Getting to Yes

Sometimes, the other side simply refuses to look at options and focuses its talking points on its position. In this situation, two techniques may break the logjam: “negotiation jujitsu” and “one-text mediation” (109-10).

“Negotiation jujitsu” is simple. When the other side attacks verbally, refuse to respond. When they state their position, ask how it will resolve both side’s concerns and how it conforms to standard norms. When they criticize your proposal, request more details on how it fails to fulfill their interests. Seek out their advice on what they’d do in your shoes. If they attack your motives, reply that you share their concerns and want ideas from them on how both sides can meet needs. As in jujitsu, you convert the energy of their attack into constructive problem solving.

Silence, too, is powerful: It leaves a gap in the talks that the other side will feel compelled to fill. If they attack, just listen: They’ll probably say even more, which you can use as a platform for questions. Once you’ve asked them, wait silently for a response and let them do the work.

One-text mediation uses an outside party. An architect, for example, can listen to a couple’s disagreement over the house they want to build, ask each for a list of wants and reasons, sketch a plan that provides for both sides’ needs, and ask for feedback to improve the sketch. This process gets repeated multiple times as the design edges closer to both sides’ approval, a single “text” that they either both accept or reject. It helps the couple focus on a house that suits both of them instead of one to which they must concede.

Either side can initiate a one-text process. In a three-way or larger negotiation, one of the parties—the one who cares more that an agreement be reached than the details of how it’s achieved—can become the mediator. They have a vested interest in success, and they don’t need to take sides. In multi-party talks, the one-text procedure becomes vital: It prevents the chaos of several competing texts.

The one-text approach worked successfully in the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David talks, during the Law of the Sea negotiations, and with the South African pact that created a democracy and eliminated apartheid.

Several statements help keep a negotiation on a principled track. These include, “Please correct me if I’m wrong,” which introduces information diplomatically; “We appreciate what you’ve done for us,” which acknowledges any previous contributions and removes the threat of name-calling and bitterness; and, “Our concern is fairness,” which keeps talks focused on accepted standards for resolving differences (120-21).

Among other useful framing expressions are, “Let me get back to you” (126), which allows a negotiator to consult with their team; “One fair solution might be,” which suggests that the answer can be one of many ideas; and, “If we agree [or] if we disagree,” which prefaces a polite explication of what may occur after the talks end, especially things that the presenter frames as consequences outside their control (126-28).

If all goes well, the last words—which promise friendly dealings in the future—can be: “It’s been a pleasure dealing with you” (129).

Sometimes negotiators resort to “tricky bargaining”—lies, threats, pressures—that serve as procedural moves meant to tip the negotiation in their favor. While it’s tempting to respond in kind or cave in, the wiser approach involves three parts: (1) Recognize the tactic; (2) call attention to it; and (3) question its legitimacy.

To avoid alienating the other side, question the tactic they use but don’t question their integrity. If, for example, they arrange the venue to put the sun in your eyes, you can react simply by pointing out that the sun is a distraction and may cause delays in the negotiation. Using the principle of fairness, suggest that the two sides trade off experiencing the distraction. If the other side persists, one option is to break off talks and tell them to call when they’re ready to deal in a mutually acceptable manner.

Tricky bargaining falls into three main types. The first is “[d]eliberate deception.” This tactic can be blunted by declaring a policy of routinely fact-checking all statements. It helps to learn early on how much authority they have to bargain, which prevents them from wearing you down by forcing you to negotiate yet again with their superiors. If they declare suddenly that the agreement must be vetted upstairs, announce that you’ll also think on it. If they can’t be trusted, argue for a signed agreement that, if violated, generates penalties.

The second tricky tactic is “[p]sychological warfare.” A team may subtly belittle the other side: They make them wait, interrupt them, don’t look them in the eye, or do other things that erode the other team’s confidence. Some negotiators stage a good-guy/bad-guy argument, then turn to the other team and ask for a concession to help resolve the dispute. Threats are popular but rarely work well, since they cause the threatened team to circle the wagons. In all cases, the strongest response is to point out the tactic and stick to a principled approach.

The third type of trick falls under “[p]ositional pressure tactics” (140). A favorite is refusing to negotiate, which is itself a power play. If so, ask the other side why they don’t want to talk, offer to communicate through third parties, and suggest that you, too, should have the right to set preconditions before talking begins. Other tricks include extreme demands at the start, escalating demands as talks continue, or locking into a position till the bitter end: These techniques, along with delaying tactics and the “my boss absolutely refuses to hear of it” gambit (143), often collapse if you ignore them, minimize them, or simply stick to your principle of yielding only to reasoned arguments.

It’s vital not to become a victim of tricky negotiating, but also not to respond in ways you’d be uncomfortable being known for. By sticking to principles and reason, a negotiator doesn’t have to knuckle under, and they don’t have to explain their behavior.