's members as adversaries, they prefer to view them as friends. Instead of giving importance to victory, they emphasize the need to reach an agreement. It is a gentle negotiation game. Common plays consist of making offers and concessions, trusting the other party, being friendly and giving in what is necessary to avoid confrontation.
The table below illustrates two styles of position trading: soft and hard. When analyzing the table as presenting an alternative, would we choose to be a negotiator from a soft or hard position? Or maybe we would choose an intermediate strategy?
As each party competes to be more generous, the agreement becomes more likely, but there is a risk that it will not be sensible. Practicing a form of negotiation from a soft and friendly position makes you vulnerable to someone who negotiates from a hard position.
| Trading from positions: What game would you like to play? | |
| Smooth position | Hard position |
| Participants are friends | Participants are adversaries |
| The goal is the agreement | The goal is victory |
| Make concessions to cultivate the relationship | Demand compromises as a condition of the relationship |
| Be gentle with people and trouble | Be tough on the problem and the people |
| I trusted others | Be wary of others |
| Change your position with ease | Delve into your position |
| Offer | Threaten |
| Expose your lower limit | Deceive about your lower limit |
| Accept unilateral losses to reach agreement | Demand one-sided benefits like settlement price |
| Look for the only answer: the one they will accept | Look for the only answer: the one you will accept |
| Insist on an agreement | Insist on your position |
| Try to avoid a contest of wills | Try to win a contest of wills |
| Give in to the pressure | Press |
There is an alternative
If we don't like choosing between being a negotiator from a hard or soft position, the game can be changed. The negotiation game happens on two levels. In one, the negotiation touches the substance; in the other, it focuses it, generally implicitly, on the process of approaching the substance.
The answer to the question of whether to use a soft or hard position negotiation is "neither." Let's change the game. In the Harvard Negotiation Project, an alternative to position negotiation was developed: a negotiation method explicitly designed to produce sensible results efficiently and in a friendly way. This method, called Negotiation of Principles or Negotiation on merits, can be summarized in four basic points.
These four points define a direct trading method that can be used under almost any circumstance. Each point deals with a basic element of the negotiation, and suggests what you should do about it.
| Persons: | Separate people from the problem. |
| Interests: | Focus on interests, not positions. |
| Options: | Generate a variety of possibilities, before deciding what to do. |
| Criterion: | Insists that the results be based on common goals. |
The first point concerns the fact that human beings are not computers, we are creatures with emotions, that we often have radically different perceptions, and have difficulty communicating clearly. For all this, before working on the substantial problem, the “people problem” must be set aside and treated separately. Hence the first proposition: separate people from the problem.
The second point is designed to overcome the drawbacks of focusing on the positions established by the participants, when the objective of the negotiation is to satisfy the fundamental interests. The second basic element of the method is: focus on interests, not positions.
The third point responds to the difficulty of designing optimal solutions while under pressure. Trying to decide in the presence of an adversary limits vision. Taking too much risk inhibits creativity. The same thing happens when looking for a correct solution. You can compensate for these repressions by spending a certain amount of time meditating on a wide range of possible solutions that promote shared interests and creatively reconcile different interests. Hence the third basic point: before trying to reach an agreement, generate the greatest number of alternatives for common benefit.
When interests are directly opposed, a negotiator can obtain a favorable result simply by being stubborn. This method tends to favor intransigence and produce arbitrary results. However, we can oppose the other negotiator by insisting that his single word is not enough, and that the agreement must reflect some just basis independent of the will of each party. Hence the fourth basic point: insist on using objective criteria.
The principle trading method contrasts with trading from hard or soft positions in the manner described in the following table, which shows the basic points of the method in bold.
| Problem: Trading from positions, what would you like to play? | Solution: Change the game, negotiate on the merits | |
| Soft | Lasted | On principle |
| Participants are friends | Participants are adversaries | Participants are problem solvers |
| The goal is the agreement | The goal is victory | The goal is a sensible result, achieved efficiently and in a friendly way |
| Make allowances to cultivate the relationship | Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship | Separate people from the problem |
| Be gentle with people and the problem | Be tough on the problem and the people | Be gentle with people and rigid with the problem |
| Trust others | Distrust others | Proceeds regardless of trust |
| Change your position with ease | Delve into your position | Focus on interests, not positions |
| Offers | Threat | Search for interests |
| Show your lower limit | Cheat on your lower limit | Avoid having a lower limit |
| Accept unilateral losses to reach agreement | Demand unilateral benefits as the price of the agreement | Generate alternatives for common benefit |
| Find an answer: the one they will accept | Find an answer: the one you will accept | Develop multiple options to choose between and decide later |
| Insist on a deal | Insist on your position | Insists on using objective criteria |
| Try to avoid a confrontation of wills | Try to win a contest of wills | Try to achieve a result based on independent rules of the will |
| Yield to the pressure | Apply pressure | Reason and stay open to reasoning: give in to principle, not pressure. |
The four basic points of negotiating principles are relevant from the moment you start thinking about negotiating, until the moment you reach an agreement or decide to end the effort. This period can be divided into three stages: analysis, planning and discussion.
During the analysis stage, it is simply a matter of diagnosing the situation to gather information, organize it and meditate on it.
During the planning stage, the same four elements are dealt with a second time, to generate ideas and decide on what will be done.
Once again, within the discussion stage, when the parties communicate with each other, in search of agreement, the same four elements are the best subjects for discussion.
In conclusion, in contrast to negotiation from positions, the principle negotiation method is focused on focusing on the basic interests, satisfactory options for both parties and fair rules, resulting in a sensible agreement. The method gradually allows consensus to be reached on an efficient joint decision. Without all the transactional costs of deepening positions, then leaving them. Separating people from the problem allows you to deal directly and emphatically with the other negotiator as a human being, making a friendly settlement possible.
The trading method
Separate people from the problem
Negotiators first are people
A basic fact about negotiation, which is easy to forget in corporate or international transactions, is that we are dealing not with abstract representatives of the other party, but with human beings. They have emotions, a scale of values, and different backgrounds and points of view; and they are unpredictable. Just like us.
This human aspect of negotiation can be useful or disastrous. Not treating others sensitively as human beings, prone to human reactions, can be disastrous for a negotiation. The process of reaching an agreement can produce a psychological commitment to a mutually satisfactory result
Each negotiator has two types of interests: in the substance and in the relationship
Each negotiator wants to reach an agreement that meets their substantial interests. So negotiate one. But in addition to that, each negotiator also has an interest in her relationship with the other party. At a minimum, a negotiator wants to maintain a working relationship good enough to reach an acceptable agreement. And in general there is always more at stake. Most negotiations take place in the context of a more permanent relationship where it is important to conduct a negotiation that helps and does not hinder future relationships and negotiations. In general, with long-term clients, business partners, family members, fellow professionals, government officials, or foreign nations, the ongoing relationship is much more important than the result of any particular negotiation.
The relationship tends to mix with the problem. An important consequence of the "human problem" in negotiation is that the relationship tends to be confused with its substantial discussions.
Negotiating from positions conflicts the relationship and the substance. Planning a negotiation as a contest of wills over positions aggravates the intricate process beforehand.
Separating the relationship of the substance: dealing directly with the human problem
Dealing with a substantial problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be a conflicting goal, if the parties commit themselves and are psychologically prepared to deal with each issue separately, according to their own legitimate merits. Base the relationship on accurate insights, clear communications, appropriate emotions, and a progressive and helpful approach. People's problems must be dealt with directly; Don't try to settle with substantial concessions.
To find your way through people's maze of problems, it is wise to think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication. The different human problems fall into these three categories.
Focus on interests, not positions
To reach an intelligent solution, reconcile interests, not positions.
Consider the story of two men arguing in a library, one wants the window open and the other wants it to be closed. They argue about how much they should leave open, very little, half, three quarters. Neither solution leaves them satisfied.
The librarian intervenes and asks one of them because she wants the window open: "I need some fresh air." He asks the other man why he wants the window closed: "To avoid the current." After meditating for a minute, she completely opens a window in the next room, providing fresh air with no current.
This story is typical of many negotiations. Since the parts problem seems to be a position problem, and since their goal is to agree on a position, it is natural for them to tend to think and talk about positions, and in the process, they often come to a insuperable difficulty.
The librarian could not have invented that solution if she had only focused on the two established positions of men. Instead, focus on the explicit interests of fresh air and no currents. The difference between positions and interests is crucial.
How to identify interests?
The benefit of seeking interests beyond positions is clear. What is less clear is how to achieve it. It is possible that a position is concrete and explicit; implicit interests may not be expressed, may be intangible, and perhaps inconsistent.
A basic technique is to put yourself in their place. Examine each position they take and ask yourself why? One of the most useful ways to discover interests is to first identify the basic decision that the other party may imagine you will ask of them, and then ask why they did not make that decision. What interests got in the way?
Let's understand that each party has multiple interests. In almost every negotiation, each party will have many interests, not just one. Also a common mistake in diagnosing a negotiation situation is to assume that each person on the other side has the same interests. This is hardly ever the case.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs. When looking for core interests beyond a stated position, let us look in particular for those fundamental concerns that motivate all people. If you can meet such basic needs, you increase the chance of reaching an agreement and, if an agreement is reached, the other party will comply. Basic human needs include:
- Security Economic well-being Feelings of belonging Recognition Control over one's life
Despite being fundamental, basic human needs are easy to overlook. In many negotiations, we tend to think that the only interest mixed is money, yet much more than that can be mixed.
About interests
The purpose of a negotiation is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when such interests are communicated. The other party most likely does not know our interests or we of the other party. One or both may be focused on past problems, rather than future concerns.
Let's acknowledge the other party's interests as part of the problem. Each of us is so concerned with his own interests that we pay little or no attention to the interests of others.
People listen better if they feel understood. They tend to think that the people who understand them are intelligent and compassionate people, whose opinions are worth listening to. So if we want the other side to appreciate our interests, let's start by showing that we value theirs.
Generate alternatives for common benefit
Diagnosis
As valuable as having multiple options is, people who take part in a negotiation seldom notice it. In a dispute, people generally think they know the correct answer, or that their point of view should prevail.
In most negotiations there are four main obstacles that inhibit the generation of options: 1) premature judgment; 2) looking for a unique answer; 3) the hypothesis of a fixed concept; and 4) thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”. To overcome these restrictions we need to understand them.
Prescription
To then invent creative options, we will then need: 1) to separate the act of generating options from the act of judging them, since judgment hinders the imagination, we separate the creative act from the critic, we separate the process of thinking about possible decisions from the selection process of them, let's generate first, decide later; 2) expand the available options instead of looking for a single answer, which can be done through brainstorming sessions, multiplying the options by choosing between the specific and the general, generating agreements of different intensities or changing the field of action of a proposed agreement; 3) seek mutual benefits, for which we must first identify shared interests and then adjust the interests that differ;4) Let us make the decision of the other party easier for them, since the success in the negotiation depends on the other party making the decision that we want, we must do everything possible to make that decision easy.
Insist on using objective criteria
No matter how well we understand each other's interests, the ingenuity used to generate ways to reconcile interests, or how high an ongoing relationship is valued, we will almost always face the unpleasant reality of conflicting interests. And these differences cannot be hidden.
Typically, negotiators try to resolve such conflicts by negotiating for positions, in other words, they talk about what they want and don't want to accept. Trying to reconcile differences based on will has serious costs. The negotiation will probably not be efficient or friendly if we confront the will against theirs.
If trying to resolve differences of interest based on will has a high cost, the solution is to negotiate on some basis independent of the wills of either party. That is, on the basis of objective criteria. A good example is the following:
Suppose you have entered into a pre-priced construction contract for your home, which mentions reinforced concrete foundations, but which does not specify how deep they should be. The contractor suggests sixty centimeters. You think a meter and a half is closer to the right depth for your type of home.
Now suppose the contractor says, “I agreed with you to use steel beams for the roof. It is your turn to agree with me on using shallower foundations. ” No owner who is in his judgment would yield. Instead of haggling over the matter with reciprocal concessions, he will insist on deciding the problem in terms of objective safety standards. Look, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe sixty centimeters is enough. What I want is a foundation strong and deep enough to hold the construction securely. Does the government have safety specifications for this type of terrain? How deep are the foundations in other buildings in this area? Where do you suggest we look for the rules to resolve this issue?
In short, the focus is on committing to a solution based on principle, not pressure. Let's focus on the merits of the problem, not the strength of the parties. Let's stay open to argument, but closed to threats.
Principle-based trading produces smart, friendly and efficient deals. The more norms of justice, efficiency or scientific merit are set to relate them to the particular problem of negotiation, the more likely it is to produce an end result that is intelligent and fair.
Reaching an agreement through the discussion of objective criteria also reduces the number of commitments each party must make, and then yield, in trying to reach an agreement.
Developing an objective criterion
Carrying out a negotiation of principles contains two questions: How can objective criteria be developed? And how can we use them in a negotiation?
Regardless of the trading method we choose, early preparation for it will produce better results. And this is certainly more accurate in negotiating principles.
Fair patterns. Generally we will be able to find more than one objective criterion available as the basis for an agreement. Objective criteria need to be independent of the will of each party. Ideally, to secure a smart deal, objective criteria should not only be independent of the will, but also legitimate and practical.
Fair procedures. To produce a result independent of the will, either fair patterns for substantive issues or fair procedures for resolving conflicting interests can be used. Consider, for example, the old-fashioned way of dividing a piece of cake between two children: one child leaves and the other chooses. Neither of them can keep an unfair division.
This very simple procedure was used in the negotiations of the International Law of the Sea, one of the most complex negotiations that has been carried out in all time. At some point in this negotiation, the issue of how to distribute sites to mine the seabed stalled the negotiation. Under the terms of the draft agreement, half of the sites would be mined by private companies, and the other half by Enterprise, a United Nations-owned mining organization. Because private mining companies in wealthy nations had the technology and experience to choose the best mining sites, the poorest nations feared that the less knowledgeable Enterprise would do a bad deal.
The solution devised was to agree that a private company wishing to mine the seabed will present two proposed mining sites to the Enterprise. The company would choose one site for it and grant the company a license to operate at the other. Since the company would not know which site it would get, it would have an incentive to make the two sites as promising as possible. This simple procedure leveraged the superior experience of private companies for common benefit.
Negotiation based on objective criteria
Once some objective criteria and procedures have been identified, how to discuss them with the other party? There are three basic points to remember in order to approach objective criteria firmly, but with flexibility:
- Catalog each point as a joint search for objective criteria. Reason and stay open to reasoning about which rules are most appropriate and how they should be applied. Never give in to pressure, only to principle.
III. Yes, but...
What to do if they are more powerful? (Develop your MAPAN: best alternative for a negotiated agreement)
What is the use of talking about interests, rules and options, if the other party has a more powerful negotiating position? What to do if the other party is richer or better connected, or has a larger group of advisers or more powerful weapons?
No method can guarantee success if all the advantage is with the other party. No gardening book will teach you how to grow lilies in a desert or cacti in a swamp. If you walk into an antique shop to buy a fine silver George IV tea set worth several thousand dollars, and all you have is a hundred dollar bill, you can't expect skillful bargaining to make up the difference. In any negotiation there are realities that are difficult to change. In response to force, what any negotiation method can do the most is achieve two objectives: first, to protect you from making an agreement that you should reject and second, to help you get the most out of what you have, so that any agreement that it will satisfy your interests as much as possible.
Protect yourself
The reason we negotiate is to produce something better than the results that could be obtained without negotiating. What are those results? What is your MAPAN, your best alternative to a negotiated agreement? This is the pattern against which any proposed settlement should be compared. That is the only pattern that should protect you from accepting terms that are not favorable and from rejecting terms that you would benefit from accepting.
MAPAN is not only a better measure, but also has the advantage of being flexible enough to allow the search for imaginative solutions. Rather than ruling out any solution that doesn't meet the set limit, you can compare a position with your MAPAN to see if it best meets your interests.
Get the most out of available resources
Protecting yourself from a bad deal is one thing. Making the most of your resources to produce a good deal is another. Again, the answer is in your MAPAN.
The better your MAPAN, the greater your power. People think that bargaining power is determined by factors such as wealth, political contacts, physical strength, friends, military might. In reality, the relative bargaining power of two parties depends mainly on how attractive the option of not reaching an agreement is for each party.
Build your MAPAN. A vigorous search for what we would do if we did not reach an agreement can greatly strengthen our decisions. The attractive alternatives are not only there, waiting for us to get there, but generally have to be developed. For general MAPANes possible, three specific actions are required: 1) Generate a list of actions that could be carried out if an agreement is not reached; 2) Improve some of the most promising alternatives and turn them into practical alternatives; and 3) Select, tentatively, the alternative that seems best.
Consider the MAPAN of the other party. We must also think about the alternatives to a negotiated agreement that the other party has. Perhaps they are mistakenly optimistic about what they can do if an agreement is not reached. Perhaps they have a vague notion that they have many alternatives and are under the influence of their running total.
The more we know the alternatives of the other party, the better prepared we are for the negotiation. By knowing their alternatives, we can estimate in real terms what can be expected from the negotiation.
What to do if they don't act?
Use jiu-jitsu negotiation
Talking about interests, options, and rules can be smart, efficient, and friendly, but what if the other side doesn't want to play? As you try to discuss your interests, they can state a position in final terms.
There are three basic steps to focus attention on merits. The first focuses on what you can do. You can focus on merit, rather than position. This method is contagious, it keeps the prospects of success open for those who talk about interests, options and criteria. And indeed, you can change the game simply by starting to play a new one.
If this doesn't work, and they continue to use position trading, you can turn to a second strategy that focuses on what they can do. Combat the basic plays of the negotiation from positions in ways that direct the other party's attention to the merits. We call this strategy jiu-jitsu.
Jiu-jitsu negotiation
If the other party announced a firm position, you may be tempted to criticize or reject it. If they criticize your proposal, you may be tempted to defend it and stand firm. If attacked, you may be tempted to defend yourself and fight back. In short, if they press hard, you will tend to press too. However, if we proceed in this way, we will end up playing the game of negotiating from positions. Rejecting your position will only lock you in it, and defending your own position will only lock you in and divert the negotiation into a conflict of personalities.
If rejecting doesn't work, what can work then? How can the circle of action and reaction be avoided?
When they affirm their positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don't defend them. When they attack you, don't counterattack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Instead of attacking, dodge the attack and divert it to the problem. As in the eastern martial arts of judo and jiu-jitsu, avoid opposing your strength directly to theirs; instead, use your ability to evade and turn their strength towards their own ends. Rather than resist its force, channel it into exploring interests, generating options for mutual benefit, and seeking independent norms.
How does jiu-jitsu negotiation work in practice? How to dodge his attack and divert him to the problem?
Characteristically, their "attack" will consist of three maneuvers: forcefully impose their position, attack their ideas, and attack you.
Don't attack their positions, look behind them. When the other party presents their position, do not reject or accept it. Treat it as a possible option. Look for the interests behind it, look for the principles it reflects, and think of ways to improve it.
Don't defend your own ideas, accept criticism and advice. In a negotiation, you spend a lot of time criticizing. Instead of resisting the criticism of the other party, invite them to do so. Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what's wrong with it. Another way to channel criticism in another constructive direction is to change the situation and ask for their advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in their position.
Transform the attack directed at you into an attack on the problem. When the other party attacks you personally, which often happens, resist the temptation to attack or defend yourself. Instead, settle in and let them vent. Listen to them, show that you understand what they are saying, and when they are done, transform the attack on you into an attack on the problem.
Ask and pause. Those who carry out jiu-jitsu negotiation use two key tools. The first is to ask questions instead of affirmations. Affirmations generate resistance, while questions generate answers. The questions allow the other party to express their views and to understand you. They propose challenges and can be used to make the other party face the problem. The questions offer no target or position to attack. The questions do not criticize, they educate.
Silence is another of its best weapons. Use it. If they made an unreasonable proposal, or an attack that seems unjustified to you, the best thing to do is to sit still and not say a word.
If you have asked an honest question to which they provided an insufficient answer, just wait. People tend to be uncomfortable with silence, particularly if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said.
What to do if they use dirty tricks?
Smooth out the difficult negotiator
Principle negotiation is excellent, but what if the other negotiator cheats on you or tries to throw you off balance? Or what happens if they increase their demands when an agreement is about to be reached?
There are many tricks and tactics that people can use to try to take advantage of their counterpart. We all know some of them. These range from lies to psychological abuse, to various pressure tactics.
When a deceptive negotiating tactic is recognized, most people respond in two ways: first, tolerate it, and second, respond in the same way. In the end, almost always, the negotiation is interrupted and results in failure.
These deceptive tactics are illegitimate because they fail the reciprocity test. They are designed to be used only by one party; and the other party is presumed not to know the tactics or is expected to knowingly tolerate them.
How can the rules of the game be negotiated?
There are three steps to negotiate the rules of the negotiation game, when the other party seems to be using a deceptive tactic:
- Acknowledge the tactic, Address the issue explicitly, and Question the legitimacy and appropriateness of the tactic: I negotiated on it.
Conclusions
The principle negotiation method is simply a method that brings order to what many of us have probably already learned in our experience, but which is difficult to put into practice due to the ignorance of the sequence of action, of the concepts that must to use and techniques to apply in the face of deceptive or dirty negotiation practices of the other party.
The most valuable tool this book provides is to help organize common sense principles in a way that provides a useful framework for thinking and acting. And the better organized these common sense principles are, the more consistent the ideas will be, which, complemented by our knowledge and intuition, will ultimately lead to a better result in a negotiation.
The purpose of the text is to guide us in a direction of action when negotiating, which greatly increases the possibilities of obtaining what we want, making known and sensitizing the other party about our interests, beyond our positions, and at the same time taking into account the interests of the counterparty, beyond objecting their positions. Being aware of what we think and do when negotiating helps us learn to do it more properly. And this book helps a great deal in getting to know ourselves and knowing why we think and act in a certain way when starting, sustaining, and ending a negotiation.
However, negotiation skills are not acquired simply by reading the book. Negotiation skills have to be learned more in practice than in books, just as we did not learn to ride a bicycle by reading the bicycle's operating manual. The negotiations are so different and with so many variables affecting them, that it is impossible to learn how to do it well with a manual designed for it. Experience is gained by constantly living and practicing it.
The most important negotiation in any negotiation process is how to negotiate, it is to convince the other party of how to understand each other and how to share their different interests. The book openly focuses on how to win that “how to trade” negotiation. How to achieve a better and more efficient process to resolve differences. Convincing the other party to negotiate on the principles, or interests, will eventually produce positive results as good or better than any that could be obtained by using any other negotiation technique, and will also be more efficient and less costly for human or professional relationships.
The explanations in this book about what to do in case of… do not mean that it is easy to change habits, separate emotions from interests, or involve others in finding an intelligent solution to a shared problem. We must remember from time to time that the first thing we must win is to get a better way of negotiating, a way that prevents us from choosing between the satisfaction of getting what we deserve and being fair. This method can make us get both.
In summary, the method focuses on separating people from the problem being negotiated, focusing on the interests that each party seeks, and not their positions on what they want, looking for options before deciding what will be done and making the results based on objective criteria. Carrying out these four basic guidelines will guarantee us the success of achieving a good negotiation, which does not necessarily guarantee resounding success in the negotiation, but the fact of achieving a good negotiation process significantly increases the chances that both parties have what they want satisfying their legitimate interests.
Title: "GETTING TO YES
THE ART OF NEGOTIATION WITHOUT GIVING
Contributed by: Javier García de la Peña
Download the original file
