Audiobook negotiations without defeat - the Harvard method. True interests of the parties

Roger Fisher, William Urey

The path to agreement or negotiations without defeat

Scanned, recognized, polished and made in HTML NIKULIN Victor, St. Petersburg, 2000.

INTRODUCTION

To Our Fathers, Walter T. Fisher

and Melvin S. Urey, who

by force of example they proved to us

the power of principles.

This book began with a question: How can people best deal with their differences? For example, what is the best advice to give to a divorcing husband and wife who want to know how to reach a fair and satisfactory agreement without the usual violent quarrel? Or - what is even more difficult - what advice can be given to one of them, guided by the same considerations? Every day, families, neighbors, spouses, employees, bosses, businessmen), consumers, sellers, lawyers and countries find themselves faced with the same dilemma - how to say “yes” to each other without resorting to war with each other. Drawing on our knowledge of international law and anthropology, and relying on extensive long-term collaboration with practitioners, colleagues and students, we have developed a practical method for reaching agreements on a friendly basis, without defeating the parties.

We tested our ideas in conversations with lawyers, businessmen, government officials, judges, prison governors, diplomats, insurance representatives, miners and oil company executives. We express our gratitude to all those who critically responded to our work and shared their comments and suggestions with us. We benefited greatly from this.

Frankly, so many people have contributed to our research over the years that it is now completely impossible to say exactly to whom we are most indebted for which ideas. Those who contributed the most will, of course, understand that we have not made references not because we believed that every idea was first expressed by us, but rather in order for the text to be readable at all, especially since, we repeat, we owe it to a very large number of people .

And yet we can't help but say something about Howard Reiff. His kind but frank criticism repeatedly improved our approach. Moreover, his comments on the need to seek mutual benefits in negotiations by exploiting existing differences, as well as the role of imagination in solving difficult problems, inspired us to write separate sections of the book devoted to these issues. Louis Sohn, an extraordinary visionary and negotiator, constantly inspired us with his constant ingenuity and vision for the future. Among other things, we owe it to him that he introduced us to the idea of using a single negotiating text, which we called the “One Text Procedure”. We would also like to thank Michael Doyle and David Strauss for their creative brainstorming efforts.

It was very difficult to find suitable stories and examples. Here we are indebted to Jim Sibenius for his reviews of the Law of the Sea Conference (as well as for his thoughtful criticism of our method), Tom Griffith for his account of his negotiations with an insurance company clerk, and Mary Parker Follett for the story of two men arguing in a library. .

We would especially like to thank all those who have read this book in various manuscript versions and who have allowed us to benefit from their criticisms, including our student participants in the Negotiation Workshops held in January 1980 and 1981. at Harvard Law School, as well as Frank Sander, John Cooper, and William Lincoln, who led these groups with us. We would like to thank in particular those members of the Harvard Negotiation Seminar whom we have not yet mentioned; they have listened patiently to us over the past two years and made many useful suggestions - John Dunlop, James Healy, David Kuchl, Thomas Schelling and Lawrence Susskind. To all our friends and allies we owe more than we can express, but the authors bear final responsibility for the contents of the book; if the result is imperfect, it is not due to lack of effort on the part of our colleagues.

Without the help of family and friends, writing would be unbearable. For constructive criticism and moral support, we thank Carolyn Fisher, David Lax, Francis Turnbull, and Janice Urey. Without Francis Fisher this book would never have been written. It was he who introduced us to each other about four years ago.

Without excellent secretarial assistance, we would not have succeeded either. Thanks to Deborah Reimel for her unfailing competence, moral support, and firm but kind reminders, and to Denise Trybula, whose diligence and cheerfulness never wavered. Special thanks to the staff at Ward Processing, led by Cynthia Smith, who stood the test of an endless array of options and almost impossible deadlines.

There are also our editors. By rearranging and cutting our book in half, Marty Lynskey has made it much more readable. To spare our readers, he had the good sense not to spare our feelings. Thanks also to Peter Kinder, June Kinoshita, and Bob Ross. June tried to keep as little unparliamentary language as possible in the book. Where this has failed, we apologize to those who may be offended by this. We would also like to thank Andrea Williams, our advisor: Juliana Bach, our agent; Dick McAdow and his colleagues at Houghton Mifflin, who made the publication of this book both possible and enjoyable.

Finally, we want to thank Bruce Patton, our friend and colleague, editor and facilitator. No one did more for this book than he. From the very beginning, he helped brainstorm and organized the book's syllogisms. He rearranged almost every chapter and edited every sentence. If books were movies, ours would be known as a "Patton production."

Roger Fisher, William Urey

INTRODUCTION

Whether you like it or not, you are the person negotiating. Negotiations are a fact of our daily life. You are discussing your promotion with your boss or trying to negotiate with a stranger on the price of his house. Two lawyers try to resolve a controversial car accident case. A group of oil companies is planning a joint venture to explore offshore oil fields. A city official is meeting with union leaders to try to prevent a transit workers' strike. The United States Secretary of State, seeking an agreement to limit nuclear weapons, sits down at the negotiating table with his Soviet counterpart. It's all negotiation.

Every day we all agree on something. Like Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain, who was delighted to learn that he had spoken in prose all his life, people negotiate even when they do not imagine that they are doing it. Some people discuss with their spouse where to go for dinner and with their child about when to turn off the lights. Negotiation is the primary means of getting what you want from other people. This is a shuttle relationship designed to reach an agreement when you and the other party have some coinciding or opposing interests.

Nowadays, we increasingly have to resort to negotiations: after all, conflict is, figuratively speaking, a developing industry. Every person wants to participate in decisions that affect him; fewer and fewer people agree with decisions imposed by someone. People with different interests use negotiation to resolve their differences. Whether in business, government, or family, people reach most decisions through negotiation. Even when they go to court, they almost always work out an agreement before the hearing.

Although negotiations happen every day, they are not easy to conduct properly. The standard negotiation strategy often leaves people feeling dissatisfied, exhausted, or alienated, and often all three.

People find themselves in a dilemma. They see only two options for negotiating: being flexible or being tough. A person who is gentle in character wants to avoid personal conflict and is willing to make concessions in order to reach an agreement. He wants an amicable outcome, but the matter often ends with him feeling slighted and remaining offended. A tough negotiator views every situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the extreme position and persists in its position gains more. He wants to win, but often ends up causing an equally violent reaction, which exhausts him and his resources, and damages his relationship with the other party. The second standard strategy in negotiations takes a middle approach - between soft and hard, but includes an attempt to negotiate between the desire to achieve what you want and getting along with people.

Annotation:
This book began with a question: How can people best deal with their differences? For example, what is the best advice to give to a divorcing husband and wife who want to know how to reach a fair and satisfactory agreement without the usual violent quarrel? Or - what is even more difficult - what advice can be given to one of them, guided by the same considerations? Every day, families, neighbors, spouses, employees, bosses, businessmen), consumers, sellers, lawyers and countries find themselves faced with the same dilemma - how to say “yes” to each other without resorting to war with each other. Drawing on our knowledge of international law and anthropology, and relying on extensive long-term collaboration with practitioners, colleagues and students, we have developed a practical method for reaching agreements on a friendly basis, without defeating the parties. We tested our ideas in conversations with lawyers, businessmen, government officials, judges, prison governors, diplomats, insurance representatives, miners and oil company executives. We express our gratitude to all those who critically responded to our work and shared their comments and suggestions with us. We benefited greatly from this. Frankly, so many people have contributed to our research over the years that it is now completely impossible to say exactly to whom we are most indebted for which ideas. Those who contributed the most will, of course, understand that we have not made references not because we believed that every idea was first expressed by us, but rather in order for the text to be readable at all, especially since, we repeat, we owe it to a very large number of people . And yet we can't help but say something about Howard Reiff. His kind but frank criticism repeatedly improved our approach. Moreover, his comments on the need to seek mutual benefits in negotiations by exploiting existing differences, as well as the role of imagination in solving difficult problems, inspired us to write separate sections of the book devoted to these issues. Louis Sohn, an extraordinary visionary and negotiator, constantly inspired us with his constant ingenuity and vision for the future. Among other things, we owe it to him that he introduced us to the idea of using a single negotiating text, which we called the “One Text Procedure”. We would also like to thank Michael Doyle and David Strauss for their creative brainstorming efforts. It was very difficult to find suitable stories and examples. Here we are indebted to Jim Sibenius for his reviews of the Law of the Sea Conference (as well as for his thoughtful criticism of our method), Tom Griffith for his account of his negotiations with an insurance company clerk, and Mary Parker Follett for the story of two men arguing in a library. . We would especially like to thank all those who have read this book in various manuscript versions and who have allowed us to benefit from their criticisms, including our student participants in the Negotiation Workshops held in January 1980 and 1981. at Harvard Law School, as well as Frank Sander, John Cooper, and William Lincoln, who led these groups with us. We would like to thank in particular those members of the Harvard Negotiation Seminar whom we have not yet mentioned; they have listened patiently to us over the past two years and made many useful suggestions - John Dunlop, James Healy, David Kuchl, Thomas Schelling and Lawrence Susskind. To all our friends and allies we owe more than we can express, but the authors bear final responsibility for the contents of the book; if the result is imperfect, it is not due to lack of effort on the part of our colleagues. Without the help of family and friends, writing would be unbearable. For constructive criticism and moral support, we thank Carolyn Fisher, David Lax, Francis Turnbull, and Janice Urey. Without Francis Fisher this book would never have been written. It was he who introduced us to each other about four years ago. Without excellent secretarial assistance, we would not have succeeded either. Thanks to Deborah Reimel for her unfailing competence, moral support, and firm but kind reminders, and to Denise Trybula, whose diligence and cheerfulness never wavered. Special thanks to the staff at Ward Processing, led by Cynthia Smith, who stood the test of an endless array of options and almost impossible deadlines. There are also our editors. By rearranging and cutting our book in half, Marty Lynskey has made it much more readable. To spare our readers, he had the good sense not to spare our feelings. Thanks also to Peter Kinder, June Kinoshita, and Bob Ross. June tried to keep as little unparliamentary language as possible in the book. Where this has failed, we apologize to those who may be offended by this. We would also like to thank Andrea Williams, our advisor: Juliana Bach, our agent; Dick McAdow and his colleagues at Houghton Mifflin, who made the publication of this book both possible and enjoyable. Finally, we want to thank Bruce Patton, our friend and colleague, editor and facilitator. No one did more for this book than he. From the very beginning, he helped brainstorm and organized the book's syllogisms. He rearranged almost every chapter and edited every sentence. If books were movies, ours would be known as a "Patton production."

Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher

(No ratings yet)

Title: Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method
Author: William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher
Year: 1981
Genre: Management, personnel selection, Popular about business, Foreign business literature, Social psychology, Foreign psychology

About the book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method" William Urey, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher

Every day we need to communicate with family, work colleagues, friends, and often we need to agree on something, argue, defend our point of view. It’s good when it’s a simple friendly dispute, which, in fact, does not contain anything dangerous or unprofitable. On the other hand, when the conversation is with potential clients or partners. Here you need to talk in such a way that they want to cooperate with you.

In most cases, a person does not behave correctly during serious conversations, even if you are arguing with your spouse about the upcoming vacation. Many will agree that everyone pushes their point of view without listening to the other. Often the conversation turns to a raised tone, and everything ends very badly. Psychology, in fact, is like a magic wand; if you study it and apply it in practice, the world will definitely become kinder and more practical. The book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method was written by three wonderful people, William Urey, Bruce Patton and Roger Fisher, who work at Harvard University and are leading specialists of the Harvard Negotiation Project.

We often perceive our opponents as enemies. That is, roughly speaking, we are trying to bend a person under ourselves, under our views and desires. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s a family conversation or a government meeting to resolve government issues. It is this behavior that leads to the fact that both sides do not make concessions and cannot agree. It is important to learn to perceive our opponent as someone who will help us solve problems. At the same time, you must give compelling arguments, attract him with benefits, offers, bonuses.

The technique that he offers in his book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method" by William Ury, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher, is aimed at the fact that we should treat people gently, but at the same time not give concessions to the issue that needs to be resolved. You can find an approach to absolutely any person, but this must be done carefully and correctly, and exactly how you will read in this scientific work.

In addition, the book provides detailed recommendations on how to prepare for a conversation, how to set certain boundaries for yourself, and how to predict your opponent’s actions.

Book by William Ury, Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method is a very quick read. It will be useful for absolutely all readers, regardless of their type of activity. Indeed, even sometimes it becomes almost impossible to resolve family issues due to the wrong approach to this matter.

In this book you will find a lot of useful and interesting things for yourself. You can easily apply all the recommendations and techniques in life, and you will immediately notice that it will become much easier for you to negotiate with people, and all negotiations will be more effective and profitable.

Published by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. and Synopsis Literary Agency

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.

* * *

Preface

Despite the fact that the situation in the world is constantly changing, the ideas presented in our book remain unshakable and constant. They have stood the test of time, received wide recognition, and are often the basis from which authors of other books build.

We hope that our answers to “10 Questions on How to Always Hear Yes” will be helpful and of interest to you.

We have divided the questions into several groups. The first includes questions about the meaning and scope of “principled” negotiations (we are talking about practical issues, not moral ones). The second category includes negotiations with people who do not want to make concessions, who profess a different system of values and adhere to a different system of negotiations. The third includes questions related to tactics (where to negotiate, who should make the first proposal, how to move from listing options to making commitments). And to the fourth group we included issues related to the role of government influence during the negotiation process.

Introduction

A person participates in negotiations every day. Remember Moliere's Jourdain, who was happy to learn that he spoke in prose. People participate in negotiations even when they are not aware of it. You are involved in negotiations with your spouse about dinner and with your children about when to go to bed. Negotiation is the main way to get what you want from others. This is a way of communication aimed at achieving agreement in a situation where you and the other party have common interests, but at the same time there are opposing ones.

More and more life situations require negotiations. Conflicts are growing and expanding. Everyone wants to be involved in decisions that affect their lives. Fewer and fewer people are willing to accept decisions that someone else has made for them. People are different from each other, and negotiations are necessary in order to smooth out these differences. Whether we are talking about business, government or family problems, most decisions are made through negotiations. Even when going to court, people try to reach an agreement before the trial.

Although negotiations take place every day, it is very difficult to conduct them well. Standard strategies often leave participants exhausted, alienated, and dissatisfied.

People are faced with a dilemma. They recognize two ways of negotiating: delicate and tough. When choosing the first method, a person tries with all his might to avoid personal conflicts and makes concessions in order to achieve agreement. He wants to reach a solution that would suit both parties, but as a result he feels deceived. A person who has chosen a tough style of negotiation views any situation that arises as a conflict of egos, in which only those who insist on their own can win. He wants to win, but more often than not he encounters an even tougher position. This is exhausting, drains strength and resources, and spoils relationships between participants. There are intermediate negotiation strategies, but each of them boils down to trying to reach an agreement between what you want to get and what others are willing to give you.

There is a third way of negotiations, which can be neither delicate nor tough. It combines features of both methods. This is a method of principled negotiations developed within the framework of the Harvard Negotiation Project. This method of negotiation takes into account the true interests of both parties, and does not boil down to a meaningless discussion of what each of the participants is ready to do and what they will not do for anything. The basic premise is that participants strive to find a mutually beneficial solution, and when a conflict of interest arises, the decision should be based on fair standards, independent of the wishes of the parties. The method of principled negotiations is harsh in relation to the issues being resolved, but “delicate” towards people. There is no room for dirty tricks and pointless stubbornness. Principled negotiations will help you achieve what you want and avoid becoming a trickster and a deceiver. You will be able to remain fair and at the same time protect yourself from those who want to take advantage of your fairness.

The book is devoted to methods of conducting principled negotiations. In the first chapter we will discuss the problems that arise with the use of standard position trading strategies. In the next four chapters we will talk about the four principles of our proposed method. In the last three chapters you will find the answer to the most frequently asked questions: “What to do if the enemy turns out to be stronger?”, “What to do if he does not want to play on our terms?”, “What to do if he resorts to dirty tricks ?

The principled negotiation method can be used by American diplomats negotiating nuclear arms reductions with Russia, Wall Street lawyers representing major companies, and spouses deciding where to go on vacation and how to divide property in the event of a divorce. This method is suitable for everyone.

Each negotiation is unique and different from each other, but the main aspects are constant and unchanging. The method of principled negotiations can be used in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, when resolving one or more issues, in negotiations conducted according to a predetermined ritual, and in completely unexpected situations that require impromptu. This method will help you negotiate with both an experienced and inexperienced opponent, and with a tough-minded representative of the other side, and with someone who is polite and friendly. Principled negotiations can be conducted in any situation. Unlike most other strategies, this method is easy to use even when the other party is also using the same strategy. And the more people read this book, the easier it will be for all of us to conduct any negotiations.

I. Problem

1. Don't insist on your position

Whether your negotiations involve an important contract, a family issue, or world peace, people often have to make positional bargains. Each side takes a certain position, defends it and makes concessions in order to reach a compromise. A classic example of such negotiations is a conversation between a customer and the owner of a second-hand goods store.

Buyer: How much do you want for this copper basin?

Owner: This is a wonderful antique, isn't it? I'm ready to sell it for $75.

P.: Come on, it's too expensive! I'm ready to buy it for 15 dollars.

IN.: Are you seriously? I can offer you a small discount, but $15 is not a serious offer.

P.: Well, I can raise the price to 20 dollars, but I will never pay you 75. Name a reasonable price.

IN.: You know how to bargain, young lady. Well, okay, 60 dollars - and we're done.

P.: 25 dollars.

IN.: I bought this basin myself for much more. Name a reasonable price.

P.: 37.50 and not a cent more. This is the highest price I can accept.

IN.: See what's engraved on this basin? Next year such items will cost twice as much.

Any negotiation method can be assessed according to three criteria. Negotiations should lead to a reasonable agreement, if possible. Negotiations must be effective. And finally, they should improve, but in no case spoil, the relations between the parties. (A reasonable agreement can be considered to be one that meets the legitimate interests of all parties to a reasonable extent, fairly resolves conflicts of interest, is concluded for a long term, and takes into account the common interests of all parties involved in the negotiations.)

The most common form of negotiation, demonstrated in the example above, depends on consistently taking and then surrendering a number of positions.

Taking positions, as the customer and the store owner did, during negotiations serves several useful purposes. It shows the other party what you want; it provides support in a difficult and uncertain situation; it allows the terms of an acceptable agreement to be worked out. But all these goals can be achieved in other ways. Positional deals do not help achieve the main goal - reaching a reasonable agreement that is effective and mutually acceptable.

Disputes over positions lead to unreasonable agreements

When negotiators take certain positions, they become locked into them. The more clearly you clarify your position and the more vigorously you defend it from the attacks of the other side, the more firmly you defend it. The more you try to convince the other side that it is impossible to change your position, the more difficult it becomes for you to do so. Your ego merges with your position. You have a new interest - you need to “save face”, coordinate your future actions with the position taken in the past. And this significantly reduces the likelihood of reaching a reasonable agreement that meets the interests of both parties.

The Soviet Union agreed to three inspections, the United States insisted on ten. As a result, the negotiations failed, each side remained with its own. This is despite the fact that no one discussed either the number of inspectors or the duration of inspections. The parties made no attempt to develop an inspection procedure that would satisfy the interests of both parties.

The more attention is paid to the positions of the parties, the less is left to satisfy mutual interests.

An agreement is becoming increasingly unlikely. Any agreement reached most often reflects a mechanical smoothing out of differences between the final positions of the parties, rather than a solution that satisfies their legitimate interests. As a result, the agreement reached turns out to be less satisfactory for the parties than it could have been.

Arguing over positions is ineffective

Insisting on one's position creates factors that slow down the achievement of agreement. By insisting on your position, you are trying to increase the chances that the agreement reached will be favorable to you. To this end, you uncompromisingly stand your ground, try to mislead the other side, and only as a last resort agree to minimal concessions. The other side behaves in exactly the same way. These factors significantly delay reaching an agreement. The more extreme the positions of the parties and the fewer concessions they agree to, the more time and effort will be required to determine whether an agreement can be reached.

The standard procedure also requires a large number of individual decisions, as each side must decide what it can offer, what it must reject, and what concessions it will agree to make. Since each decision is not only not aimed at satisfying the interests of the other party, but, on the contrary, only increases pressure, a negotiator cannot count on quickly reaching agreement. Scandals, threats, stony silence - these are the most common negotiating techniques. Naturally, such methods only lead to increased time and costs for reaching agreement, and in the worst case, make agreement absolutely impossible.

Disputes over positions threaten the survival of relationships

Excessively firm defense of one's positions turns into a battle of egos. Each participant in the negotiations clearly knows what he can do and what he will not do under any circumstances. The task of reaching a mutually acceptable solution turns into a real battle. Each side tries to force the other to change its position. “I'm not going to give in. If you want to go to the cinema with me, we will watch The Maltese Falcon or not go to the cinema at all.” The result of such behavior is anger and resentment because one party is forced to submit to the will of the other party while its own legitimate interests remain unsatisfied.

Businesses that have been working together for years are separated forever. Neighbors stop talking to each other. Resentment resulting from such negotiations can last for years.

When multiple parties are involved in negotiations, the situation becomes even worse

Defending your positions often has the most negative impact on relations between the parties.

If 150 countries are involved in negotiations, as happens at a session of the UN General Assembly, it becomes almost impossible to defend your position. Everyone can say “yes”, but one person will say “no”. Mutual concessions in such a situation become difficult, if not impossible: it is not clear at all who should yield? The results of thousands of bilateral agreements are nullified by the inability to reach a multilateral agreement. In such situations, defending one's own position leads to the formation of coalitions within the parties, whose common interests are often more symbolic than real. At the UN, such coalitions lead to negotiations between North and South, between East and West. Since each group has many members, it becomes very difficult to develop a common position. What’s worse, after everyone has worked out a common position with great difficulty, it becomes simply impossible to move away from it. Changing a position is further complicated by the fact that authoritative participants who may have been absent at the time of its development may categorically refuse to approve the result obtained.

Agreeing with everyone is not the answer

Many people understand the negative role of actively defending their own position, in particular its detrimental impact on relations between the parties. They hope to avoid this by negotiating more sensitively. Instead of viewing the other side as an enemy, they prefer to treat them in a friendly manner. Instead of seeking to win, they recognize the need to reach agreement.

The table below shows two styles of asserting your own position: delicate and tough. Most people believe that this is the only way to negotiate. After studying the table, think about whether you are a supporter of a delicate or tough style. Or maybe you prefer an intermediate strategy? A delicate negotiation game is conducted with the aim of strengthening and maintaining relations between the parties. Negotiations between relatives and friends are conducted this way. The process is generally effective. At least the results are achieved fairly quickly. When each party competes with the other in generosity and selflessness, agreement is easily achieved. But such consent is not always reasonable. Of course, the results may not be as tragic as in O'Henry's story "The Gift of the Magi." Remember how the husband sold his watch to buy his wife a beautiful comb, and she sold her hair to buy her husband a gold chain for his watch? However, any negotiations related to personal relationships may always not give the best results. More seriously, a soft, friendly negotiating style leaves you vulnerable to those who play hardball and assertively defend their position. In such a situation, the hard game dominates the soft game. If the second party insists on concessions, and the first makes them out of fear of ruining the relationship, the negotiation game ends in favor of the hard-line supporter. The process leads to an agreement, although this agreement is not the most reasonable one. It is much more favorable to the hard participant than to the gentle person. If you find yourself in a similar situation and choose to play the role of peacemaker, prepare to lose your shirt.

Preface

Over the past ten years, interest in the art of negotiation has grown significantly in professional and academic circles. New theoretical works have been published, research and numerous experiments have been conducted. Ten years ago, very few law colleges and departments offered a course on the art of negotiation, but now it is part of the required curriculum. Universities are opening special faculties dedicated to the art of negotiation. Consulting firms do the same thing in the corporate world.
Despite the fact that the situation in the world is constantly changing, the ideas presented in our book remain unshakable and constant. They have stood the test of time, received wide recognition, and are often the basis from which authors of other books build.
We hope that our answers to “10 Questions on How to Always Hear Yes” will be helpful and of interest to you.
We have divided the questions into several groups. The first includes questions about the meaning and scope of “principled” negotiations (we are talking about practical issues, not moral ones). The second category includes negotiations with people who do not want to make concessions, who profess a different system of values and adhere to a different system of negotiations. The third includes questions related to tactics (where to negotiate, who should make the first proposal, how to move from listing options to making commitments). And to the fourth group we included issues related to the role of government influence during the negotiation process.

Introduction

Whether you like it or not, you are constantly involved in negotiations. Negotiations are an integral part of our life. You are discussing a salary increase with your boss. You are trying to persuade a stranger to lower the price of the house you are about to buy. Two lawyers argue in court over who is at fault for a car accident. A group of oil companies plans to create a joint venture to exploit a field in an offshore zone. A government official meets with union leaders to avoid a national strike. The United States Secretary of State is conferring with his Russian counterpart regarding the reduction of nuclear weapons. And it's all negotiations.
A person participates in negotiations every day. Remember Moliere's Jourdain, who was happy to learn that he spoke in prose. People participate in negotiations even when they are not aware of it. You are involved in negotiations with your spouse about dinner and with your children about when to go to bed. Negotiation is the main way to get what you want from others. This is a way of communication aimed at achieving agreement in a situation where you and the other party have common interests, but at the same time there are opposing ones.
More and more life situations require negotiations. Conflicts are growing and expanding. Everyone wants to be involved in decisions that affect their lives. Fewer and fewer people are willing to accept decisions that someone else has made for them. People are different from each other, and negotiations are necessary in order to smooth out these differences. Whether we are talking about business, government or family problems, most decisions are made through negotiations. Even when going to court, people try to reach an agreement before the trial.
Although negotiations take place every day, it is very difficult to conduct them well. Standard strategies often leave participants exhausted, alienated, and dissatisfied.
People are faced with a dilemma. They recognize two ways of negotiating: delicate and tough. When choosing the first method, a person tries with all his might to avoid personal conflicts and makes concessions in order to achieve agreement. He wants to reach a solution that would suit both parties, but as a result he feels deceived. A person who has chosen a tough style of negotiation views any situation that arises as a conflict of egos, in which only those who insist on their own can win. He wants to win, but more often than not he encounters an even tougher position. This is exhausting, drains strength and resources, and spoils relationships between participants. There are intermediate negotiation strategies, but each of them boils down to trying to reach an agreement between what you want to get and what others are willing to give you.
There is a third way of negotiations, which can be neither delicate nor tough. It combines features of both methods. This is a method of principled negotiations developed within the framework of the Harvard Negotiation Project. This method of negotiation takes into account the true interests of both parties, and does not boil down to a meaningless discussion of what each of the participants is ready to do and what they will not do for anything. The basic premise is that participants strive to find a mutually beneficial solution, and when a conflict of interest arises, the decision should be based on fair standards, independent of the wishes of the parties. The method of principled negotiations is harsh in relation to the issues being resolved, but “delicate” towards people. There is no room for dirty tricks and pointless stubbornness. Principled negotiations will help you achieve what you want and avoid becoming a trickster and a deceiver. You will be able to remain fair and at the same time protect yourself from those who want to take advantage of your fairness.
The book is devoted to methods of conducting principled negotiations. In the first chapter we will discuss the problems that arise with the use of standard position trading strategies. In the next four chapters we will talk about the four principles of our proposed method. In the last three chapters you will find the answer to the most frequently asked questions: “What to do if the enemy turns out to be stronger?”, “What to do if he does not want to play on our terms?”, “What to do if he resorts to dirty tricks ?
The principled negotiation method can be used by American diplomats negotiating nuclear arms reductions with Russia, Wall Street lawyers representing major companies, and spouses deciding where to go on vacation and how to divide property in the event of a divorce. This method is suitable for everyone.
Each negotiation is unique and different from each other, but the main aspects are constant and unchanging. The method of principled negotiations can be used in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, when resolving one or more issues, in negotiations conducted according to a predetermined ritual, and in completely unexpected situations that require impromptu. This method will help you negotiate with both an experienced and inexperienced opponent, and with a tough-minded representative of the other side, and with someone who is polite and friendly. Principled negotiations can be conducted in any situation. Unlike most other strategies, this method is easy to use even when the other party is also using the same strategy. And the more people read this book, the easier it will be for all of us to conduct any negotiations.

I. Problem

1. Don't insist on your position

Buyer: How much do you want for this copper basin?
Owner: This is a wonderful antique, isn't it? I'm ready to sell it for $75.
P.: Come on, it’s too expensive! I'm ready to buy it for 15 dollars.
Q: Are you serious? I can offer you a small discount, but $15 is not a serious offer.
P.: Well, I can raise the price to 20 dollars, but I will never pay you 75. Name a reasonable price.
Q: You know how to bargain, young lady. Well, okay, 60 dollars - and we're done.
P.: 25 dollars.
V.: I bought this basin myself for much more. Name a reasonable price.
P.: 37.50 and not a cent more. This is the highest price I can accept.
Q: Do you see what is engraved on this basin? Next year such items will cost twice as much.
And so on and so forth. Maybe they will reach an agreement, maybe not.

Negotiations should lead to a reasonable agreement, if possible. They must be effective: improve or at least not spoil the relationship between the parties.

Disputes over positions lead to unreasonable agreements

The danger that trench warfare can make negotiations difficult can be illustrated by a well-known example. Let us recall the negotiations between President Kennedy and the Soviet Union regarding the ban on nuclear weapons testing. During the negotiations, a critical question arose: How many inspections per year should the Soviet Union and the United States conduct on each other's territory in response to suspicious seismic activity?
The Soviet Union agreed to three inspections, the United States insisted on ten. As a result, the negotiations failed, each side remained with its own. This is despite the fact that no one discussed either the number of inspectors or the duration of inspections. The parties made no attempt to develop an inspection procedure that would satisfy the interests of both parties.
The more attention is paid to the positions of the parties, the less is left to satisfy mutual interests.
An agreement is becoming increasingly unlikely. Any agreement reached most often reflects a mechanical smoothing out of differences between the final positions of the parties, rather than a solution that satisfies their legitimate interests. As a result, the agreement reached turns out to be less satisfactory for the parties than it could have been.

Arguing over positions is ineffective

The standard method of negotiating can lead either to an agreement, as in the issue of the price of a copper basin, or to a break, as happened in the discussion of limiting nuclear weapons. In any case, the process takes quite a long time.
Insisting on one's position creates factors that slow down the achievement of agreement. By insisting on your position, you are trying to increase the chances that the agreement reached will be favorable to you. To this end, you uncompromisingly stand your ground, try to mislead the other side, and only as a last resort agree to minimal concessions. The other side behaves in exactly the same way. These factors significantly delay reaching an agreement. The more extreme the positions of the parties and the fewer concessions they agree to, the more time and effort will be required to determine whether an agreement can be reached.
The standard procedure also requires a large number of individual decisions, as each side must decide what it can offer, what it must reject, and what concessions it will agree to make. Since each decision is not only not aimed at satisfying the interests of the other party, but, on the contrary, only increases pressure, a negotiator cannot count on quickly reaching agreement. Scandals, threats, stony silence - these are the most common negotiating techniques. Naturally, such methods only lead to increased time and costs for reaching agreement, and in the worst case, make agreement absolutely impossible.

Disputes over positions threaten the survival of relationships

Businesses that have been working together for years are separated forever. Neighbors stop talking to each other. Resentment resulting from such negotiations can last for years.

When multiple parties are involved in negotiations, the situation becomes even worse

Although it is much more convenient to discuss negotiations in which there are two parties, that is, you and the other party, in reality there are almost always many more participants. Several parties can gather at the table at once, and each has its own constituents, management, boards of directors and committees that determine their strategy. The more people participate in negotiations, the more serious the consequences of actively defending their positions.
Defending your positions often has the most negative impact on relations between the parties.
If 150 countries are involved in negotiations, as happens at a session of the UN General Assembly, it becomes almost impossible to defend your position. Everyone can say “yes”, but one person will say “no”. Mutual concessions in such a situation become difficult, if not impossible: it is not clear at all who should yield? The results of thousands of bilateral agreements are nullified by the inability to reach a multilateral agreement. In such situations, defending one's own position leads to the formation of coalitions within the parties, whose common interests are often more symbolic than real. At the UN, such coalitions lead to negotiations between North and South, between East and West. Since each group has many members, it becomes very difficult to develop a common position. What’s worse, after everyone has worked out a common position with great difficulty, it becomes simply impossible to move away from it. Changing a position is further complicated by the fact that authoritative participants who may have been absent at the time of its development may categorically refuse to approve the result obtained.

Agreeing with everyone is not the answer

In a delicate negotiation game, standard steps include offers and concessions to demonstrate trust, friendliness, and avoid confrontation to the other party.

There is always an alternative

If you don't like the choice between soft and hard bargaining, you can change the game.
The negotiation game is always conducted at two levels. At one level, negotiations are about the substance of the issue; on the other, they focus (usually unconditionally) on the procedure for resolving a given issue. Negotiations may be about your salary, the terms of the lease, or the price paid (first level). At the second level, the question of how you will discuss the essence of the issue is decided: by taking a sensitive position, taking a tough position, or some other method. The second level is the game within the game, the so-called metagame. Every move you make in negotiations is not just about salary, rent or price. It aims to structure the rules of the game you play. Your movement can keep negotiations within the chosen model, or it can lead to a change in the nature of the game.
The second level of negotiation often goes unnoticed because it does not seem to require conscious decisions. It is only when the negotiations are with representatives of another country, and especially when there are significant cultural differences, that you have to realize the need to develop rules for substantive negotiations. But, consciously or not, you are always negotiating rules of procedure. Every move you make serves this purpose, even if it seems that they are all related solely to the essence of the issue.
If you want to get the right answer to the question of which playing style is preferable - soft or hard, we can tell you emphatically: neither of them. Change the game. As part of the Harvard Negotiation Project, we have developed an alternative to taking a stand. Our negotiation method is aimed at achieving reasonable results quickly, efficiently and without compromising the personal relationships between the participants. This method is called principled negotiations and is based on four basic principles.

If you want to get the right answer to the question of which playing style is preferable - soft or hard, we can tell you emphatically: neither of them.

These four principles define a straightforward negotiation method that can be used in almost any environment. Each principle relates to a basic element of negotiation and provides a clear picture of what needs to be done.

PEOPLE: Separate the people from the problem
INTERESTS: Focus on interests, not positions
OPTIONS: Find mutually beneficial options
CRITERIA: Insist on using objective criteria

The first principle has to do with the fact that people are not computers. Each of us has strong emotions, which often distort perceptions and complicate communication. Emotions, as a rule, are associated with the objective value of the problem. Taking a stand for your own position only makes the situation worse, as the egos of the participants become inextricably fused with their positions. Thus, before getting to the heart of the matter, it is necessary to separate the people from the problem and deal with these aspects in turn. Figuratively, if not literally, negotiators must understand that they are working hand in hand. They are fighting the problem, not each other. And hence the formulation of our first principle: separate people from
Problems.
The second principle is designed to overcome the consequences of overly active defense of one's own position, since the task of negotiations is to satisfy the interests of each party. The position taken in negotiations is often completely different from what you really want. Compromise between positions does not always lead to an agreement that effectively satisfies the interests of the people who took those positions. And hence our second principle: focus on interests, not positions.
The third principle reflects the difficulty of making optimal decisions under pressure. Having to make a decision in the presence of an enemy significantly limits your options. When there's a lot at stake, it's hard to feel creative freedom. It is no less difficult to find the only correct solution. You have to overcome very serious constraints, since you have to consider a lot of options in a very limited time. And besides, you must also take into account completely different interests. Not surprisingly, our third principle can be stated as follows: Before attempting to reach an agreement, look for options that would serve mutual benefit.
When interests are sharply opposed, negotiators can achieve the desired outcome simply through stubbornness. This method rewards persistence and produces arbitrary results. However, even such an opponent can be countered by insisting that his proposals are clearly insufficient and that the agreement must reflect fair standards that do not depend on the will of either side. This doesn't mean you should only insist on your own standards. No, absolutely neutral standards should be chosen as a criterion, such as market value, expert opinion, customs regulations or legal requirements. Discuss these criteria, not what each side wants or doesn't want to do, or what each side should concede to the other. A fair decision will benefit all parties. Hence our fourth principle: insist on using objective
criteria.
The principled negotiation method has nothing to do with the hard and soft styles, and this is reflected in the table below. The basic principles of the negotiation style we have developed are highlighted in bold in the table.