Summarised and used with permission
Roger Fisher and William Ury, two Harvard Law Professors, have done some outstanding work in what they call the “principled” approach versus the “positional” approach to negotiating. Although they avoid the use of the win-win concept, it seems implicit in their overall approach.
They suggest that the essence of principled negotiation is to separate the person from the problem, to focus on interests and not on positions, to invent options for mutual gain, and to insist on legitimate and objective criteria. Fisher has developed a seven point checklist to provide some rules of thumb for principled negotiation, discussed below.
Develop your BATNA; Consider Theirs
Negotiation can be described as the process by which both parties seek to find a solution which is better than the results they could obtain without negotiating. It is therefore necessary to establish both sides’ best alternatives, because that is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured.
If either party has not established their “BATNA”, (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), then they are negotiating from a weak position. They may be too optimistic about the other choices available, and may take too favourable a view of the consequences of not reaching agreement.
On the other hand, the negotiating party who have developed a strong BATNA have negotiating power, and have achieved this in three key ways:
It is also necessary for the experienced negotiator to consider the other side’s BATNA. The more we can learn of the other party’s position, the better prepared we are. And if this consideration should reveal that both sides have attractive BATNAs, then the best outcome of the negotiation may well not to be an agreement at all. In such cases a successful negotiation amicably and efficiently discovers that the best way forward is for both parties to look elsewhere.
Separate the People from the Problem
It is important to deal with the relationship and the content, but each on it’s own merits. This encompasses the well known phrase “be soft on the people, but hard on the problem”. It requires experienced negotiators to speak for themselves, rather than telling the other side what is required, or what they should do, and it clearly suggests that negotiators view the worth of their negotiating partners as a person, rather than based on the “correctness” of their views or conduct.
Focus on Interests Not Positions
Because negotiators tend to become “locked in” to positions and solutions too early in the process, it follows that focusing on interests increases our chances of achieving a satisfactory outcome. Instead of seeking to “win” the argument/agreement, the focus is on satisfying each side’s interests.
Of course, it is not surprising that negotiators assume that interests are opposed, since they often do conflict with each other. But it is by no means a given that more for one side means less for the other. It is therefore helpful to discuss interests explicitly during the negotiation process and think of positions as clues to the underlying concerns. Simply asking the question “why” will often reveal valuable information,
Generate Better Options
Whilst it may seem obvious that inventing options for mutual gain can lead to a better agreement for both parties, this step is often avoided, even by experienced negotiators. Perhaps this is because people have a tendency to accept the first good answer to come along, and partly because of fears that inventing new options will disclose confidential information.
However, it is obviously in the interests of each side to be “sharing a larger cake”, and this cake should be based on relevant interests, rather than positions. The following guidelines are important:
Maximise Legitimacy
Rather than attempting to resolve differences on the basis of willpower or coercion, the principled approach to negotiation will decide on the basis of criteria of fairness, appropriateness and reasonableness. As human beings, we all like to be treated fairly, and it is a common failing of negotiators to assume that their demands are fair, whereas the other side’s requests are unfair. Principled negotiators decide the criteria of fairness based on such things as precedent, the opinion of a neutral party, etc., and generally follow the following steps:
Promote Two-Way Communication
“Seek first to understand, then to be understood” Steven Covey
Poor communication during negotiations blocks progress and damages relationships. Many negotiators have a tendency to tell the other side what they think, focusing only what they are saying, rather than what the other party hears. It is necessary to aim for two-way communication, and the necessary skills are discussed in depth elsewhere.
However, the following guidelines are valuable:
Defer Commitment Until You Are Sure
Premature commitment during any negotiation is likely to result in the reduction of the process to a “haggling” session. Too much attention is paid to positions, and underlying interests are ignored. The final agreement is often difficult to implement because the parties have understood it differently, and regret the commitments they made.
This is the essence of total package negotiating. The best time for giving commitment is when all interests are fully understood, all options are on the table, objective criteria and fair terms have been established. Preliminary or conditional commitments are often appropriate, and the following guidelines are useful:
Summarised and used with permission from:
“Getting to Yes”, Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Century.
Roger Fisher and William Ury, two Harvard Law Professors, have done some outstanding work in what they call the “principled” approach versus the “positional” approach to negotiating. Although they avoid the use of the win-win concept, it seems implicit in their overall approach.
They suggest that the essence of principled negotiation is to separate the person from the problem, to focus on interests and not on positions, to invent options for mutual gain, and to insist on legitimate and objective criteria. Fisher has developed a seven point checklist to provide some rules of thumb for principled negotiation, discussed below.
Develop your BATNA; Consider Theirs
Negotiation can be described as the process by which both parties seek to find a solution which is better than the results they could obtain without negotiating. It is therefore necessary to establish both sides’ best alternatives, because that is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured.
If either party has not established their “BATNA”, (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), then they are negotiating from a weak position. They may be too optimistic about the other choices available, and may take too favourable a view of the consequences of not reaching agreement.
On the other hand, the negotiating party who have developed a strong BATNA have negotiating power, and have achieved this in three key ways:
- by inventing a list of actions if no agreement is reached
- improving on the most promising of these
- selecting the one that seems best
It is also necessary for the experienced negotiator to consider the other side’s BATNA. The more we can learn of the other party’s position, the better prepared we are. And if this consideration should reveal that both sides have attractive BATNAs, then the best outcome of the negotiation may well not to be an agreement at all. In such cases a successful negotiation amicably and efficiently discovers that the best way forward is for both parties to look elsewhere.
Separate the People from the Problem
It is important to deal with the relationship and the content, but each on it’s own merits. This encompasses the well known phrase “be soft on the people, but hard on the problem”. It requires experienced negotiators to speak for themselves, rather than telling the other side what is required, or what they should do, and it clearly suggests that negotiators view the worth of their negotiating partners as a person, rather than based on the “correctness” of their views or conduct.
Focus on Interests Not Positions
Because negotiators tend to become “locked in” to positions and solutions too early in the process, it follows that focusing on interests increases our chances of achieving a satisfactory outcome. Instead of seeking to “win” the argument/agreement, the focus is on satisfying each side’s interests.
Of course, it is not surprising that negotiators assume that interests are opposed, since they often do conflict with each other. But it is by no means a given that more for one side means less for the other. It is therefore helpful to discuss interests explicitly during the negotiation process and think of positions as clues to the underlying concerns. Simply asking the question “why” will often reveal valuable information,
Generate Better Options
Whilst it may seem obvious that inventing options for mutual gain can lead to a better agreement for both parties, this step is often avoided, even by experienced negotiators. Perhaps this is because people have a tendency to accept the first good answer to come along, and partly because of fears that inventing new options will disclose confidential information.
However, it is obviously in the interests of each side to be “sharing a larger cake”, and this cake should be based on relevant interests, rather than positions. The following guidelines are important:
- focus on shared and divergent interests that may be reconcilable
- separate the process of inventing from the process of deciding
- emphasise the importance of this “inventing” stage
- develop a wide and crazy range of ideas
- follow the rules of brainstorming (no evaluation, judgement or critique)
Maximise Legitimacy
Rather than attempting to resolve differences on the basis of willpower or coercion, the principled approach to negotiation will decide on the basis of criteria of fairness, appropriateness and reasonableness. As human beings, we all like to be treated fairly, and it is a common failing of negotiators to assume that their demands are fair, whereas the other side’s requests are unfair. Principled negotiators decide the criteria of fairness based on such things as precedent, the opinion of a neutral party, etc., and generally follow the following steps:
- joint search for legitimate standards (often seeking third party advice)
- encouraging both sides to be open to reason
- never yielding to pressure, only to principle
- search thoroughly for different external standards
- probe the reasoning behind positional bargaining
Promote Two-Way Communication
“Seek first to understand, then to be understood” Steven Covey
Poor communication during negotiations blocks progress and damages relationships. Many negotiators have a tendency to tell the other side what they think, focusing only what they are saying, rather than what the other party hears. It is necessary to aim for two-way communication, and the necessary skills are discussed in depth elsewhere.
However, the following guidelines are valuable:
- communicate regardless of disagreement
- listen actively
- demonstrate that you hear what is being said
- focus on what they will hear
- consider consulting before deciding
- design communication channels carefully
- speak for yourself, not for them
Defer Commitment Until You Are Sure
Premature commitment during any negotiation is likely to result in the reduction of the process to a “haggling” session. Too much attention is paid to positions, and underlying interests are ignored. The final agreement is often difficult to implement because the parties have understood it differently, and regret the commitments they made.
This is the essence of total package negotiating. The best time for giving commitment is when all interests are fully understood, all options are on the table, objective criteria and fair terms have been established. Preliminary or conditional commitments are often appropriate, and the following guidelines are useful:
- clarify your thinking with your colleagues before making commitments
- draft potential commitments in advance
- design the negotiating process to defer commitment to the end
Summarised and used with permission from:
“Getting to Yes”, Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Century.
