Previous
Introduction
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Getting to Yes, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Effective Negotiation
Negotiation as the Pursuit of Interests
The Value of Working Relationships
Power Imbalance
Preparation and Flexibility
Summary
Analysis
Negotiations usually involve positional bargaining. This means that both sides choose a position to defend and end up at something in the middle, like when a shopkeeper quotes a price and a customer bargains them down. Effective negotiation strategies have three traits: they lead to wise agreements, they are efficient, and they do not worsen the negotiating parties’ relationship. While positional bargaining lets people clearly communicate their interests in a negotiation, it usually does not lead to wise agreements.
“Positional bargaining” is just a more technical term for what people usually think of when they hear the word “negotiation”: two or more parties come together, declare what they want to do, and fight until they reach some midpoint they can agree on. Everyone has a preferred proposal, but at the end of the day, nobody gets the proposal they wanted. While this might make sense when haggling over prices, in virtually every other situation it is too black-and-white. It is a fight over pre-established plans, not a collaborative search for a solution to everyone’s needs. But in reality, negotiators should care about the results of a negotiated agreement more than who originally proposed the agreement.
Themes
The first problem with positional bargaining is that “arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes.” People often irrationally stick to their initial positions in order to “save face.”
Although a negotiator may think that the best way to get what they want is to openly propose and defend a plan, the other side will probably never agree to simply follow this plan—just like a negotiator will almost never agree to the other side’s opening proposal. Positional bargainers forget that there are several possible ways to get what they want, and it is counterproductive and childish to insist on getting their way rather than someone else’s—even if their own plan produces a worse outcome for everyone.
Themes
For instance, talks about nuclear inspections between the United States and the Soviet Union broke down because each side refused to change the initial number inspections it asked for. But they never ever got to discussing how the inspections would work.
In this example, the parties got so caught up in fighting over control of the negotiation process that they never even got to addressing the substance of the negotiation. The authors imply that smarter negotiators would have immediately recognized that the sheer number of inspections is far less important than the quality of those inspections—which also opens more negotiating room. For instance, the United States could agree to Russia’s proposed number of inspections but request that these inspections to be more extensive.
Themes
Similarly, Iraq’s national oil company wanted to take land from a group of farmers, which led to a standoff. A negotiator resolved this by pointing out that the farmers could harvest their yearly crop, then share the land with the oil company.
This principled negotiator saved the day by pointing out that while the two sides’ positions were opposed, their real interests were actually compatible. Both sides could get what they want—their animosity was purely personal and totally irrelevant to the actual substance of the negotiation. This illustrates the difference between positional bargaining (which debates positions) and principled negotiation (which focuses on interests).
Themes
Get the entire Getting to Yes LitChart as a printable PDF.
These examples show why positional bargaining actually prevents parties from getting what they really want. Instead of choosing the average between the two sides’ positions, it is often possible to find solutions that give everyone most of what they want.
Positional bargaining tends to get ahead of itself by starting with proposals and solutions, rather than the needs and desires that are actually driving parties to the negotiation table. Because positional bargainers define winning a negotiation as getting what they want while preventing the other side from getting what it wants, they overlook straightforward win-win solutions that give everyone what they want.
Themes
Next, the authors explain that “arguing over positions is inefficient.” Whether parties reach an agreement or eventually give up, positional bargaining takes much longer than the alternative. It incentivizes people to stick with their initial extreme positions and yield as little as possible over time. Moreover, it forces people to decide individually what offers and concessions they are willing to make. Positional bargainers also often delay the negotiation process to exhaust their opponents. Ultimately, these factors make negotiations slow, inefficient, and unlikely to produce wise agreements.
Again, positional bargaining’s error is that it unnecessarily frames negotiators as opponents and the negotiation process as a conflict of wills. Therefore, it incentivizes negotiators to prove their commitment by fighting for their side, rather than to actually advocate for their side’s best interests by searching for an agreement. In fact, negotiation has such a negative reputation in large part because it is such an arduous, warlike process under positional bargaining.
Themes
The authors note that “arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship.” People often see the process of positional bargaining as a battle, and they try to force the other person to give up or give in. This creates anger and bitterness, unnecessarily ruining relationships in the process.
Positional bargaining creates a cycle of antagonism and dysfunction: it portrays negotiators as enemies, which leads them to have a sour relationship. This makes their negotiations even less effective because they become more and more interested in “winning” rather than reaching agreement. Negotiating effectively will clearly require breaking this cycle.
Themes
The authors then explain that “when there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse.” In reality, most negotiations involve more than two parties—but this makes positional bargaining less and less effective. The more numerous the parties, the less it works. For instance, this tactic would never work in the United Nations, where hundreds of different delegations have to cooperate and must all reach some common agreement.
When looking at larger, multilateral negotiations, the problems with positional bargaining become even more evident. The authors point out that it would be impossible for every country in the United Nations to rigidly demand that everyone else agree to a specific proposal—so why is that a reasonable way to act in smaller negotiations among just a handful of parties?
Themes
Next, the authors argue that “Being nice is no answer” to the difficulties posed by positional bargaining. In a table, they contrast hard and soft negotiation. Hard negotiators treat other parties as enemies to defeat through demands, threats, and lies. Meanwhile, soft negotiators view other parties as friends and value reaching agreements, so they make concessions, offer their trust, and prioritize the other party’s needs. This avoids conflict and leads to quick agreements, but it forces the soft negotiator to cede control and sacrifice their goals. Accordingly, hard negotiators easily take advantage of soft negotiators.
While soft negotiators prioritize relationships over substance, hard negotiators prioritize substance over relationships. This gives them power over soft negotiators in a negotiation, but wielding power in order to crush the opposition is not a very effective or sustainable negotiation tactic in the long term. Soft negotiators are right to value relationships beyond the scope of a single dispute, but hard negotiators are right to seriously advocate for their interests. So both are partially right, but both also make the fundamental error of letting substance and relationships come into conflict in the first place.
Themes
The authors promise that “there is an alternative.” They explain that all negotiations involve two levels. The first is the substantive negotiation of whatever is at stake. But the second is an implicit procedural negotiation of the rules of the substantive negotiation. In other words, every move in the negotiation also affects the very rules of the negotiation—for instance, whether it is hard or soft. Negotiators can choose hard or soft negotiating principles, but they can always also choose to change the rules of the negotiation itself.
By separating the substantive and procedural levels of a negotiation, the authors point out that it is possible to resolve substantive conflict without procedural conflict. In other words, people can and should work out their differences amicably. And this procedural level is totally within their control. All parties do not need to explicitly agree to doing a principled negotiation (although that certainly does help). Rather, by simply refusing to engage in positional bargaining, negotiators can change the game entirely.
Themes
As an alternative to soft and hard negotiation, the authors have developed the principled negotiation method (also called “negotiation on the merits”). It has four main principles, which deal with people, interests, options, and criteria. First, negotiators should view themselves as a team in order to prevent egos and emotions from getting in the way of finding a solution. In other words, they should “separate the people from the problem.” Secondly, negotiators should “focus on interests, not positions.” Thirdly, because pressure and conflict stifle people’s creativity, negotiating parties should “invent options for mutual gain” before they decide on a final solution to their problems. Finally, the best antidote to stubborn hard negotiators is to “insist on using objective criteria” (like experts, laws, or markets).
The main difference between principled negotiation and positional bargaining is the way each strategy views the procedural goals of negotiation. While both agree that negotiators’ substantive goal is to fulfill their (or their constituents’) interests, positional bargaining assumes that the procedural goal is to defeat the other side in a conflict. Principled negotiation, however, assumes that the procedural goal is to reach the best possible agreement as quickly and painlessly as possible. In other words, positional bargaining views negotiation as a situation of conflict, while principled negotiation views negotiation as an opportunity for collaboration.
Themes
The process of negotiation has three stages, all of which force negotiators to deal with people, interests, options, and criteria. Analysis involves understanding the situation, including the negotiators’ feelings and interests. Planning requires exploring and evaluating possible solutions, not only to fulfill people’s interests but also to resolve interpersonal problems. Finally, discussion involves working through differences and building mutual understanding in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement. In summary, principled negotiation leads to wise agreements, is more efficient than positional bargaining, and also preserves amicable relationships.
Notably, positional bargaining skips over the first two stages of negotiation—rather, it has parties arrive at the bargaining table with fully-formed plans and forces them to discuss these plans without asking first developing mutual understanding or collaborating on mutually satisfactory options. By asking negotiators to forego overly-detailed plans and demands, the authors force them to actually take the other side and its needs seriously, which helps them reach a wiser agreement.
Themes
