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."
Every week H&F reads one business book and selects the most interesting points from it. This time we read a book about the so-called “Harvard method” of negotiations, which teaches us to perceive opponents as accomplices in solving a common problem, and not as enemies.
Roger FISCHER
Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, government consultant
on conflict resolution
William URY
Co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project, global negotiations consultant
Bruce PATTON
Advocate,
Deputy Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project
Typical negotiation scenario
The most common form of negotiation depends on consistently taking and then surrendering a series of positions. When negotiators take certain positions, they become locked into them. The more accurately you clarify your position and the more fiercely you defend it from attacks from 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. Excessively firm defense of one's positions turns into a battle of egos.
Harvard method
People 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.
Negotiators must understand that they are working hand in hand. They are fighting the problem, not each other.
There is a third method that combines the features of the previous two - this is the method of principled negotiations, developed within the framework of the Harvard Negotiation Project. This method 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.
Separate people from money
A key feature of negotiations that is often forgotten at corporate or international events is that you are not dealing with abstract representatives of the “other side”, but with people. People have value systems and points of view. Each of them is completely unique and unpredictable. And you are exactly the same. 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. Negotiators must understand that they are working hand in hand. They are fighting the problem, not each other.
True interests of the parties
The most powerful interests are basic human needs. When examining the basic interests behind stated positions, first identify those that are common to all people. If you can meet these needs, you will greatly increase the chances of reaching an agreement. And if an agreement is reached, the other side will definitely fulfill it. Basic human needs include the following: security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life. Because these needs are so obvious, they are often underestimated. During the negotiations, it seems to us that the only and main interest of all parties is money.
Be fair
Insist on using objective criteria. 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.
Trust the other side
Don't conflate the other party's intentions with your fears. People often assume that the other party wants to do exactly what they fear. Let's take an example from the New York Times. “They met in a bar and he offered her a ride home. He took her along an unfamiliar route, saying that this road was shorter. He got her home so quickly that she was on time for the ten o'clock television news." Why is the ending of this story so surprising to us? Because our assumptions were based on our own fears. It is very easy to fall into the habit of interpreting the other party's words and actions in the worst possible way.
Perhaps the best way to change perceptions
the other hand is to send a message different from the one
what do they expect
Suspicion becomes second nature, which is very difficult to give up. They seem “safe,” but the habit of interpreting everything the other party says and does in the worst light prevents you from objectively accepting new ideas and, therefore, slows down the achievement of agreement. Blinded by your own negative attitude, you simply do not notice minor changes in position and concessions that the other side makes. They make your opponents real villains in your eyes. Look for opportunities to interact with the other party's perceptions. Perhaps the best way to change the other party's perception is to send a different message than what they expect.
Create together
If the other party is not involved in the process, they are unlikely to approve the outcome. It's very simple. If you come to the insurance adjuster after doing a lot of research and preparing for a fight, he will feel threatened by you and will resist your proposals with all his might. If you want the other party to agree to a conclusion that contradicts their point of view, you must involve them in the process of developing that conclusion. Usually you meet halfway, making sure that everything has been worked out. However, the other party would be much more likely to agree to your terms if they felt involved in the process of making those changes. Then the changes would be just one step in a long process of preparation. And so one of the parties offers the other a ready-made product that only needs approval.
In order to effectively involve the other party in this process, you must do so at a very early stage. Ask for advice. Share your own ideas generously so you don't have to defend them to the other side. It's hard to resist the temptation to do everything yourself, but involving the other party in the process of developing a solution pays off. In addition to material benefits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the most important factor determining whether a negotiator will accept an offer.
Don't be shy about emotions
Discuss with all negotiators their emotions. Talk about your own feelings. If you say, “You know, we feel like we're being treated unfairly and it worries us. We are afraid that the agreement will not be fulfilled even if you and I reach it. Our doubts may seem irrational to you, but they exist. Personally, I think that most likely we are mistaken, but you can’t control your feelings. Maybe you feel something similar too? - It won't harm you in any way. Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people are more willing to start working on the problem.
Give the other side a chance to blow off steam. Very often, the most effective way to deal with anger is to give yourself the opportunity to release it.
Make your own feelings and the other party's emotions the subject of discussion. In this way, you will not in any way reduce the seriousness of the problem under discussion, but you will transfer the negotiations from the reactive phase to the “proactive” phase. Give the other side a chance to blow off steam. Often the most effective way to deal with anger, depression and other negative feelings is to give yourself the opportunity to release them. People experience psychological relief by throwing off the burden of such emotions.
Voice someone else's position
Until you acknowledge that you heard what the other party said and demonstrate full understanding, your partners will be convinced that you did not hear them. When you try to explain a different point of view, your opponents will think that you completely misunderstood them. “I explained my point of view to him, and now he says something completely opposite. So he didn’t understand me.” And instead of listening to your point of view, your negotiating partners will only think about how to explain their arguments in a more accessible and understandable way for you. Be sure to demonstrate your understanding. “Let's discuss whether I understood you correctly. Do you think the situation is like this..."
When repeating that you understand what the other negotiators have said, phrase the phrases in a positive way, increasing their impact on the interlocutors. You can say, “You are in a strong position. Let's see if I understood you correctly. That’s what worries me...” Understanding does not mean agreement. A person can absolutely understand the interlocutor and completely disagree with his words. But if you fail to convince your interlocutor that you fully understand his words, you will never explain your point of view to him.
The importance of one-on-one
In order to reduce the unpleasant and distracting effect that third parties have on negotiators, it is very useful to develop a personal, confidential style of communication with the other party. Communication can be improved by limiting the number of participants in group meetings. During the negotiations between Yugoslavia, Britain and the United States over the Trieste issue in 1954, not the slightest progress was made. And then the heads of the delegations abandoned their assistants and began to meet alone in an informal setting. It doesn’t matter how many people take part in the negotiations, important decisions, as a rule, are made when no more than two people remain in the room.
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. After all, 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.
This book can be purchased from the publishing house Mann, Ivanov and Ferber
What is this book about?
The book is devoted to methods of conducting principled negotiations that will help you achieve the desired results in negotiations at any level. In addition, the authors added another useful section to it: “10 questions on how to always hear “yes”,” which contains answers to questions about fairness, relationships between people, tactics and power within the negotiation process.
What does the book consist of?
The book consists of the theoretical foundations of principled negotiations and practical, including historical, examples of their application.
Who is this book for?
The book will be most useful for those whose work involves negotiations. However, many of the tips from it will help you come to an agreement even with the most intractable interlocutors in everyday life.
Have you ever participated in negotiations? The answer to this question is often “no.” This is understandable: the proportion of professions in which you need to resort to oratory and convince your opponent to make a deal is not so large. However, the authors of the cult book “Negotiations without defeat. The Harvard Method by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton offers the reader a new perspective on negotiations.
It turns out that we enter into negotiations every day. Trying to change your grade with a teacher, increase your salary with your boss, buy a product at a discount, choose a movie to watch with a friend, or discuss a route for a walk with your family - all these are examples from everyday life when we have to defend our position. The authors of the book offer a time-tested way to achieve what you want.
This method involves conducting principled negotiations. It is contrasted with the often used method of positional negotiations, where the parties state their positions and try to “smooth out” the differences between them. The principled negotiation method means that in order to achieve a mutually beneficial solution, it is necessary to take into account the true interests of the parties, and not the stated positions of the participants. However, according to a survey conducted by THE WALL (125 people took part in it; the results are reflected in the infographic below), 21.3% of people do not see any differences between the interests and positions of the participants. To solve this problem, the book describes many ways, and also provides simple and successful examples of separation of positions and interests:
“Two people are sitting in the library. One wants to open the window, the other prefers it to remain closed. They begin to argue about how far the window can be opened: make a small crack, open half, three-quarters, or not open at all. No solution satisfies the disputants.
The librarian enters. He asks one of the arguers why he wants to open the window. “So that there is fresh air in the room.” He then asks the other why he objects. “So that there is no draft.” After thinking for a minute, the librarian opens the window in the next room. The room becomes fresh, but at the same time there is no draft.” 
The method of principled negotiations, by discussing the interests of the other party (often unpredictable in advance), allows you to solve problems in a way that cannot be achieved alone. That is why the book contains advice that seems paradoxical at first glance: you should not conduct research in advance and prepare your own solution to the problem (60.2%, according to the results of our publication’s survey, do just that) and you should not even determine the lower limit of the agreement (84.3% determine) . However, all this does not mean that you should not prepare for negotiations in advance; on the contrary, it is necessary to do this, but in a different way, and in the book the authors tell you exactly how.
Separately, Harvard experts consider ways to combat “dirty” techniques in negotiations. For example, with positional pressure, in which your opponent deliberately forces you to make concessions, or with psychological methods aimed at making you feel uncomfortable and strive to end the negotiations as quickly as possible. “Dirty” tricks also mean deliberate deception and personal attacks. According to a survey of young people aged 18 to 25, the majority of respondents have encountered such problems and many of them do not know how to competently continue negotiations if such situations arise.
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 unwavering 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.