Getting to Yes

Two people in a library argue about a window: One wants it open to let in fresh air, but the other wants it closed to prevent a draft. The librarian hears them out, closes the window, and opens one in the next room, which solves both problems. The librarian looks beyond the arguers’ positions—how much to open the window—and finds a solution that satisfies their interests, the real reasons why they’re both arguing about the window.

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1978 got stymied over how much of the Sinai Israel must return to Egypt. Egypt’s insisted on all of it; Israel wanted to retain a section near its border. Egypt’s interest was that, recently free of colonial control, it didn’t want yet another country taking its territory; Israel’s interest was that it didn’t want Egyptian tanks on its border. The solution, a demilitarized zone in an all-Egyptian Sinai, met both sides’ interests without a compromise.

Often it’s easier to satisfy interests than to compromise on positions: “Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests” (44). A tenant and landlord, for example, both want stability, a well-maintained property, and good relations. Conflicting interests sometimes get settled by referring to a common standard: The amount of rent can be defined by the local market’s common price.

Interests often lie obscurely in the background. To identify them, ask why the other party takes a given position. Also ask yourself why they have not yet brought up a topic that you expect them to raise: Something important may prevent them from dealing with an issue.

It’s useful to work through a problem from the other side’s perspective. In a hostage crisis, for example, make a list of the kidnapper’s probable pros and cons about releasing or holding captives. If the other side has many members, their interests will be many and varied; this complicates the issue, but ignoring it leads to misunderstandings. Additionally, ignoring the other side’s basic needs— including security, money, belonging, status, and autonomy—can torpedo a negotiation. This is as true for nations as it is for individuals.

The process of understanding the other side’s interests begins when you explain your own interests, in a manner that makes clear that they are legitimate concerns and not intended as attacks against the other side. Most important of all, though, is making clear that you understand and respect the other side’s concerns. It’s a mistake to start by insisting on a particular solution; instead, both sides should first hear each other out on the problems that they face.

Some negotiators talk as if the process is a ritual or pastime; they seek points, not solutions. Their words are designed to evoke responses that confirm their biases about each other. Complaining about past harms and insults goes nowhere, while speaking about what can be accomplished in the future moves talks forward. It helps to bring ideas for solutions to the table but thereafter to respond flexibly and adaptively.

It’s okay for each side to be tough about their interests, which must be satisfied for a successful agreement. Standing up for motives challenges each party to come up with innovative solutions: “Attack the problem without blaming the people” (56).

Often negotiations center on single issues—an amount of money or territory, child custody in a divorce—where one or both sides will resent the outcome. Two people argue over an orange and finally split it in half; one eats the fruit part and throws out the peel, while the other tosses the fruit portion and uses their part of the peel in a cake recipe. A much more resourceful agreement thus was overlooked.

The solution is to find options that expand a contested resource instead of merely dividing it. Negotiators overlook this approach for four reasons: They prejudge their own ideas; they search quickly for a single answer; they decide there’s only a “fixed pie” to be divided; and they assume the other side should solve its own problems.

Four guidelines help to improve the search for mutually satisfying solutions: (1) separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; (2) broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; (3) search for mutual gains; and (4) invent ways of making their decisions easy (62).

The first guideline involves separating the creative process from the decision process: “Invent first, decide later” (62). Small-group brainstorming sessions—lots of offbeat ideas with no judgment or criticisms—can develop surprisingly useful solutions. The sessions should be informal, private, and, if possible, off the record. The strongest ideas get developed further before they’re presented to the other side. A riskier approach is to brainstorm with the other side, but, if managed carefully, this also can produce solutions that more closely match both sides’ needs.

The second guideline, broadening the options, benefits from the use of a circle chart. It augments the process by dividing a solution into four steps: fully describing the problem, analyzing it for causes and obstacles, generating strategies, and developing specific steps toward a solution. During each portion of the process, an idea can be fed back into earlier steps to better evaluate it.

Looking at a problem through the eyes of different experts—“a banker, an inventor, a labor leader, a speculator in real estate, a stockbroker, an economist, a tax expert, or a socialist” (71)—also generates a wide assortment of ideas. A negotiation also can be separated into several parts to be solved individually.

The third guideline is to search for a “joint gain” that expands resources. A city may wish to increase taxes on a factory, but if the factory agrees instead to bring in more businesses, this will increase the tax base, which benefits both sides. The secret is to find things that cost one side very little but that the other side really wants.

The fourth guideline is to make it easy for the other side to say yes. It helps to structure an agreement so that it’s easy to implement, feels fair and honorable, fits precedents, and is easy to sell to constituents.

Finally, make your proposal a “yesable proposition.” This means the other side can simply say yes without objections or conditions. If this is the case, you have solved their problems as well as yours.

Sometimes neither party can find a solution to a conflict. In this situation, an outside, neutral party can be brought in to decide the matter. If contractor and buyer can’t agree on the minimum depth for a building’s foundation, for example, they can refer to the standards of local regulators or the common practice of the region. This hands off the decision rather than leaving it to a test of wills between negotiators. Such agreements are more stable, since they rely on time-tested rules; they’re also more efficient, as common standards resolve many of the issues automatically.

One way to vet a suggested standard is to ask if the proposer would use it on their own projects. Another system that’s mechanically fair is to have one side split a resource into two portions, with the other side choosing the one it wants. Other simple-but-fair systems include “taking turns, drawing lots, letting someone else decide” (88), and even coin flips.

Three approaches can convince a side to accept standardized procedures. The first is to offer a “joint search” for objective criteria. This often begins with a query: One side offers a bid on a property, for example, and the other side asks what theory they used to arrive at that bid. This helps everyone commit to the idea that the agreement will follow accepted norms.

The second approach is to be open to reasonable ideas. One side may make an opening offer and then insist that, on principle, it’s the only one they’ll make. The response is to acknowledge that criteria are important, but that both parties need to agree on the criteria. If each side insists on a different standard, it’s okay to agree to accept both and split the difference between them.

The third approach is: “Never yield to pressure” (91). When the other side tries to bribe or intimidate you, respond by asking about the objective standard the other side is using. This keeps discussions from defaulting to positional wrangling. Sticking to the principle of objective standards usually overcomes positional bargaining; if not, you can accept their absolute position or back out of the discussion.