Previous
Chapter 1
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
Problems usually lead to conflict, even when they do not need to. For instance, a worker might object to getting extra work, which the boss was giving them as a reward for being the best worker. Or a government official might yell at a lawyer pointing out an unfair regulation rather than hearing them out.
These examples show how people often deeply misunderstand others’ intentions and imagine conflicts that do not really exist, especially in relation to events that summon intense emotions. On the flipside, this also shows how easy many of these conflicts are to resolve. This speaks to the importance of clarifying the stakes of a negotiation and the actual nature of the various sides’ disagreement.
Themes
The authors note that “negotiators are people first,” even if this can be hard to remember during actual negotiations. Trusting, respectful friendships between negotiators can lead to smooth, mutually-satisfying outcomes. But anger and offense between them can lead to misunderstandings and spiraling conflicts that eventually undermine the entire negotiation process. Negotiators should constantly ask themselves if they are taking “the people problem” seriously enough.
The first rule of principled negotiation, “separate the people from the problem,” does not mean that negotiators should ignore personal issues and just focus on business. Rather, it means that they should take them both seriously and work on both diligently, while recognizing that substantive disagreements do not require personal disagreements. In fact, a positive working relationship virtually always improves the substantive dimension of the negotiation.
Themes
The authors argue that “Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship.” In addition to a sale, for instance, a storekeeper wants a regular customer. In many cases, negotiators are much more invested in their ongoing relationship than they are in any individual negotiation.
While good relationships improve the quality and efficiency of negotiations, this is not the only reason they matter. They are also a valuable goal in and of themselves. And this interest in an amicable relationship is usually a shared interest, which makes it an effective starting point for collaborative negotiations.
Themes
When a negotiation turns sour, so does the negotiators’ relationship, because people often conflate their feelings about situations with their feelings about the people responsible for those situations. One major problem with positional bargaining is that it makes all negotiations into conflicts, which means it negatively affects relationships. Positional bargaining pits the relationship against the negotiators’ interests, often forcing negotiators to sacrifice one or the other.
Ironically, one reason that negotiators often forget to address emotions is that they wrongly view negotiations as only about business. As a result, they fail to take personal relationships seriously, conflate their feelings about substance with their feelings about people, and end up making poor decisions. This is precisely because they are guided by their emotions rather than their interests.
Themes
Get the entire Getting to Yes LitChart as a printable PDF.
The authors introduce the principle that negotiators must “Disentangle the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem.” If all parties in a negotiation are willing to fix the perceptual, emotional, and communicative problems they face, then they can reach better agreements and negotiate without sacrificing their relationship.
The authors’ main point is that principled negotiators will always pursue an amicable working relationship, regardless of the substance of a discussion—and the first steps to doing so is establishing an explicit mutual understanding among all parties. Perception, emotion, and communication are the three areas in which substance can interfere with the relationship.
Themes
Many disagreements are really only the products of differences in understanding. Studying the objective facts of a situation is important, but not enough to overcome fundamental differences in hopes, fears, and beliefs.
Because people’s perception of facts influences how they negotiate, regardless of what the actual facts are, negotiators must make an effort to understand how one another see the situation. This is more effective than just assuming that everyone agrees on basic facts that, in reality, different people might interpret differently.
Themes
The authors offer a few principles about how to address differences of perspective in a negotiation. First, since people generally focus on the facts that support their expectations and biases, negotiators should try to fairly and empathetically imagine the situation from the other side’s perspective.
It can be difficult to summon empathy in negotiations with people whose interests differ from (or are opposed to) one’s own. However, simply trying to see the situation from the other side’s perspective is the most important step that negotiators can take to truly understand everybody’s interests, iron out misunderstandings, build effective relationships, and signal a desire to switch from positional bargaining to principled negotiation.
Themes
Secondly, people should not confuse their worst fears with the other side’s intentions. Viewing the other side in the worst possible light lets us reinforce our own existing beliefs, which makes agreements harder to achieve.
Again, people’s tendency to imagine negotiations as battles among opposing sides leads them to misinterpret one another. When there seems to be a disconnect between their own thinking and the other side’s, negotiators should consider whether their own prejudices might be responsible.
Themes
Thirdly, negotiators should avoid automatically blaming the other side for the existence of the problem in the first place. Even when the problem is really their fault, blame is counterproductive.
Even genuine, justified negative emotions are likely to sour negotiations, so they should always be kept separate from the substance. Indeed, it is important to separate people from substance even when the negotiators’ personal relationship is irreparably negative, because at least the negotiators can try to leave this negativity at the door (without totally repressing it).
Themes
Ultimately, the best way to create a shared understanding of a problem is for all sides to honestly and explicitly discuss their perceptions of the problem. If one side can satisfy the other’s needs without sacrificing their own, negotiators should point this out. Usually, they wrongly ignore such concessions, thinking that they do not need to appear in the negotiation because they are not up for debate.
By having a straightforward, honest conversation about everyone’s goals, negotiators create a basic, shared understanding that the rest of their negotiation process can build upon. It also allows them to figure out which interests are shared, opposed, and simply different. Then, they only have to deal with serious conflict over the opposed interests (not all of them, as in positional bargaining).
Themes
For instance, during the Law of the Sea Conference, a group of developing countries asked a group of industrialized countries to share technical knowledge about deep-sea mining with them. The developed countries were happy to do so, so they quickly agreed, then spent all their time focused on points of conflict. Instead, they should have worked out a detailed technology transfer plan to show that they understood developing countries’ perspective and interests. This would have provided a solid incentive for everyone to make the whole agreement succeed.
The example of the Law of the Sea Conference shows how negotiators should make a point of taking the other side’s interests seriously when this does not worsen their own position. In this case, the developed countries could offer a “free” concession—they lost nothing from sharing technology, while the developing countries gained something valuable. Although substantively, this is a no-brainer to include in the negotiated agreement, on a personal level, this “free” concession offered the developed countries an excellent opportunity to build a strong relationship. The agreement thus gave the developing countries an incentive to cooperate in the future.
Themes
The best strategy for changing the other side’s perceptions is to disprove them through action. For instance, when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visited Israel in 1977, four years after a war between the two countries, he forced Israel to start seeing him as a partner rather than an enemy.
A positional bargainer would see Sadat’s visit as a one-sided concession that makes him look weak. But a principled negotiator would realize that Sadat had nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a gesture of friendship. Ultimately, the chain of events following this gesture resolved a war and created a decades-long alliance between Egypt and Israel.
Themes
In order to create effective outcomes, negotiators from both sides must actively work together to shape it. In particular, if a resolution negatively impacts someone, they should be involved in the process of reaching that resolution. Even when an agreement is supposed to benefit the other party, that other party is unlikely to agree if they were never included in writing it. If both sides feel like they contributed something to an agreement, that agreement becomes much easier to reach. Effective negotiators involve the other side in the process from the beginning and give them credit where credit is due.
It is ineffective to simply impose a negative resolution on someone because doing so entangles the people and the problem: it both harms them substantively and excludes their voice from the negotiation process, which suggests that their feelings and interests do not matter. Even if the result is the same, including them in the process is a way of showing respect and personal consideration. This is another reason to build plans together in a negotiation, rather than arriving with preconceptions and prewritten demands.
Themes
Saving face is also an essential part of negotiation. This term has negative connotations in English, but it really just means that people need continuity between their principles, their past actions, and the agreement they are making. This is why judges refer to principles and legal precedents when they decide on cases: they want to show that they are being consistent over time. Similarly, negotiators often reject a proposal just because accepting it seems like giving up on their declared values. But they will happily agree if the same proposal is instead shown to be consistent with those values.
According to the authors, contrary to popular belief, saving face is a fundamental human need, which means it is always one of the personal interests that any negotiator brings to the table. This is particularly significant when a negotiator represents a large constituency: they do not want to look like a liar or an impostor to their constituents. Accordingly, it is important to consider whether the other side can reasonably accept a proposal without looking inconsistent or dishonest.
Themes
The authors note that strong emotions can completely sabotage many negotiations, especially high-stakes ones. First and foremost, negotiators must identify their own emotions and try to recognize what the other side is feeling, too. Then, they should ask where these emotions are coming from. Often, they are fundamentally unrelated to the actual negotiation—for instance, longstanding animosity between Israelis and Palestinians turns virtually every negotiation between them into a bitter, irresolvable fight.
While people might imagine master negotiators to be hyperrational and bring no emotions to the table, the authors point out that this would actually be counterproductive, not to mention impossible. Real master negotiators do not ignore emotions: instead, they are highly sensitive to them and skilled at understanding and managing them. By separating emotions from the substance, especially when they are negative, it can become possible to reach agreements that gradually erode animosity and improve relationships over time.
Themes
In general, negative emotions often involve threats to the five “core concerns” of autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, role, and status. Negotiations should build these up rather than breaking them down. Similarly, people react negatively when others threaten their sense of identity (for instance, by pointing out someone’s mistakes when competence at work is a core part of their identity). If possible, negotiators should explicitly talk about their emotions and those of their constituents (or the people they represent).
These “core concerns” are also some of the same fundamental interests that people hope to satisfy through negotiations. Thus, addressing these concerns personally can be an effective way for a negotiator to show that they are not trying to injure the other side, but rather just advocating for their interests. When in doubt, stating one’s interests, emotions, and desires is an effective way to get on the same page as other parties in a negotiation. Positional bargaining might view this as a form of weakness, but principled negotiators know that it actually creates a basis for cooperation.
Themes
It can also be wise to simply let the other side vent their feelings. First, this helps them release negative emotions and return to the actual negotiation with a level head. Secondly, it lets them signal their commitment to their constituents. Thus, effective negotiators let others rant freely, but they keep calm and refuse to react to these outbursts. One management committee even made this into a rule: people could get angry, but only one at a time.
While it can be challenging to digest an insulting rant without responding in kind, negotiators have to remember that negative emotions create unhealthy, escalating cycles that undermine negotiations. Refusing to answer rants is a way of breaking this cycle and signaling a dedication to negotiating principles rather than positions.
Themes
Finally, it is no secret that other small gestures of sympathy, especially apologies, can counteract negative emotions and cool down conflicts without impacting the outcomes of negotiation.
Although gestures of sympathy may seem insignificant, they powerfully signal a sense of respect for the other side and a commitment to collaborating with them. All the while, they do not at all negatively impact the substance of negotiations.
Themes
Communication lies at the heart of all negotiation, but it’s incredibly hard to do well. Negotiators run into three main kinds of communication problems. First, they give up on truly communicating with each other for the sake of reaching an agreement, and instead they start performing to satisfy or impress someone else (usually their constituents). Secondly, they do not listen properly, often because they are focused on deciding what to say next. Thirdly, they misinterpret each other, especially when language and cultural barriers are involved.
All three types of miscommunication threaten negotiations by preventing negotiators from clearly understanding their interests (and therefore from achieving them). While the building blocks of effective communication are incredibly straightforward, they are also easy to forget, especially in negotiation situations. Effective communication requires flexibility and openness, which many people tend to shy away from in important negotiations where their fundamental needs and interests are at stake.
Themes
One memorable example of intercultural miscommunication occurred during the Iranian hostage crisis, when a U.N. leader presented himself “as a mediator [looking] to work out a compromise.” He did not realize that the Persian equivalents of “mediator” and “compromise” have highly negative connotations (not positive ones, as in English). So while he thought that he was making a gesture of goodwill, he actually worsened the situation.
Beyond highlighting the need for general cultural competence in negotiations, this example shows how negotiation itself means very different things in different contexts. By choosing a “mediator” who did not understand Iranian culture, the U.N. ensured that its desire to “compromise” would look biased and one-sided to the Iranian government and public.
Themes
The first, most important strategy for improving communication is simply to actively listen to the other party. If negotiators check in to confirm that they correctly understand each other, they send a gesture of goodwill in addition to staying on the same page. Good listeners actively clear up uncertainties in the other party’s ideas and actively demonstrate that they understand the other side’s point of view before presenting their own.
Active listening is the fastest shortcut to empathy: the easiest way to understand another person’s needs and desires is simply to listen to them when they explain their perspective. As in all communication contexts, it is dangerous for negotiators to assume that they know what the other side thinks or wants to say, because this could lead them to start building an agreement that is not actually desirable to the other side.
Themes
Strong communicators also speak directly to the other party during the negotiation. Negotiations should not be like debates or trials but more like two judges deciding a case together—blame and personal attacks are never useful. Moreover, the fewer people present, the easier agreement usually becomes. Effective negotiators use “I” statements to speak about their experiences, rather than directing accusations at their opponents. And finally, negotiators should not over-disclose, which can create problems. To take an obvious example, a seller should not reveal the minimum price they are willing to accept, especially when a buyer is already offering a better price.
Again, effective communication goes hand-in-hand with viewing negotiation as a partnership: strong communication can forge this kind of partnership, but establishing a partnership also ensures strong communication going forward. In a negotiation, the authors suggest, it is essential to communicate openly and honestly but with plenty of reflection and tact. Successful negotiators always guide a conversation toward cooperation, especially when the other side tries to bait them into conflict.
Themes
The authors then argue that “prevention works best.” Building a strong relationship before the negotiation is the best way to avoid personal problems of all three kinds—perception, emotion, and communication. Negotiating with a friend is always easier than negotiating with a stranger, and building a friendship can be as easy as chatting for a few minutes before or after the negotiation. By learning to view themselves as negotiating partners and not adversaries, people can work together rather than fighting unproductively.
The authors again emphasize that negotiators should view their relationships in a wider purview—they begin before and extend beyond any particular negotiation. In fact, because the substance of the negotiation is not yet on the table, it can be easier and more fruitful to establish a strong working relationship before the negotiation even begins. Again, by shifting from adversaries to partners on a personal level, it becomes possible to implicitly shift the dynamic on a substantive level, too.
Themes
There are many ways people can turn negotiations from conflicts into partnerships: they can explicitly propose a shift, or they can simply act like a partner until the other party gets the message and starts doing the same thing. It also helps for negotiators to literally sit side by side, rather than facing one another.
The most appropriate tactic will depend on the context, but the authors emphasize that every negotiator has the power to turn a negotiation from positional bargaining into principled negotiation by carefully managing their personal interactions with the other side. In other words, it is futile to wait for the other side to start separating the people from the problem—rather, negotiators should start doing so on their own.
Themes
In conclusion, the authors emphasize that separating people from problems during a negotiation—which all of the strategies in this chapter are intended to do—is always an ongoing task.
While effective principled negotiation requires separating people from problems, doing so is not necessarily easy. Rather, negotiators must constantly work to establish and maintain this separation, especially when the other side does not make the same effort or care about building a functional working relationship.
Themes
