Lessons in Principled Negotiation

 Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books, New York 1991.

Summary:

Principled negotiation is the central theme, where different parties work toward a common agreement based upon common principles, as opposed to positional negotiation, where different parties try to reconcile their different positions. Principled negotiation is deemed superior to positional negotiation in producing wise agreements, in efficiency at arriving over conclusions, and in preserving and improving ongoing relationships.

Principled negotiation is based upon four major points:

· People: separate the people from the problem.

· Interests: focus on interests, not positions.

· Options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.

· Criteria: insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

It is also not simply ‘deal making,’ where both sides can become ‘partners in crime’, rather than working out decisions and situations where both sides achieve results to their advantage, and where no moral or ethical principles are breached. The goal is to achieve solutions which are also in accord with one’s own conscience.

PEOPLE: SEPARATE THE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM

The primary objective is to deal with the other people in the negotiating process as people, with their own perceptions and emotions that become part of the process. The key is to deal tactfully with these factors and work at making communication with the other parties in the negotiation effective, so that the negotiation is carried out in a working, not adversarial, relationship. Specific instructions include:

· Avoid putting the worst interpretation on the words and actions of the other side(s) or assigning blame to the other side.

· Discuss each others’ perceptions of the situation and issues.

· Don’t react to emotional outbursts.

· Speak to be understood.

· Speak to the problem, not the people.

INTERESTS: FOCUS ON INTERESTS, NOT POSITIONS.

Each negotiation involves the interests – the needs, desires, concerns and fears – of the people involved in the negotiation. These interests may motivate the formulation of opposing positions, but the development of a mutually acceptable solution involves reconciling both shared and conflicting interests. While attempting to understand the other parties involved in the negotiation, decide whose decision you need to affect and what decision you want to ask them to make, and then analyze the consequences of agreement or refusal from their perspective. Then specifically and vividly explain your interests, while acknowledging their interests also.

OPTIONS: GENERATE A VARIETY OF POSSIBILITIES BEFORE DECIDING WHAT TO DO.

In many negotiations, the parties do not explore many options because of premature judgment about the other persons’ reactions or the solutions to the problems, or settling too early on a single answer, or looking to achieve only one’s self interest, or in the outcome of a negotiation as solely a win/lose proposition. The basic suggestion is to have a brainstorming session to explore options, and then to decide. As a tool for finding these, a Circle Chart is provided, to state the problem, to analyze the problem, to generate strategies and to define specific action steps. The aim is then to identify solutions that answer shared interests and dovetailing differing interests, and try to make the decision of the other parties in the negotiation easy for them.

CRITERIA: INSIST THAT THE RESULT BE BASED ON SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARD.

The highest relational cost comes when negotiations become a battle of wills. The solution then becomes negotiation of objective criteria independent of the will of any party to the negotiation. This has the effect of producing wise, efficient and amicable agreements instead of embittering battles for dominance. First, look personally for mutually reasonable and fair standards and procedures for making a decision. In actual negotiation, frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria, use reason and be open to the reasoning of the other parties in the negotiation. Finally, never yield to pressure, only to principle. If the other side tries to use pressure, “ . . . the principled response is to invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria you think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis” (p. 90).

Succeeding chapters deal with a number of specific tactics that are often contradictory to the ‘conventional wisdom’ of negotiating:

· Rather than having a ‘bottom line,’ have a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).

· Verify all factual assertions. Personal trust is not an issue in doing so.

· Use negotiation jujitsu rather than pushback and retaliation to sidestep stubborn assertions of a position, attacks on ideas and personal attacks; try to turn each one into a statement of interest and an attack on the problem. Ask questions and pause for an answer instead of making statements.

· Address tricky, unethical and illegitimate bargaining tactics by negotiating about the rules of negotiating.

· Learn how much authority the other side has to make an agreement.

Finally, the book concludes with a series of clarifying questions and answers to specific application of the methods. Most boil down to variations on getting to know the interests of the other side and understanding one’s own interests and goals in the negotiation process.

Applying the Lessons to Working in IT

People: separate the people from the problem

· Throughout I/S, representatives from different groups must work out solutions to problems and long term goals. Personal histories and reputations, both positive and negative, become can become entrenched over time, many times upon inadequate information, personal grudges, and hearsay. Refuse to judge a person’s potential contribution or cooperation before attempting to resolve the problems with that person.

Interests: focus on interests, not positions.

· Look at what a position, inference or conclusion is based upon – its underlying reasons – when confronted with a set position. Ask questions to determine these underlying reasons if they are not apparent.

Options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.

· Use brainstorming effectively to generate multiple approaches and possible solutions and objectives. ‘What if’ questions can be very effective in an IT environment.

· Use the ‘what if’ to generate additional possibilities when it is apparent that decisions are being made prematurely.

Criteria: insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

· The objective standard often can and should be rooted in the common business objectives of the corporation and the goals and objectives of the lower levels in the hierarchy. At other times, appeal can be made to technical realities and industry standards. Whatever the standard, it should be something objective that can become common ground for the involved parties.

· The corporate scandals of recent months have highlighted how unethical working relationships can become. Objective standards also include moral and ethical principles, as well as bare letter of the law. Basing decisions on objective ethical standards rather than ‘what we think we can get away with’ provides decisions which can stand both public and private scrutiny, as well as the scrutiny of one’s own conscience.