If you have never read “Getting to Yes: Negotiation Agreement Without Giving In”, you have not done your negotiation home-work properly.
This seminal book, first published in 1981, remains the most simply-written and powerful “how-to” guide for effective interest-based bargaining.
The main principle of this approach to negotiation (also called “integrative negotiation strategy” and “principled bargaining” in the literature) is easy to understand: outcomes will be better for everyone if they stay focused on what each person needs, rather than what each person’s legal claims. The following are some of the key principles of this strategy:
Interests
This means moving away from “positions” and exploring the reasons why each person is taking those positions. For instance, in a parenting negotiation, one person’s position may be that they want sole custody, and the other person’s position is that they want joint custody.
An effective negotiation will involve exploring the reasons for those positions: why does each person want this outcome? What are the needs, concerns, fears and goals that each person is trying to address?
Interest-based negotiation requires each person to be open about his or her needs, concerns, fears and goals, and also willing to explore the various options available for satisfying them.
Alternatives
The authors of “Getting to Yes” coined the phrase “BATNA”, meaning a person’s ‘best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” It is important, in any negotiation, that each person know what his or her options are if the negotiation does not result in an agreement. Is it better to go to court? If they go to court, what are the chances of success? What will it cost? How stressful will it be? This analysis allows each person to truly understand the costs and benefits of the settlement options being proposed, to evaluate them and make informed decisions. The theory is that if you understand your BATNA, you will not be vulnerable to making a settlement that is worse for you than your best alternative to that settlement.
Using Objective Criteria
This concept is enormously helpful in negotiation. When people disagree on something, say the value of their house, they will often hire an appraiser to give them a value. This is a good example of the use of objective criteria as a way of resolving a disagreement. By relying on a neutral and credible third party, the parties will be able to arrive at a figure that they are both likely to accept.
Power
Effective interest-based negotiation requires parties to be aware of the things that give them, and the other person, negotiation power. The key principle is that it is important that each party be able to use whatever sources of power he or she has, to get the best possible outcome, but that neither party be permitted to abuse that power. This is why selecting the negotiation process is so important, because different processes manage power differentials in different way (See Collaborative Law: Thinking About the Alternatives)
Tactics:
Some great maxims are found in Getting to Yes. “Separate the person from the problem”, and “Be easy on the person, and hard on the problem,” are two of the best ones. The focus of a principled negotiation process should always be on the problem that needs to be solved, not the personalities involved. This is not easy to do; sometimes the problem is the person! Especially where one or both parties have difficult personalities.
Other key tactics of this negotiation approach include “to persuade, be open to persuasion”; “be curious”, and “don’t blame.” Good negotiators need strong communication skills!
Be Creative
The last principle is an important part of the interest-based bargaining approach. Once the problem to be solved has been defined; and once the interests of each person have been explored; the last step is to generate as many possible options for satisfying those interests. Creative settlements that allow each person to come away with a “win” are the hallmark of effective principled negotiation.
