Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in
This has been a recommended book for MBA at Stanford and other universities for a very long time. It is not just about negotiation, but more about human psychology and human nature. It is interesting to me because as a scientist/clinician, we have been trained to think about reasons and logic. We use these to explain natural phenomenon e.g. disease processes, treatment outcomes etc. We look at the world through this logical glasses and try to understand the mechanics of it. It serves us very well in that regard. When it comes to human interactions, however, this tool seems lacking. We are not rationale beings. Our interactions are not based on logic, at least not entirely.
Irrational?
Sometimes people do hold views that many of us think are objectively “irrational,” such as people who fear flying. Internally, however, these people are reacting rationally to the world as they see it. At some level, they believe that this plane will crash. If we believed that, we would not fly either. It is the perception that is skewed, not the response to that perception. Neither telling such people that they are wrong (with however many scientific studies) nor punishing them for their beliefs is likely to change how they feel. On the other hand, if you inquire empathetically, taking their feelings seriously and trying to trace their reasoning to its roots, it is sometimes possible to effect change. Working with them, you may discover a logical leap, a factual misperception, or a traumatic association from an earlier time that, once brought to light, can be examined and modified by the people themselves. In essence, you are looking for the psychological interests behind their position, to help them find a way to meet more of their interests more effectively.
This paragraph is what I like the most in the book. It is illuminating.
Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people’s heads. Truth is simply one more argument—perhaps a good one, perhaps not—for dealing with the difference. The difference itself exists because it exists in their thinking.
Fears, even if ill-founded, are real fears and need to be dealt with.
Hopes, even if unrealistic, may cause a war.
Facts, even if established, may do nothing to solve the problem.
This might be common sense to a lot of people, but to a logical robot like me I’ve never thought of it this way before. I’ve always dismissed ill-founded fear as in it’s not real. It’s in your head. Why do we need to do anything about it? This paragraph is absolutely profound. We need to do something about it because it is real to them.
Basic human interests
Many emotions in negotiation are driven by a core set of five interests: autonomy, the desire to make your own choices and control your own fate; appreciation, the desire to be recognized and valued; affiliation, the desire to belong as an accepted member of some peer group; role, the desire to have a meaningful purpose; and status, the desire to feel fairly seen and acknowledged. Trampling on these interests tends to generate strong negative emotions. Attending to them can build rapport and a positive climate for problem-solving negotiation.
The authors repeatedly stress the point of difference between positions and underlying concerns.
The more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely. Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution.
Good negotiation consists of the following steps.
During the analysis stage you are simply trying to diagnose the situation—to gather information, organize it, and think about it. You will want to consider the people problems of partisan perceptions, hostile emotions, and unclear communication, as well as to identify your interests and those of the other side. You will want to note options already on the table and identify any criteria already suggested as a basis for agreement.
During the planning stage you deal with the same four elements a second time, both generating ideas and deciding what to do. How do you propose to handle the people problems? Of your interests, which are most important? And what are some realistic objectives? You will want to generate additional options and additional criteria for deciding among them.
During the discussion stage, when the parties communicate back and forth, looking toward agreement, the same four elements are the best subjects to discuss. Differences in perception, feelings of frustration and anger, and difficulties in communication can be acknowledged and addressed. Each side should come to understand the interests of the other. Both can then jointly generate options that are mutually advantageous and seek agreement on objective standards for resolving opposed interests.
It’s important to understand that not all negotiations are zero sum game. The outcome can be win win.
Two boys are debating how to share an orange. They settled for getting half each. One boy peeled the skin, threw it away, ate the fruit. The other peeled the skin, used the skin to bake the cake and threw the fruit away.
Generate many options before selecting among them. Invent first; decide later. Look for shared interests and differing interests to dovetail. And seek to make their decision easy.
Objective criteria can be face saving tool, which works in favour for both parties.
Ask “What’s your theory?” If the seller starts by giving you a position, such as “The price is $255,000,” ask for the theory behind that price: “How did you arrive at that figure”
What makes conceding particularly difficult is having to accept someone else’s proposal. If they suggested the criteria, their deferring to it is not an act of weakness but an act of strength, of carrying out the difference.
Expectation should be realistic.
No method can guarantee success if all the leverage lies on the other side. No book on gardening can teach you to grow lilies in a desert or a cactus in a swamp. If you enter an antique store to buy a sterling silver George IV tea set worth thousands of dollars and all you have is one hundred-dollar bill, you should not expect skillful negotiation to overcome the difference
Knowing where you stand
The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement. If you have not thought carefully about what you will do if you fail to reach an agreement, you are negotiating with your eyes closed.
When a family is deciding on the minimum price for their house, the right question for them to ask is not what they “ought” to be able to get, but what they will do if by a certain time they have not sold the house. Will they keep it on the market indefinitely? Will they rent it, tear it down, turn the land into a parking lot, let someone else live in it rent-free on condition they paint it, or what? Which of those alternatives is most attractive, all things considered? And how does that alternative compare with the best offer received for the house.
On miscommunication
The lack of audio and visual cues in texts and email make it much harder to hear or interpret the emotional undertones of communication, which can feed our tendency to hear the worst. Furthermore, not having another person in front of us reduces or eliminates the impact of “mirror neurons” in our brain, which normally increase our empathy and sense of human connection with our counterpart
Difficult conversations involving emotions or relationship issues are best pursued face-to-face, if at all possible, and definitely not by email or text. If a phone call is the only option, consider using a Webcam and an Internet service to make it a video call. When you are on the phone, and especially when you are using email or texts, make an effort to create some personal connection before diving into substance. Studies show that a little effort up front to schmooze—to learn and share something personal, to evoke an existing relationship or shared identity, or to find a shared connection can reduce the chance of miscommunication.
It’s not us against them, but we are in this together
When a proposal is challenged, don’t defend the proposal; rather explain again your underlying interests. Ask if the other side can think of a better way to meet those interests, as well as their own. We are finding a solution from which we can mutually benefit.