Previous
Chapter 3
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 often entail opposed interests when they involve one-dimensional factors (like the price of something) or an either/or decision. But negotiators can circumvent these problems by inventing creative solutions to their problems. When they do not, they end up unable to agree or settling for less-than-ideal agreements.
One-dimensional negotiations seem like the rare case in which positional bargaining might make sense, but the authors have already pointed out that people usually only seek quantifiable outcomes like money as a means to fulfilling deeper interests linked to more fundamental human needs. Thus, even these situations are better resolved through principled negotiation.
Themes
The authors offer a “diagnosis” of why people fail to consider creative solutions that do not lie on “a straight line between their position and yours.” They suggest four main reasons. The first is “premature judgment”: people are not used to inventing new ideas, and when they start to, they often let the critical voices in their head talk them out of thinking creatively. Similarly, if the other parties to the negotiation are likely to interpret a negotiator’s creative brainstorming as a concrete proposal, it can be dangerous to invent new options.
Choosing a middle ground solution that lies on “a straight line between their position and yours” is essentially the only option available to positional bargainers. Splitting the difference in this way reflects a deep failure of imagination: negotiators totally forget that they can work together to build newer, better solutions. While it makes sense that a stressful negotiation might drive many people to shut down their creative side, in fact one of the most important skills in principled negotiation is learning how to harness this creativity.
Themes
The second barrier to creative solutions is “searching for the single answer,” or insisting on narrowing down the range of possible solutions from the beginning instead of being willing to expand it. The third problem is “the assumption of a fixed pie,” when one party’s gain seems to require the other party to lose. And the fourth and final problem is “thinking that ‘solving their problem is their problem,’” or refusing to try and satisfy the other side’s interests in addition to one’s own self-interest.
These last three errors are also rigid assumptions common to the positional bargaining model. In reality, there is no perfect solution waiting to be discovered—there are only wise solutions waiting to be invented. And there are several good reasons to focus on the parts of a negotiation that are not zero-sum, rather than assuming that any success must be at the other side’s expense.
Themes
Next, the authors offer a four-part “prescription” for negotiators who are having trouble inventing options. First, they should “separate inventing from deciding” by creating dedicated time and space for brainstorming. In a brainstorming session, people only invent ideas—they do not evaluate them yet. By deliberately removing inhibitions, brainstorming sessions incentivize people to come up with new, bold ideas but shield them from embarrassment.
Creating designated space and time for brainstorming allows negotiators to counteract the inhibiting effects of pressure and stress. Accordingly, they can think creatively without letting premature critical judgment prevent them from developing ideas. Precisely because such brainstorming sessions are specifically designed to maximize creativity, they should not lead to binding commitments—in other words, they should not be part of the ordinary flow of the negotiation.
Themes
Get the entire Getting to Yes LitChart as a printable PDF.
The authors explain how to run a brainstorming session, which should ideally be small (five to eight people) and informal. Participants should sit side-by-side (which promotes cooperation), and facilitators should stop criticism and record the group’s ideas somewhere everyone can see. After the brainstorming, the group should open itself to limited constructive criticism, select the best few ideas, and take one shot at improving them before planning a subsequent meeting to actually choose which options to present at the negotiation.
This practical advice for running a brainstorming session shows how the success of a negotiation can largely depend not on substantive factors, but rather on the procedures its participants set out. By mindfully controlling the very process of negotiation, in other words, people can maximize their chances of reaching a wise and fair negotiated agreement. In this brainstorming situation, for instance, negotiators should carefully regulate criticism so that all viable ideas get proposed and the very best ones get meaningfully explored before anyone commits to any particular course of action.
Themes
The authors note that both sides can try to brainstorm together. While this can be risky, it can often produce excellent solutions and improve negotiators’ relationships. But during this process, negotiators should emphasize that they’re not making proposals. The authors give an example of a successful negotiation between a labor union and a group of corporate managers. They point out that the discussion largely consists of open-ended questions rather than definite positions and assertions.
While the risks of brainstorming with the other side might be greater than only brainstorming with people on one’s own side, the rewards are potentially greater as well. Again, by agreeing on a carefully regulated process, negotiators can maximize these rewards while minimizing the risks. The authors’ other principles for engaging the other side—particularly for dealing with emotions and interests—are all the more important in collective brainstorming situations, because they are necessary to maintain a constructive and open-minded atmosphere.
Themes
The second subheading in the authors’ “prescription” is to “broaden your options.” They emphasize that brainstorming is not necessarily about searching for the best answer—rather, it is about getting different ideas together in order to give oneself more good options that can be taken into the negotiation later on.
Again, brainstorming is a prelude to the actual decision process, which means it is counterproductive to start honing in on one idea. (There will be time for that later.) Brainstorming is not about choosing the right tool for the situation; it is building a toolkit, so to speak, and planning in a way that maximizes one’s flexibility once it’s time to actually build an agreement.
Themes
Using “The Circle Chart,” the authors show how a four-step thinking process can solve problems. First, people should identify the specific problem they want to address. Then, they should generally analyze the situation that has created the problem. Thirdly, they should generally consider what solving the problems in the overall situation requires. And finally, they should define realistic solutions and plans for pursuing them.
The authors depict the Circle Chart as a clockwise motion among four quadrants, which are defined by two different axes: reality versus theory and the problem versus the solution. By combining these two pairs of opposites and the different kinds of thinking that each engenders, The Circle Chart offers a formula for creative thinking. It is intended to help negotiators develop new perspectives on the dispute and the relationship between the parties as a whole, in addition to helping them elaborate specific negotiated agreements for the issue at hand. And it is a microcosm of the negotiation process as a whole: it starts with defining interests, then goes to analyzing the problem, and finally moves to proposing solutions.
Themes
The Circle Chart is specifically useful because it helps people develop new ideas that are related to the first action plans they create, in content or in theory. As an example, the authors explain how a proposal to create common history books for Catholic and protestant students in Northern Ireland eventually led to several related ideas, like changing the way history was taught or creating an exchange program for teachers. Some of these even came to fruition.
The example from Northern Ireland shows how the Circle Chart helps people expand their perspective beyond the specific dispute they are negotiating about, in addition to helping them find better solutions to their specific disputes. As a result, the kind of collaborative creative thinking that the Circle Chart promotes can help build stronger relationships and give parties other projects to collaborate on. It can also show them that not everything rides on their current dispute, because there is plenty more that they can do in the future.
Themes
The authors also suggest that problem-solvers imagine the perspectives that different kinds of experts would take on their problem. Before negotiations, it can help to be ready with options for “‘weaker’ versions” of one’s plans, in case the parties cannot agree on a final solution. In this kind of situation, the parties can still agree on smaller steps—for instance, they can appoint an arbitrator or clearly establish their points of disagreement. Additionally, they can break the problem into smaller steps, agree on a plan for part of it, and then move forward a little bit at a time.
All of these suggestions show how people can prepare before a negotiation in order to give themselves a greater range of options during it—both in terms of possible agreements and in terms of negotiation procedure. This contrasts with the way positional bargainers prepare: by defining and totally committing themselves to just one idea.
Themes
The third section of the authors’ “prescription” is to “look for mutual gain,” which can be useful in situations that appear to be zero-sum. In reality, situations are almost never zero-sum. It is always possible for both parties to lose or to win a helpful relationship. And creative solutions can often create mutual-win scenarios that might not be apparent at first. The key to finding these solutions is to determine what interests both parties have in common.
The idea that negotiations must be zero-sum is one of the most harmful assumptions that the default positional bargaining approach imprints upon prospective negotiators. Until this assumption is broken down, it is incredibly difficult to develop any solution that is not some combination of the parties’ initial positions. Like all aspects of an effective negotiation, building creative solutions must start with identifying and correlating the different parties’ interests: when interests are shared (or merely different, but not opposed), negotiators should immediately recognize that win-win solutions are possible to fulfill them.
Themes
For instance, imagine a mayor who wants an oil company to pay higher taxes. The mayor’s primary interest is getting necessary tax money, and the oil executive’s is expanding operations to increase profit. So both parties care about expanding production and investment in the city. They could agree on various tax breaks for business, which could encourage more investment and presumably give the city more revenue. But if they do not reach an agreement, the worsened relationship between the local government and the company could harm both of them. Thus, each party’s success also benefits the other party.
In this example, the negotiation initially looks like a one-dimensional dispute: the company wants to pay less tax and the city wants it to pay more. But by analyzing all of the interests that each side brings to the table, the authors show that the company and the city actually have more in common than they are opposed on. By building their agreement on these shared interests, the parties not only amicably resolve the taxation question but also set a precedent for effective collaboration in the future.
Themes
All negotiations include some shared interests, like the interest in future cooperation. But negotiators have to actually identify and act on these shared interests—the first step is turning them into concrete shared goals. By pointing these interests out, the quality of negotiation improves, too.
The shared interests that lurk behind every negotiation are low-hanging fruit, but people have to actually make an effort to make use of them. However, the benefits can be significant: starting with what everyone shares is often the easiest way for people to build momentum towards an amicable, wise agreement.
Themes
It is also possible to “dovetail differing interests,” or create solutions that satisfy both side’s interests, when they do not conflict. The authors present a list of examples, like if one party wants to control the form of a message and the other the substance of it. This kind of compromise can also resolve differing beliefs, predictions, and attitudes toward time or risk. One strategy to find dovetailing opportunities is to propose various alternatives that meet one’s own needs equally, but may be better or worse for the other side. This lets the other side reveal what they actually care about. In a nutshell, dovetailing essentially means agreeing to things that hugely improve the deal for one side but do not worsen it for the other.
It is possible to collaborate not only over shared interests, but also over interests that, while different, do not conflict. These differences can work in balance and, at best, in complementarity. So “dovetail[ing] differing interests” allows everyone to get what they want in an equal, balanced way. The author’s previous anecdote of the librarian opening the window in the next room is an example of this. But dovetailing is only possible when negotiators have a clear and reliable idea about the other side’s interests and are willing to explore creative ways of meeting them.
Themes
The authors’ final tip for inventing creative decisions is to “make their decision easy.” It helps to think about the other negotiator not as a faceless representative, but rather as an individual considering many different factors (like constituents’ interests and their professional reputation).
Once again, empathy is a crucial and foolproof tactic for improving the negotiation process. Similar to saving face, “mak[ing] their decision easy” is about imagining the agreement from the other side’s perspective and then looking for a way to resolve anything that might seem to threaten their interests or unsettle them.
Themes
To make an agreement easier to accept, negotiators should eliminate uncertainty by presenting specific proposals and defining mutually acceptable terms early on. It is much easier and lower-risk to agree to solutions that are easy to implement, legitimate, and consistent with precedent. And offers yield solutions much more easily than threats do. To evaluate how appealing any given proposal is for the other side, it helps to imagine how their negotiator would be criticized if they accepted it. Ideal proposals are “yesable,” meaning that the other side can realistically agree to them on the spot.
Just like it helps to discuss emotions and interests in as clear and unambiguous a way as possible, explicitly defining terms of agreement early on is useful because it prevents miscommunication further down the line. Similarly, making these terms straightforward and “yesable” to the other party is a way to preempt pointless disagreements that would not actually improve the negotiated agreement.
Themes
