Getting to Yes

Part I: Positions vs. Interests

"Negotiation": what image comes to mind when you hear that word? Politically incorrect smoke-filled rooms with high levels of testosterone? long conference tables flanked by adversarial parties, shooting verbal poison arrows at each other, using piles of paper and files as shields? Whatever the image, it is probably one of combat. Win or lose.

In his chapter on Win/Win, Covey refers to Roger Fisher & William Ury - authors of the best-seller Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in.  They are part of the Harvard Negotiation Project, whose work was - and still is - groundbreaking.

There are tons of books on negotiation, many of them still based on the old paradigm of duking it out. Message number one: Fisher and Ury are not suggesting that we blithely enter a negotiation as the "good guy": naive, idealistic, willing to understand the other side and then make whatever concessions are demanded.

No. Getting to Yes is about demonstrating strength in a smart way. They make it sound simple. Simple maybe, but not so easy.

Our confrontational image of negotiation is all about positions.  Fisher & Ury focus on interests:

"For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions."

Interests define the problem. The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions but in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears.

• Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.
• Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions also works because behind opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones." p. 42-44

Fisher & Ury's concept was at the heart of three types of workshop offered at my workplace: negotiation skills; difficult conversations; and performance management. In each case, it took some time for participants - highly intelligent people - to formulate interests when analysing various case studies. They almost always came back to positions instead. The classic example is the dispute over a window being shut or being open. The conflict revolves around one person insisting on it being open, the other shut -  rather than figuring out the interests (fresh air, no draft/draught) and then finding a solution that meets the interests of both parties.

Oh right, that communication thing! Which is why teams of trainers using Fisher & Ury's approach also delivered workshops on managing difficult conversations. That's what negotiation is really all about. Well, not quite. Nonetheless, similar skills apply, like listening and probing.

"The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when you communicate them."

You have to read the book (or books). Getting to Yes is only 194 pages, with annexes. But I will summarize some of their main points to whet your appetite. I can't help myself - it's such great stuff.

Identifying interests - yours and theirs

• Ask "Why?" Put yourself in their shoes.
• Ask Why not?" Think about their choices - and analyse the possible short- or long-term consequences to you.
• Realize that each side has multiple interests. And do not assume that each person on the opposing side has the same interests.
• Recognize that the most powerful interests are basic human needs (security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life).
• Communicate your interests.
• Make your interests come alive.
• Acknowledge their interests (listen actively!)
• Put the problem before your answer.
• Look forward, not back.
• Be concrete but flexible -- be open to fresh ideas.
• Be hard on the problem, soft on the people.

"Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different."

This describes step one - you also need to understand "mutual gains" and formulate a BATNA. More in Part II.