Getting to yes

By Sofia Burnasheva
1. Don't bargain over positions

People usually enter into an argument with somebody taking ones stand. Each party is
constrained to compromise in order to reach an agreement. There are 3 measures for each
method of negotiations:
It should lead to a conscious agreement
It should be effective
It should improve relations between parties or at least dont make it worse
Author claims that position bargaining leads to unconscious agreement. When parties
argue about positions they usually confine themselves by frames of positions. The more you
fight for your position the more you connect with your position. You consider yourself only
together with your position and now you cant refuse your position because it means loosing
yourself now.
Bargaining over positions creates favorable ground for different tricks. Moreover, this
kind of bargaining demands a lot of personal decisions, which are time-consuming and takes
unnecessary efforts. When you are arguing about positions it becomes a problem about pride.
Each side in negotiations starts to think that if it concedes this will mean that another party
suppress its will. It started to be not about negotiations but about principles.
Then it comes an example of a situation when theyre a lot of different parties in
negotiations. Like in UNO conferences in each group there a lot of members so to take the
same position is very hard. Even a thousand of double-sided agreements cant lead to full
agreement.
Another key point is that friendliness is not a solution. People try to avoid conflicts by
demonstrating good relations, making a compromise, being friendly. In the families most of
negotiations are did in this soft way. Nevertheless, every negotiations about relationship can
lead to the unclear negotiations.
So to sum the methods of negotiations up we can name two soft and hard. But if you
dont want to choose any of them there is an alternative principled negotiation. This method
could be presents as 4 main principles:
People: differ participants of negotiations and the topic of negotiations. This means that
parties should focus on the problem but not on the each other.
Interests: concentrate on the interests but not the positions. Adopted at the negotiating
position often hides what you really want. Compromise between the positions is unlikely to lead
to an agreement that effectively meet the needs of parties.
Variants: before making a decision define the list of possibilities. The third point
concerns the difficulties that arise when developing optimal solutions under pressure. Trying to
make a decision in the presence of the enemy narrow your field of vision.
Criteria: insist on the result should based on the objective norm. Obstinacy is not a
sufficient argument, and that the agreement should display some fair rules, and not depend on
the bare will of each party.
There is 3 stages of negotiation: analysis, planning and discussion. At the analysis stage,
you're just trying to make a diagnosis of the situation is to gather information, build it in your
mind and think about it. On the planning stage you will think about the solutions, what to do. On
the 3
rd
stage you must realize that you have differences in perception, sensation of discontent and
resentment, difficulties in communication with your partner, and to try to understand all this.
To sum everything up it can be said that principled negotiations, which aim is to
concentrate on different interests, on the variants which brings satisfaction to both parties often
leads to a conscious agreement.


When I read this chapter, I realized that I behave exactly the way described in the book. I
used to stand for my position in each argument and I never give up because it means to loose for
me. I realize now if I change my behavior and dont tie to it everything can be much better. I can
achieve my goal; moreover I can achieve it faster and have a good reputation. In my situation
this chapter is really useful, because it helps me to understand my mistakes and why people
sometimes dont like to negotiate with me. My way of arguing doesnt reply to 3 main principles
of negotiating, which are described above. When I strive just for my position its not conscious
at all, its not effective and finally it leads to make my relations with other people worse. The
best way to have a successful negotiation is to follow 3 steps:
1. Analysis. First you should gather the information, and think about it. You
should understand the purpose of your opponent, his interests, and position.
Why does he stand for this position? What does he want to achieve? You have
to understand the problems of your opponent. Furthermore, you should clearly
define your own interests for yourself.
2. Planning. On this stage you have to think again and make exact plans. What are
you going to do? How you can achieve your goal, paying attention to your
opponents interests?
3. Discussion. Its necessary to define if you and your opponent have the
differences in perception of situations, misunderstanding, feeling of
dissatisfaction. Each party should understand the interests of another and strive
for agreement taking them into account.
2. Separate the people from the problem.

The basic point in negotiations is that all negotiators are people. But its hard to
remember, especially when you are talking to representatives of some country. They seem to be
abstract interest, but theyre human beings firstly. Another feature of negotiations is that people
always connect some statement with them personally. We are inclined to believe that every
opinion and idea, which appears in the dialogue, is about us and the opponent talks about that
intentionally. But that not true at all!
Position bargaining can lead to the non-agreement and conflicts. If you stand for your
position roughly, your opponent will think that you dont respect him. Which can lead to the
reverse reaction you will start to think that your opponent doesnt appreciate you and the
relationship with you.
All the relationships between people can be divided into 3 categories perception,
emotion and communication.
1. Perception
Each party has its own reality, and this is base of the problem in negotiations and the
way to solution. The ability to put yourself in their shoes is one of the most crucial in your life.
Its very hard, but if you can totally feel yourself as another person. This means not only to
understand opponents interests and position, but feel yourself emotionally like him. If someday
you would be able to do this you will be very influential person. People tend to consider their
own fears as real intentions of other people. Suspiciousness may cost you fresh ideas which
could be a solution to the problems in negotiations. Another key point is that all parties should be
involved in the decision making process. Its unlikely to meet understanding and baking from
your opponent if you create the idea, solution or contract just by yourself. Even if contract
specifications are favorable, another person can refuse in because of suspicion. Its necessary to
pay attention to the image and prestige of another party. You should behave with respect, make
your opponent understand that you agree with his intentions and support suitable impression.
2. Emotions
During negotiations, observe yourself are you nervous? Are you aggravated? Listen to
another party and try to understand their feelings. Dealing with negotiators, its really useful to
treat them as expression of somebodys opinion, in other words without emotions. Find out your
feelings and emotions. Discuss your emotions with your opponent and try to understand his
feelings. It would be only an advantage if you will be sincere. One of the most effective way to
cope with negative emotions and anger is to get free of it. People fell much comfortable after
Sharing their negative experience. If you let the other side to let off steam, talking with them
start to be more rational and negotiations are more likely to be successful. But speaking about
emotions, its necessary to say that if one emotional reaction will lead to another emotional
reaction it can be explosion. So enough is enough. And another important point in the emotions
theme is apologizing. Excuse, dinner or another friendly sign can really defuse the tension.
3. Communication
There is no negotiation without communication. Negotiations are mutual communication
with the purpose of making agreement. There are 3 problems in communications negotiators
dont speak in the understandable way; even you speak clearly and straight you they may not
hear you, and the final problem is misunderstanding. Especially when you negotiate with
somebody from different nationality it can be a lot of misunderstandings, which are connected
not only with language, but with the culture. Its necessary to listen to your opponent, but it
maybe hard, especially in terms of emotional discussion. But when you are listening to
somebody, you get an advantage and a possibility to understand their perception, feelings and
emotions. If you will be attentive and ask qualifying questions, another side will be really
satisfied.


After reading I realized that my perception is not always the same as reality. So I have to
think about it every time when I have negotiations.
I want to be able to put myself in their shoes because I realized that this thing is the most
powerful in the world. When you understand the point of view of your opponent you may revise
your own opinion. Isnt it wonderful? I think you can not only to be a good negotiator, but also
broaden your horizons.
Also in every negotiation I should attract another side in order to make a decision. I can
ask for advice and it will be a good reason to understand their value for me. Another key point is
about listening. For me its really hard to listen and I know it. When I arguing I try to persuade
my opponent any old how.
Address to the another side of negotiations. Sometimes we forget about the fact that the
person is sitting in front of us and we should persuade only him. Understanding of this fact can
help to avoid useless prosecutions and or rising the voice.
And the final lesson that I learned from this chapter is that I should consider my opponent
as my partner. We have the same problem and we have negotiations to sort it out, but not to
argue with each other. So its better for both of us to find the solution as fast as possible. And to
do this we should focus on the problem and ignore all personal discontent.
I find this chapter very useful because there are a lot of things, that I didnt know before.
I will think about my behavior in the negotiations and I hope someday Ill perform better.


3. Focus on interests, not positions

The first pivotal point of this chapter is about agreement of interests. There is example in
the beginning about 2 men, arguing in the library. The object of their argument is the window;
how wide it should be opened. They cant find the solution of the problem as long as librarian
helps them he opened the window in another room, so everybody becomes satisfied. For me
this example is very impressive I cant even realize that this is key to the most of conflicts in
the world. The librarian could start to argue with them, trying to persuade one of them to agree
with another. But he found entirely new solution, which didnt come to them before. I was quite
shocked when Im thinking of all these situations, in which I tried to stick to my own gun. Its
much more intelligent and moreover, efficient to focus on interests and forget about positions.
And the author claims that this situation is very common in every negotiations, people try to
achieve the goal, which seems to make an agreement in some position, thats why they always
reach a deadlock.
Another example which is given in the book is about Egypt and Israel. They couldnt find
a compromise in case of sharing the territory of Sinai. And again the solution was in the surface
just to deepen in the interest of each side of negotiations, only after that solution was found.
Then authors shared another interesting idea behind of each conflict of positions there
is conflict of interests. At first sight arguments of the opposite positions are so different from
yours. But then its given an example of landlord and lessee, which at first view has a
diametrically opposite points of view. But, when you think about them with more attention you
understand both strive for the same: stability, good relationships etc.
Speaking about defining interests of the opposite position, the best way to determine
them is to put yourself on their place. This is the only way to understand need of the opposite
side. The next example in this chapter is about Iran and USA, author described the way of
thinking of each side of negotiations.
Another key point of this chapter is that to make an agreement you should formulate
exactly what do you want from another side of the discussion. Because if even you cant
understand your target, how it will understand your opponent?
The next point stresses that all interests of people all about basic human needs. In every
situation people strive for 5 key things:
Security
Economic well-being
A sense of belonging
Recognition
Control over ones life
Authors gave several pieces of advices. The first one is to write down your interests. It
will help you to organize them in your mind. Second best is to speak about your interests,
because the aim is to protect your interests. Also, its very important to show how the problem is
important to you and show your comprehension of the point of view of your opponent. You
should explain your arguments and interests and only after that explain your resume and
suggestions.
Negotiations very differ from the argument. Sometimes, people just want to express their
position, which they doesnt want to change, but in negotiations people should strive for an
agreement and understanding.
You should be open to the new ideas and be flexible. You can be just as hard, talking
about your interests, how hard any in the negotiations, speaking about his position. In fact, hard
to be useful. Perhaps it is unreasonable to strictly adhere to its position, but determined to pursue
their interests is reasonable. This is the aspect of the talks, where you can spend your aggressive
energy.


These concepts can be implemented in a real life. Now I know that if you do not show
indifference to the interests of the other party, then you can afford to persistently to prove the
seriousness of your concerns. Inviting the other side: "Correct me if I'm wrong, you thereby
demonstrate their openness, and if you are not correcting means they took your description of the
situation.
To your interests made an impression on opponents, you also need to justify their
legitimacy. You do not want your opponents have the impression that attacked them personally,
and strive to ensure that they understood the problem that you are facing, requires attention on a
legal basis.


5. Invent options for mutual gain

In the fourth chapter is discussed importance of inventing new options. Sometimes
people cant make an agreement just because of the lack of creativity and narrow-mindedness.
Author gives several examples, which illustrates how new options can solve the problem and
satisfy both parties.
In the most negotiations participants permit 4 serious mistakes:
1) premature judgment
There is nothing more injurious for creating new decisions than critical eye. When
youre thinking about new idea and you are scared that somebody can ridicule it, it
impedes your mind.
2) searching for the single answer
People believe that their target in negotiations is to narrow the gap between positions,
but not to increase the number of different options. Pursuit of getting the one and only
decision is like short circuit for your brain and it cant find brand new solution.
3) the assumption of the fixed pie
The third mistake in this topic is about extreme measures. People always consider that
possible solution of the problem can satisfy only one side.
4) thinking that solving their problem is their problem.
Thinking about the other sides problem seems to be unconscious. But thats not true.
If you think about problem of your opponent, you will make an agreement faster, and
moreover you will satisfy your own interests.
For making the creativity is necessary to:
1) to separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them
Firstly you should create a lot of new ideas and only after that judge them and try to
choose. In this case brainstorming can really help you. While doing it with your colleagues you
shouldnt be afraid of looking silly, just make a bunch of new ideas and after that group will
analyze if it is conscious, real and rational.
2) to broaden the options
The best way to find a solution to the problem is make a list of possible solutions. If you
create a lot of options, its more likely that your solution to the problem would be the best. Your
aim on this stage shouldnt be finding a solution, but to broaden the space for negotiations.
3) to search for mutual gains
There are 3 points, concerning mutual interests. The first one there are mutual interests
in every negotiations. They may not be on the surface, but they should be for sure. Secondly,
mutual interests are an opportunity for future, you should consider interests as a mutual goal.
Thirdly, underlining mutual goals make negotiations friendly and smooth. Reconcile the interests
sometimes people are bargaining and they dont realize that they can make an agreement
without any conflict, because they pursue different aims from the same thing. So if you will use
differences between your interests and interests of another party, it can be your competitive
advantage in negotiations.
4) to invent ways of making their decisions easy
The result of negotiations depends on another party, will they assume your what do you want or
not. So you should do everything, which can make their decision more easy and pleasant. Instead
of making exhausting atmosphere you should create painless conditions for choice. Without any
attractive option for another side, most likely that agreement wouldnt be reached. And again the
best way to do it is put yourself in their shoes. You can think about possible consequences for
another side, possible criticism they can meet.
In difficult situations creativity is vital. In the most negotiations creativity can open new
opportunities and build a line of potentially favorable for both sides agreements. Thats why is so
important to make a lot of different options and only after that choose the best.


How could these conceptions be implemented in real life?
In each situation you should always make a list of possible options and only after that
choose one;
You can consider the situation from different points of view. For instance, different
professions;
Make a Plan B. If your ideal agreement wouldnt be reached you can always propose
something that you prefer;
Define mutual interests;
Put yourself in their shoes;
Make the conditions for easy adoption of your proposal;
Create a list with possible consequences;
Make proposals, but not threats;
Narrow the list of people, which youd like to persuade in your opinion.
Here are the most important points of this chapter in my opinion. They are quite practical
so if you want implement them in your life you should just analyze your behavior. But I know
that its not so easy to refuse all of those stereotypes, which exists in your mind and think
differently. But if you really want to be a successful negotiator you can. For this purpose you
should make a little effort. I like the idea of brainstorming; to my mind it can be the only way
you find a brand new solution. It can be kind of leverage to think out of the box.
6. Insist on using objective criteria

As it was already discussed in the first chapter, the attempt to reconcile different interests
on the resolute base entails serious costs. Its unlikely that negotiations will be be efficient or
friendly, if you will oppose their will to your own. Whatever you did - looking for somewhere to
have a dinner, organizing some business, discussing the custody of the child, it is hardly possible
to reach a reasonable agreement that meets the objective criteria, if not to take into account these
criteria.
In each negotiation its better to rely on objective reasons rather than just on your
position. Its much better to rely on approves facts and somebodys experience. The more you
follow regulations of justice, effectiveness or scientific facts in taking decisions, the more likely
that the result of negotiations will be fair and conscious. Moreover, agreement which based on
good authority will be strong and durable.
The constant battle for dominance threatens relations; principled negotiation protect
them. It is much easier to deal with people when you discuss objective criteria to resolve the
problem, instead of trying to force each other to retreat. Reaching agreement through discussion
of objective criteria reduces the number of obligations that must be taken, and then to abandon
them as they move towards agreement. In positional bargaining, the participants spend a lot of
time defending their position and attacking the other party's position. People using objective
criteria tend to use time more efficiently - discussing possible standards and solutions.
How objective criteria can be discussed?
1) Prepare each problem for the mutual search of objective criteria.
First of all agree on the principles. Before talking about possible conditions, you may
wish to agree on some criteria or criterion. Each of the criteria which are put forward
by the other party, would be the lever that you can use in order to convince them.
Your approach will have a major impact if you take advantage of their criteria, and
they will be harder to resist the application of their own criteria.
2) Discourse and be open to cases, in which principles can be used. You should be open
to the criteria of another party, even if you absolutely sure about your own criteria.
One legitimate criterion should not exclude the existence of other. What you think is
fair, the other side can be estimated as unfair, and vice versa. Its difficult to persuade
the person, who is inclined to positional bargaining.
3) Always resist the pressure.
Pressure can be in many forms: bribery, threats, fraudulent appeals to trust or simply
refusing to budge. In all these cases the fundamental answer is the same: invite your
partner to express his considerations, offer objective criteria and declare that without
this base you will not move further. Never give in to pressure, only principle.
If the other side does not move and does not put forward a convincing basis for their
position, then further negotiations cannot be. Now you have the choice, which commonly occurs
in the store with defined, non-negotiable prices: you can buy it or not buy. But before you leave,
you need to reconsider, if you didnt overlook whether you have some objective criteria, which
makes their offer fair. If you find such a criteria, and if you are more inclined to reach an
agreement on this basis, than not to have it at all, so do that. The appropriate criterion still
prevents your assignment of the arbitrary position.
If in their position there is no even a little desire to give up, and you did not find no
principled basis in order to accept it, think about what you will receive if you accept their
unreasonable suggestion, instead of turning to your best alternative. You must assess all
consequences for your reputation as a principled negotiator, before leaving the negotiations.




Thinking about my previous life, I realized that all I did before in every argument was
wrong. I permitted all of mistakes, which were described above. Especially about bargaining
over positions, I always do that. And now I understand that its more profitable to rely on
objective criteria rather than my personal position.
So how to use objective criteria in real-life negotiations? Its better to prepare in advance.
This is certainly true for principled negotiation. So prepare beforehand several alternative criteria
and consider how they apply in your situation.
Considering procedural decisions, consult other fixed assets reconciliation: in turn, by
lottery, giving the right to decide someone the third, etc.
Its very interesting example in this chapter about how to find a agreement in case of
necessity to split something. If you should divide the cake between to kids, let the one kid to cut
the cake and another to choose the piece. Another example of the same solution is about 2
companies, which dont have equal opportunities to explore the sea and they have a long
negotiations about how to define 2 places in the sea, which they will use in their business. One
company has a huge experience in that question and another was afraid of a fraud from another
party. But the decision was very wise they decided that company, which has a knowledge will
choose 2 places, and another company will choose one for it from these 2 places. So these
conditions bring well-informed company in the position, in which it should choose the best
places, because they didnt know which place another party will choose. I was impressed by this
example, its so wise and conscious. This book was really useful for me; Ive learned a lot of
from this. I hope that my life will change and I will use this knowledge everywhere: in business
negotiations, in a conversation with friends, in relations with all people.