Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In By: Travis Lorenzen

 Research Began 1973 by Harvard and MIT  Authors Joined 1977 Roger FisherWilliam Ury Bruce Patton  Published 1981

 Types of Negotiators  Positional Negotiation  Principled Negotiation  If they’re not havin’ it  If they’re more powerful  If they use dirty tricks

 Sees situations as a contest of wills  Will not allow a “loss”  Exhausts people and resources  Harms relationships  About substance  Common in divorces

 Tries to be the “nice guy”  About relationship  Avoids conflict  Makes concessions  Often exploited and left feeling bitter  Generally works with  Friends  Family  Trusted others  BHszI4 (4:23) BHszI4

 Holding onto a fixed idea (position)  The easy way, not necessarily effective  Causes blindness to underlying interests  Ex. Plankton trying to steal the patty recipe – misses out on other prosperous food markets  Common in  Daily negotiations  Bartering

 Not the easiest, but the most effective  Neither hard nor soft  Looks for mutual gains  Decides on issues based on merits  Independent and fair

 People – separate the people form the problem  Interests – focus on interests not positions  Options – generate a variety of possibilities before making a decision  Criteria – the results should be based on an objective standard

 Separate the people from the problem  They’re there to solve the same issue  Negotiators have two interests  Substance – Getting to an agreement  Relationship – Working together  Egos become tangled with positions  Lack of willingness to change or compromise

 Negotiators are emotional too, don’t attack  Emotions cloud the objective  Take a step back, understand both sides  Write it down!  Remove cognitive dissonance  Make the negotiators feel welcome MeThem ConfusedUpset AngryHappy SatisfiedDissatisfied

 Focus on interests, not positions  Interests motivate  Leave options open  Positions can obscure what you truly want  Already decided on before negotiate  Ask questions. Why? Why not?  Makes other aware you care  Shows want to understand

 Landlord vs Tenant InterestsPosition Both want stability3yr lease Well kept accommodationRequire pro lawn care

 Generate various possibilities before deciding  Difference between deadlock and agreement  Searching for just ONE correct solution limits creativity  Use other experts  Seek mutual gain  Shared interests  Low cost to you high benefit to them  Makes their decision easy  Offers are more attractive than threats  Follow the inventing circle (Next Slide)

 Criteria/Objectives insists that results are based on some objective standard  Less relationship threat  Quicker  Higher chance of solution  Both parties defer to a fair solution  Don’t have to give in to each other  (no ego hurt)  Win-Win

 Options 1. Principled negotiation – its contagious!  They may or may not play 2. 3 rd party introduction Book ex. Invite architect with couple designing home 3. Refer to BATNA  Don’t attack their position  Its counter productive

 What if they’re more powerful?  Or refuse to negotiate  Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement  Keeping options open in case negotiation fails  Outside alternatives  Make the most of your assets  Salary negotiations with a job offer  Have backup or other alternative to give leverage

 Dirty tricks = one side proposals about procedure of negotiating  DON’T play the game!  Either put up with it  Or respond kindly  Ask questions  Raise issue explicitly  Trust but verify  Don’t use a hammer 

 Separate the people from the problem!  Show the other side you care  Be open to suggestions and search for new options  Don’t attack  Don’t hard or soft negotiate  Don’t give in  Always have an alternative ready