Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

an explicit focus of discussion will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem, it will also make the negotiations less reactive and more “pro-active.” Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem.

Where disagreements persist, seek second-order agreement—agreement on where you disagree.

Pay attention to “core concerns.”

The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be b

It is the combination of support and attack that works; either alone is likely to be insufficient.

A principled negotiator neither accepts nor rejects the other side’s positions.

Even with someone like Hitler or Stalin, we should consider negotiating if negotiation holds the promise of achieving an outcome that, all things considered, meets our interests better than our BATNA.[5] When a war does occur, in many cases it is actually a move within a negotiation. The violence is intended to change the other side’s BATNA, or the

Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain.

in most situations you do not have to get anyone’s consent to start using the one-text procedure. Simply prepare a draft and ask for criticism. Again, you can change the game simply by starting to play the new one. Even if the other side is not willing to talk to you directly (or vice versa), a third party can take a draft around.

People: Separate the people from the problem. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.