Meriv çawa NA Serbixe: Di Rewşên Zehmet de Muzakere (W. Urey)

Abstract

Do you want to learn how to avoid conflicts and achieve success in the most difficult negotiations, convince the most difficult interlocutors, turn opponents into partners, conclude profitable contracts and deals?

The author of this book, one of the founders of the famous Harvard Negotiation Project, offers a revolutionary «breakthrough strategy» consisting of five stages. Five “moves”, applied in sequence, will help turn even a head-on confrontation into a joint search for a solution.

The strategy can be used with any opponent — a hot-tempered boss, an erratic teenager, a detracting colleague, or an obnoxious client. It can be used by diplomats, lawyers, businessmen and even spouses who want to save their families. A breakthrough strategy allows you to achieve the desired result even in the most difficult negotiations.

I. Amadekirin

General provisions. Overcome barriers to cooperation

We all enter into negotiations every day. We spend most of our time trying to reach an agreement with other people. As much as we try to negotiate in a spirit of cooperation, in most cases we will be disappointed. We crave agreement, but the answer is very often «NO».

Imagine a typical day. At breakfast, you argue with your spouse about buying a new car. It seems to you that it is time to change the car, but the spouse replies: “This is ridiculous! You know very well that we can’t afford it right now.» Then you come to work, where you have a meeting with the manager. You talk about a carefully prepared new project, but after a minute the boss interrupts you with the phrase: “We already tried this, but it didn’t work out. Next question!

During your lunch break, you try to return a defective toaster to the store, but the seller refuses to return the money, explaining that you do not have a receipt: “These are the rules in our store.”

After lunch, you bring the pre-agreed contract to the client for signing. You are already growing up. Have colleagues about it and agreed on the production. But the client unexpectedly declares: “I’m sorry. The boss refuses to approve the deal unless you give us a fifteen percent discount.»

In the evening you need to answer a few calls, but the phone is busy with your thirteen-year-old daughter. You get angry and ask to release the phone, and your daughter shouts to you from the corridor: “Why don’t I have a separate line? All my friends have!

Each of us enters into difficult negotiations with an irritable spouse, with a domineering boss, an uncompromising salesman, an unreliable client, or an uncontrollable teenager. Under stress, even nice and reasonable people can turn into irritable and stubborn opponents. Negotiations can drag on or break down, taking up time, depriving you of sleep, and provoking stomach ulcers.

In a broad sense, negotiation is a process of two-way communication aimed at reaching an agreement with other people when your interests coincide in some ways and diverge in others. The concept of «negotiations» is not limited to formal events, when the parties sit at the table and discuss the agenda; it is also an informal communication that you enter into, trying to get what you need from another person.

Remember how you make important decisions that affect your future — decisions that determine your career and personal life. What part of these problems can you solve on your own, and what part do you have to solve together with other people, through negotiations? Almost everyone to whom I asked this question admitted that it is necessary to negotiate in almost all cases. Negotiation is the main method of decision-making both in professional activity and in personal life.

It should also be noted that this is the main method of decision-making in society as well. Even in those cases when we ourselves are not sitting at the negotiating table, our life depends on their outcome. If negotiations between school management and the teachers’ union stall and teachers go on strike, our children don’t go to school, they stay at home. If negotiations between the owner of the firm where we work and a potential buyer break down, the firm is on the brink of bankruptcy and we may lose our jobs. If negotiations between the government of our country and its adversary lead nowhere, the result may be war. In other words, our lives are determined by negotiations.

Joint problem solving

We are all negotiators, although many people do not like this process. We perceive negotiations as a stressful encounter. It seems to us that we have to make an unpleasant choice. If we show “softness”, trying to maintain good relations with the other side, then we will definitely lose. If we take a «hard» position in order to achieve the desired result, this will lead to a deterioration or even a break in relations with the opposite side.

However, this approach has an alternative: collaborative problem solving. This is a combination of hard and soft strategy: softness in relation to people and rigidity on the merits of the issue. Instead of attacking each other, you team up to attack the problem. You don’t pierce each other with angry looks across the table, but sit down next to each other and address a common problem. In other words, you replace personal confrontation with joint problem solving. This is the kind of negotiation Roger Fischer and I described ten years ago in Negotiating Without Defeat.

When solving problems together, interests are taken as the basis, not positions. You start by identifying the opposing party’s interests—the doubts, needs, fears, and desires that underlie their position and motivate their behavior. Then you should analyze the various options for satisfying these interests. Your goal is to reach a mutually beneficial agreement in the most efficient and friendly way possible.

If, for example, you are seeking a promotion and a pay raise, and your boss says no to you, citing a lack of money in the budget, do not stop at this stage. See the situation as a problem-solving challenge. Your supervisor is looking into your interests, which may include paying for your children’s education and promotions. You then brainstorm together trying to meet those interests without going over budget. You may be able to negotiate a job extension and a company-issued student loan, as well as a promise that you’ll get a raise in a year so that you can repay the loan. At the same time, both your interests and the interests of the employer will be satisfied.

Solving problems together allows for better outcomes for both parties. This approach saves time and effort, since there is no need to stand in a pose. Solving problems together usually improves the relationship between the parties and leads to mutual benefit in the future.

Five barriers to cooperation

Skeptics will surely point out that all this is easy to proclaim but difficult to implement. The principles of cooperative problem-solving, they argue, are similar to a newlywed’s vow of fidelity: marriage vows undoubtedly improve relationships, but they are difficult to apply in the real world, full of stress and clashes, temptations and storms.

Perhaps you will try to involve the opponent in a joint solution of the problem, but the result may well be a confrontation. People too easily succumb to emotions, the habit of taking a tough stance, or yielding to pressure from the other side.

The real world constantly raises barriers to cooperation. Below are five of the most common obstacles.

• Your reaction. The first barrier is within yourself. Human behavior is based on reactions. When you’re under stress, facing rejection, or feeling threatened, your natural urge is to strike back. Usually, this behavior only reproduces the action-response cycle, with both parties losing out. Another possible reaction is to break off negotiations in order to save the relationship. In this case, you lose by showing weakness and allowing other people to exploit you. Thus, the problem lies not only in the behavior of the other side, but also in your reaction, which can provoke this behavior.
• Their emotions. The next barrier is the negative emotions of the opposite side. Aggression can be caused by anger and hostility. A rigid position is often based on fear and distrust. Opponents, convinced of their rightness and the fallacy of your position, in many cases simply refuse to listen to you. Considering that the world is built on the principle of «man is a wolf to man», they justify their dirty tricks.
• Their position. When solving the problem together, the behavior of the opposite side, caused by the habit of strengthening their positions and seeking someone else’s surrender, can become an obstacle. Very often, opponents do not know another way to negotiate, but simply use familiar tactics that they first mastered back in the sandbox. It seems to them that the only alternative is to give in, and, naturally, they are not going to do this.
• Their dissatisfaction. Even if you are aiming for a mutually beneficial agreement, the other side is not necessarily interested in such an outcome. Perhaps opponents do not see benefits for themselves. Even if you are able to satisfy their interests, they may lose face by agreeing to concessions. And if the agreement is based on your idea, it can be rejected only for this reason.
• Their strength. And finally, if the opposing side considers the negotiations in terms of «victory — defeat», then it will certainly be set to win. And it may well be guided by the principle: «What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours — we’ll see.» Why cooperate if what you want can be achieved with the help of force?

In order not to hear «no», you must overcome all five barriers to cooperation: your reaction, their emotions, their attitude, their dissatisfaction, and their strength. It is easy to believe that barrier-building, aggressiveness, and cunning subterfuge are inherent characteristics of the opposing side and that there is nothing you can do about it. However, it is in your power to influence their behavior if you can develop the right approach to the motives that determine this behavior.

Breakout strategy

This book offers a five-step strategy designed to overcome all five barriers to cooperation—the Breakthrough Negotiation Strategy.

The meaning of this strategy will help to understand the analogy with navigation. The navigator almost never manages to reach the goal if he lays a course directly for it. More and more obstacles will arise between him and his destination: strong winds and tides, reefs and shallows, not to mention storms and squalls. To get to your destination, you, like an experienced navigator, must constantly change course — your route is zigzag.

The same principles apply to negotiations. Your goal is a mutually beneficial agreement. The direct route (focusing on interests first and then suggesting options to meet those interests) looks simple and attractive. But in the real world of sharp reactions and strong emotions, tough positions, dissatisfaction and aggression, it is often simply impossible to reach a mutually beneficial agreement in a direct way. In order not to face failure, you have to maneuver — that is, move towards the goal in a roundabout way.

The essence of the breakthrough strategy is just indirect action. Strategy requires you to act against your natural instincts in difficult situations. When the other side obstructs or launches an attack, you are tempted to respond in kind. When faced with hostility, you get into an argument, and an unreasonable attitude pushes you to refuse. The intransigence of the opponent makes you want to put pressure on him, and the aggression of the enemy pushes you to retaliate aggression. However, such a reaction will only lead to disappointment — you are playing someone else’s game by someone else’s rules.

Your only opportunity as a negotiator is change the rules of the game. Instead of playing by someone else’s rules, let the other side understand and accept your approach, which is to solve problems together. One of the greatest baseball players, Sadahara Oh (you can call him the Japanese Babe Ruth) once revealed the secret of his success. He said that he views the opposing server as a partner, each serve providing him with a scoring opportunity. Successful negotiators do the same thing: they treat the other party as a partner in an opportunity to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. In Japanese martial arts — such as judo, jujitsu and aikido — one of the main principles is to avoid direct opposition of one’s own strength to that of an opponent. Since trying to break the resistance only strengthens it, you are trying to bypass the resistance of the enemy. This is how the breakthrough is made.

The breakout strategy does not involve imposing one’s position on the other side. Instead of bringing in a new idea from outside, you help the opposing party formulate it themselves. You don’t tell them what to do, but let them decide for themselves. You do not force them to change their point of view, but you create conditions for learning. Only they themselves can overcome their resistance, your task is to help them.

Resistance to collaborative problem solving is determined by the five barriers listed above. As a breakout negotiator, you must remove the barriers between NO and YES to a mutually beneficial agreement. Each of the barriers has its own strategy step.

• Step yek. Since the first barrier is your natural response, the first step is to suppress that response. To solve problems together, you must maintain peace of mind and focus on achieving the goal. A useful technique for seeing the whole situation is to imagine that you are standing on a balcony and looking down at the negotiations. The first step of the breakthrough strategy is to climb onto the balcony.
• Gav Du. The next barrier you need to overcome is the negative emotions of the other side, which include defensiveness, fear, suspicion, and hostility. It is very easy to get into an argument, but you should not give in to the temptation. Having dealt with your emotions, you must help the other party to do the same. To create a favorable climate for joint problem solving, it is necessary to remove the negative emotions of partners. To do this, you must act contrary to their expectations. They expect you to behave like an adversary. Instead, you should go the other way by listening to your opponents, acknowledging their arguments and feelings, agreeing with them, and showing respect. If you want to sit down and start solving problems, you need to go over to their side.
• Gav sê. Now it’s time to start working together to solve the problem. This is difficult to do if the other side does not retreat a single step from its position and tries to achieve your surrender. You have a natural desire to reject their offer, but this will only increase their stubbornness. Do the opposite. Listen to the sentence and reframe it in an attempt to solve the problem. So, for example, you can get acquainted with the position of the opposite side and try to find out the motives: “Please explain in more detail. I want to understand why you need it.» Act like your opponents are really interested in solving the problem. Thus, The third step of the breakout strategy is to change the frame.
• Gav are. Even if you managed to involve the other side in the process of joint problem solving, a mutually beneficial agreement may still be very far away. Negotiating partners may feel dissatisfied and doubt the benefits of the agreement. You probably want to put pressure on them, but this will only increase resistance. Do the opposite. As one Chinese sage said, one must «build a golden bridge» connecting their position to a mutually beneficial agreement. You must bridge the gap between their interests and yours. Help them save face and accept the result of the negotiations as their victory. Fourth step breakthrough strategy is to build a golden bridge for them.
• Step five. Despite your best efforts, the other side may still be uncooperative, convinced that they can defeat you by force. At this stage, there is a temptation to escalate the conflict. However, threats and coercion are usually met with resistance, resulting in costly and fruitless battles. The alternative is to use force not to escalate the conflict, but to teach. Strengthen your power as a negotiator to bring the other side back to the negotiating table. Show your opponents that they cannot win on their own — only together with you. Thus, The fifth step of the breakthrough strategy is to use strength to learn.

The sequence of these steps is extremely important. You will not be able to extinguish the negative emotions of the other side without first dealing with your own. It’s hard to build a golden bridge for a partner until you’ve changed the game into a shared solution to a problem. But this does not mean that, having taken, for example, the first step, you should consider this stage completed. On the contrary, throughout the entire negotiation process, you should “go up to the balcony”. As soon as you notice the anger or frustration of your opponents, you should take a step towards them. The negotiation process can be compared to a symphony, in which different instruments enter one after another, and then lead their parts to the very end.

The breakthrough strategy can be applied to anyone—an irritable boss, an emotional teenager, a hostile coworker, or an unpredictable client. It can be used by diplomats looking to avoid war, by lawyers who don’t need an expensive lawsuit, or by spouses trying to save a marriage.

No two people and situations are the same, so to develop your own strategy, you must combine the basic principles of a breakthrough strategy with knowledge of the specific circumstances. There is no magic recipe that guarantees success in any negotiation. But patience, perseverance, and a breakthrough strategy will maximize your chances of getting what you want in even the most difficult of negotiations.

The following chapters detail the five steps of a breakthrough strategy and provide specific ways to implement them, illustrated with real-life examples. First, though, there’s a prologue about what’s key to effective negotiation: preparation.

Prologue. Preparation, preparation and more preparation

I once asked the British diplomat Lord Carendon what was the main lesson he learned from many years of successful work for the government. “The main lesson,” he replied, “I learned at the very beginning of my career, when I was appointed to the Middle East as an adviser to one of the representatives of local authorities. My boss had to come to a specific village every day to settle conflicts and resolve other pressing issues. His arrival caused a real pandemonium — the locals besieged him with requests and vied with each other to offer coffee. And so it went on until the evening, until we left. In such an environment, he could easily forget the purpose of his visit, if not for one simple habit…

Before entering a village, he would stop the jeep on the side of the road and ask, «What are we going to do in this village today?» We answered this question together and then moved on. Leaving the village at the end of the day, he again stopped the jeep on the side of the road and asked: “How did we work? Were you able to accomplish what you set out to do?»

This simple habit is the main lesson learned by Carendon. Every meeting should be preceded by preparation. After each meeting, it is necessary to evaluate progress, amend the strategy and prepare for a new round. The secret to effective negotiation is simple: prepare, prepare, prepare.

Most negotiations are won or lost before they even begin, depending on the quality of the preparation. Anyone who hopes for a successful «improvisation» is often deeply mistaken. Even if such people manage to reach an agreement, they often miss out on the opportunities for mutual benefit that might come from the preparation. The more complex the negotiations, the more intensive the preparation should be.

When it comes to preparation, many people throw up their hands in frustration: “But I can’t afford to waste time preparing!” Looks like preparation is at the bottom of their to-do list. Either a phone call will ring, requiring an urgent answer, or you need to rush to a meeting that you cannot miss, or an urgent problem arises in the household …

In fact, you cannot afford not to prepare. Take the time to prepare, even if it means shortening the negotiations themselves. The effectiveness of negotiations will increase significantly if their participants spend most of the allotted time on preparation, and less on the negotiations themselves.

There is no doubt that in most cases we operate under tight time frames. The following negotiation preparation tips take this limitation into account. These recommendations (the quick preparation table is given in the Appendix at the end of the book) can be completed in just fifteen minutes. The rule of thumb is: one minute of preparation for every minute of interaction with the other side.

But how should one prepare for negotiations? In negotiations, as in travel, the most important thing is a good map.

Plotting a route to an agreement

The path to a mutually beneficial agreement is marked by five important points. These are interests, options for satisfying these interests, standards for the fair resolution of contradictions, alternatives for negotiations and proposals.

1. Berjewendî

Negotiations, as a rule, begin when the position of one of the parties conflicts with the position of the other side. In normal trading, it is enough for you to determine your position in advance. However, the joint solution of the problem presupposes an appeal to the interests that determine the positions of both parties. The difference between these concepts is very important. A position is a specific requirement expressed in dollars, cents, terms and conditions. Interests are the intangible motives that motivate you to take a given position, that is, needs, desires, worries, fears, and aspirations. To work out an agreement that satisfies both parties, you must first find out the interests of each party.

State your interests. If you don’t know your destination, you will never get there. For example, let’s say you have a recalcitrant client who insists on the initial price of your services. At the same time, he ignores the cost of additional work, the need for which could not be foreseen in advance. In such negotiations, your position may be expressed as follows: «I want to increase the price by thirty percent to account for additional costs.» Your interest in raising the price may be to keep the profit and keep the customer happy. Finding your own interests helps one simple question: why? Why do I want this? What problem am I trying to solve?

It is very important to distribute your interests in order of importance. Otherwise, you may make the very common mistake of sacrificing an essential interest for a non-essential one. If the relationship with the client promises to be very profitable, then this interest can be given the highest priority. The interest in making a profit in this project may fade into the background, and the third on the list will be the desire not to create a precedent for free additional work.

Find out the interests of the other side. Negotiation is a two-way street. Usually you cannot satisfy your own interests without satisfying the interests of the other party. Therefore, it is very important to understand their interests — no less important than your own. Perhaps a recalcitrant client is concerned about staying within budget and seeking to earn the boss’s praise.

I remember my Uncle Mel coming into my office at Harvard Law School on his twenty-fifth anniversary visit. He pulled me aside and said, “You know, Bill, it took me twenty-five years to forget what I learned at Harvard Law School. Because here I was taught that the only important thing in life is the facts. Who is right and who is wrong. It took me twenty-five years to realize that just as important, if not more important than the facts themselves, is how people perceive the facts. If you don’t understand this, you will never be able to effectively close deals or resolve disputes.”

The most important thing in the art of negotiation is the ability to put yourself in the place of the other side. If you are trying to change their views, then you need to understand those views first.

But how can you find out about the interests of the other side? Try to just look at the problem from their point of view and understand what they care about the most. Then ask yourself: is it difficult to do business with them at all, or is this a temporary deviation from the norm? What events in their professional or personal life may have influenced their attitude towards you? Do they have a reputation for being honest and fair negotiators? If time allows, you can talk with people who are close to them — with friends, schoolmates, clients and subordinates. The more you learn about the opposing side, the higher the chances of influencing it.

2. Vebijêrk

The purpose of identifying the interests of both parties is to determine whether non-standard options can be found to meet these interests. The invention of mutually beneficial options is the main chance of a negotiator. Effective negotiators don’t just cut a pie of a known size. They first look for ways to enlarge this pie.

It is not always possible to maintain one’s position, but it is often possible to satisfy one’s interests. You may not be able to raise the price by thirty percent, but you can come up with an option that will allow you to profit from this project and at the same time satisfy the client. Is it possible to shift some of the additional work to the client’s staff? And if you extend the project to the next financial year, so that additional costs are included in the next year’s budget? And is it possible to compensate for the decline in profits in this project by entering into an agreement on the future significant amount of work? But what if you can demonstrate to the client that the additional work will result in significant cost savings, some of which can be used to pay for these works?

A very common mistake in negotiation is the inability to move away from the only solution, that is, the starting position. By recognizing the existence of several options, you open the way for new possibilities, one of which may serve your interests while satisfying the other side.

The biggest obstacle to inventing new options is the little voice in our own head that keeps repeating, “This won’t work.” Such important elements of thinking as critical analysis and evaluation can stifle the imagination. Therefore, it is better to separate these functions. Refrain from judging for a few minutes and try to come up with as many ideas as possible. Do not discard those that at first glance seem strange — remember that many of the most wonderful inventions of mankind began with strange ideas, rejected by everyone. By brainstorming as many options as possible, you are able to analyze them and evaluate how well they are able to satisfy your interests and the interests of the other side.

3. Standard

Once you’ve enlarged the pie, it’s time to think about how to split it. But how can you together choose the appropriate option if your interests diverge from the interests of the opposite side? The client wants to pay as little as possible for the work, and you would like to get more. How to resolve this contradiction? Probably the most common method is a dispute. Each side insists on its position, trying to force the enemy to surrender. The whole difficulty lies in the fact that no one wants to capitulate. The dispute on the merits very quickly develops into a clash of ambitions. A person who is forced to give in remembers his defeat and tries to take revenge the next time — if there is a next time at all.

Successful negotiators avoid collision by turning the selection process into a joint search for a fair and mutually beneficial agreement. They are based on fair standards independent of the wishes of both parties. An independent standard is the yardstick to find a fair solution. Such common standards are market value, equality, law, or even the way a previous dispute is resolved.

The great advantage of standards is that both parties are able to agree on what is considered fair, rather than insisting that one party concede the other on some point. It is easier for a client to agree to a standard such as a market rate than to pay a fee simply because you have charged it.

For this reason, you should consider in advance which standards can be referred to in the negotiation process. Home preparation should include an analysis of market prices, scientific criteria, costs, professional standards, and precedents. Arm yourself with arguments to convince.

4. Alternatîf

Too often, people come into negotiations with the intent to get what they want and only begin to consider alternatives after they encounter serious difficulties. This is a classic mistake. Knowledge of alternatives can determine success in meeting your interests.

The goal of a negotiation does not have to be an agreement. The fact is that an agreement is just a means of satisfying interests. The purpose of the negotiation is to figure out what is more in your interest: an agreement or a Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BAT).

NAOS is an alternative when exiting the game. This is the most rational course of action in the absence of an agreement. If you are negotiating with your boss for a pay rise, then your best alternative may be to work for another firm. If you’re haggling with a salesperson, talking to a department manager or using the services of another store can be considered as a BAT. In the event that two states are arguing over the terms of trade, an international court may be the best alternative. As a rule, going to the NAOS leads to additional costs and worsens the relationship — which is why you are negotiating, trying to find the best solution to the problem.

NAOS determines the strength of each negotiator. Your strength as a negotiator is not determined by being bigger, older, or richer than the other side, but by the quality of the best alternative to the solution being negotiated. A viable NAOS gives you the leverage to reach your goal. The better the NAOS, the stronger you are.

Define your NAOS. The best alternative to the solution being discussed should be the yardstick by which you approach a potential agreement. There are three types of alternatives that you should consider when designing the NEA.

First, what can you do to satisfy your interests? Your alternative when exiting the game might be to look for another supplier (or another customer if you are a seller).

Secondly, how can you influence the other side to make them respect your interests? Such «interactive» alternatives include, for example, strike and war. And thirdly, how to put the other side in a situation where it will promote your interests? An alternative involving a “third party” may involve recourse to an intermediary, arbitration or court. After developing several alternative options, choose among them the one that best suits your interests.

Always keep the NAOS with you. Under extreme pressure and on the verge of panic, you can pat your pocket and say, “It’s okay even if this thing goes wrong.”

Develop your NAOS. As a rule, NAOS does not appear in a ready-made form — it needs to be developed. If the alternative is not very good, steps must be taken to improve it. So, for example, the search for another position in the same enterprise should not be taken as NAOS. It is better to make an effort and really change jobs. If you’re selling a house, don’t hesitate to show it after one person has shown serious interest; look for other potential buyers. If your company is at risk of being taken over by a raider, try to find friendly buyers or consider taking out a loan to buy back the shares, taking the company private.

Decide if you need to negotiate. Having formulated the best alternative to the agreement under discussion, you should ask yourself the question: “Is it necessary to enter into negotiations at all?” Have you ever wondered why some people do not stop trying to negotiate with a despotic boss when they should have quit a long time ago? Or why do desperate parents keep believing the promises of troubled teenagers, each broken as quickly as the last? Habit, shame, guilt and fear all contribute, but the main reason is that the employee or parents have forgotten about the best alternative to the solution being discussed. If they had thought of the NAOS, they might have found a better way to serve their interests without having to negotiate with a cunning and ruthless adversary.

It is possible that your NAOS is better than any agreement that you can conclude with this person. Remember also that the negotiation process itself requires certain costs. It can take a lot of time and effort, and as a result, you will have to abandon all alternative options. Therefore, the decision to start negotiations should be carefully weighed.

Don’t forget the danger of overestimating the quality of your NEA. Many company executives, having listened to the advice of self-confident lawyers, refused to negotiate and went to court, and then found themselves on the verge of financial collapse. As a result of any lawsuit, strike or war, one of the warring parties — and sometimes both — finds that its NAOS is not as good as they thought. If you know in advance that the alternative is not very attractive, then make every effort to reach an agreement.

Determine the opposing party’s NAOS. Knowing the other side’s best alternative can be as important as formulating your own. NAOS. This gives you an idea of ​​the challenge ahead of you: to develop an agreement that outperforms their best alternative. This information will help you avoid the double pitfall of overestimating or underestimating the opposing party’s NAT. It is entirely possible that your NAOS is weak, but the opposing party’s NAOS may also be weak. Many salespeople and consultants are convinced that their customers are able to instantly defect to competitors. They often do not represent the true cost of switching suppliers. An objective assessment of the best alternatives of their customers will give sellers confidence in difficult negotiations.

If the opposing side’s NAOS involves the use of force, then you have the opportunity to prepare in advance for the confrontation. So, for example, if your company is threatened by a raider, you can change the company’s charter to make it more difficult for a hostile takeover. Think about how to neutralize the effect of the enemy’s hostile actions.

5. Pêşniyar dike

Consideration of interests and analysis of options open the way to a creative solution to the problem. The adoption of fair standards and the development of alternatives help to select the appropriate option, which will form the basis of a proposal for a likely agreement.

To formulate a reasonable offer, you must choose the option that suits your best interests better than the NAOS. This option should also serve the interests of the opposing party better than their NAOS, and should be based on fair standards whenever possible. The proposal differs from the usual version in completeness: the proposal is a possible agreement that you are ready to agree to.

Of course, several proposals can meet this criterion at once. Therefore, it is useful to keep in mind three options for an agreement.

Hûn ji bo çi hewl didin? Many of us have a habit of setting fairly simple goals for ourselves in order to avoid «failures». Unfortunately, low demands are often self-fulfilling. The other side usually won’t give you what you don’t ask for. Therefore, it is not surprising that those who start with high, but realistic requests, achieve a better agreement. But what does «real» mean? The boundaries of reality are determined by justice and the best alternative of the other side. Set high goals for yourself.

• Start by asking, “What agreement am I looking for? What will satisfy my interests and at the same time remove the main concerns of the other side — so that there is a chance to get their agreement?

What are you willing to agree to? Very often, getting everything you want is not possible. Therefore, it is useful to ask yourself the second question: “What agreement, even if far from ideal, will satisfy my main interests so that I can agree to it?”

What will you put up with? The third proposal should be based solely on the evaluation of the NEA’s own: “Which agreement will satisfy my interests only slightly better than the best alternative to the solution under discussion? What agreement will I accept, albeit with difficulty? If you are unable to reach even such an agreement, it is worth considering leaving the negotiating table and turning to an alternative. This option plays the role of a «wire fence», reminding you of the dangers of accepting an agreement worse than the NEA.

Think of these three types of proposals not as rigid positions, but as concrete illustrations of different options for satisfying your interests. You cannot know in advance whether the opposing party will agree to your proposals. In addition, in the process of negotiation, there is often a solution that is even better suited to your interests — as well as the interests of the other side.

Dûbare

Preparing for a negotiation can be made easier by discussing it with someone else. An outsider will appreciate them with a fresh look; may bring new ideas; make you pay attention to doubtful points that you might not have noticed; and, finally, provide you with moral support. Therefore, it is worth thinking about rehearsing negotiations with a colleague or friend. An additional advantage of this process is that in this case preparations for negotiations cannot be avoided.

At the rehearsal, lay out everything you are going to say to the opposing party, as well as your responses to their proposals. After all, lawyers rehearse speeches in complex trials, politicians rehearse media interviews, corporate executives rehearse speeches to shareholders — why don’t you rehearse difficult negotiations? It is better to make mistakes in rehearsal with a friend or colleague than in real negotiations.

Ask a colleague to play the role of an opponent and test your strength of persuasion, your ability to focus on interests, options, and standards. When you’re done, ask a colleague what worked and what didn’t. What is it like to be your opponent? What should you change in your actions? Then try again until you get it right. If you can’t find a colleague or friend to play the opponent, try writing down everything you’re going to say and rehearse with yourself.

Try to anticipate the tactics of the other side and think in advance how to react to them. By doing this, you will reduce the likelihood that you will be taken by surprise. You will not be confused and will be able to say to yourself: “Aha! I knew this was where it was heading,” and then offering a prepared response. This is the value of preparation.

Preparing for navigation

Ideally, negotiations proceed as you outlined in the preparation process. You start by looking at interests, trying to figure out what each side really wants. Then you discuss various options, looking for ways to meet the interests of both parties. You are considering a variety of standards of fair agreement to iron out contradictions. And finally, you exchange proposals, trying to reach a mutually beneficial agreement that is better for both parties than resorting to your own NAOS.

However, in the real world, your efforts to involve your opponent in a joint problem-solving process are met with strong reactions, hostile feelings, rigid positions, strong dissatisfaction and aggressive pressure. Your task is to change the game and move from confrontation to joint problem solving, turning your opponent into a negotiating partner. Now that you have a good map with a route to your goal, you need to apply a breakthrough strategy to overcome the obstacles blocking your path. The next five chapters are devoted to preparing for navigation.

II. Applying a Breakthrough Strategy

1. Don’t React

Climb up to the balcony

If you look closely at how people talk to each other, you will find countless examples of thoughtless reactions to the words of the interlocutor. Unfortunately, most conversations go something like this:

HUSBAND (thinking he’s focused on the problem): Honey, we need to do something about the house. A real pigsty.

WIFE (taking it as a personal attack): You don’t even want to lift a finger yourself! You don’t even do what you promise. Last night…

HUSBAND (interrupting): I know. I know. Just…

WIFE (not listening): …you promised to take out the garbage. And in the morning I had to carry it myself.

HUSBAND (trying to get back to the problem): Just don’t pose. I just wanted to say that both of us…

WIFE (not listening): And it was your turn to take the kids to school too.

HUSBAND (annoyed): Listen! I explained that I had a business breakfast.

WIFE (shouting): So your time is more important than mine? I work too! I’m tired of being on the sidelines all the time!

HUSBAND (turning to a cry): Shut up! And who pays most of the bills?

In the process of this skirmish, neither the interests of the husband, who wants to see order in the house, nor the interests of the wife, who wants more help with the housework, are satisfied. But that doesn’t stop the couple. Action causes reaction, reaction causes reaction, and the argument continues. According to the same scenario, a dispute between business partners develops over who will occupy an office at the end of the corridor, as well as a dispute between the trade union and the administration regarding the terms of a labor agreement, or a territorial conflict between ethnic groups.

Three natural reactions

Human beings are reacting machines. In a difficult situation, we naturally react reflexively, that is, without thinking. Here are the three most common types of reactions.

• vedigere paş. When faced with an attack from the opposing side, you instinctively rush back to attack, striking back — according to the principle «as it comes around, so it will respond.» If your opponents take a hard and extreme position, you do exactly the same.

Sometimes such an answer shows your opponents that you can play evenly and stops them. But much more often, such a strategy leads to a futile and costly confrontation. By your reaction, you justify the unreasonable behavior of your opponent. He thinks, “I assumed you wanted to get me. And here is the proof.» This is often followed by an escalation of conflict – a squabble, corporate pressure, legal action, or war.

Take, for example, one of the leaders of a company who has developed a new information system for production. The implementation of the system requires the consent of directors of enterprises throughout the country. Such consent was given by all the leaders, except for the director of the largest plant in Dallas, who said: “I don’t want your people to poke their nose into my affairs. I have to be responsible for everything that happens here. I can manage without you.» Offended by the refusal, the system developer threatened to complain to the company president, but this only further angered the director. Result: the appeal to the president of the company had the opposite effect, demonstrating that the information system developer is not able to find a common language with colleagues. Moreover, the president refused to intervene in the conflict, and the new information system remained a project.

By hitting back, you are unlikely to achieve the satisfaction of specific interests, and long-term relationships are likely to be damaged. If you win the battle, you will lose the war.

Another difficulty is that people who use force usually know what they are doing. It is quite possible that they are just counting on a retaliatory attack. Yielding to a provocation, you begin to play their game by their rules.

• Give in. The opposite reaction to retaliation is concession. The other side may put you in such a difficult position that you will give in, if only to end the matter as quickly as possible. She puts pressure on you, accusing you of blocking the deal. Do you want to be held accountable for protracted negotiations, damaged relationships, and a once-in-a-lifetime missed opportunity? Isn’t it better to just agree with opponents?

Many people make agreements and then slap their foreheads the next morning, exclaiming in desperation, “How could I have been so stupid? What did I agree to? Many of us sign contracts — for example, when buying a car — without reading the notes printed in small print. Why? Because the salesperson is on top of our minds, the kids want to get home in a new car, and we’re afraid we’ll look stupid asking questions about a contract we can’t figure out anyway.

Concession usually leads to an unsatisfactory result. You are left with an unpleasant feeling that you have been “fucked”. Moreover, by doing this you justify the misbehavior of the opposing side and gain a reputation as a weakling, which both your current and future opponents will not fail to take advantage of. In the same way that indulging children’s whims only reinforces such behavior of a child, giving in to an aggressive person provokes outbursts of aggression in the future. Perhaps the terrible character of the boss or client seems completely uncontrollable to you, but this is not so — the character can be controlled. It is unlikely that they make the same scandals to their superiors.

Sometimes we get lost and begin to please the unbridled person, comforting ourselves with the illusion that concession will help get rid of him once and for all, and we will no longer have to deal with him. However, most often such people return, demanding new concessions. After all, peacefulness has a downside. It is pointless to hope that by feeding a tiger meat you will make him a vegetarian.

• To break relations. The third instinctive reaction is to break off relations with a person or companies that are difficult to deal with. We divorce our spouse, quit our jobs, or leave a joint project.

Sometimes this strategy pays off. It happens that it is better to break off personal or business relationships than to be humiliated or embroiled in endless conflicts. In some cases, the gap helps to put the opponent in place, and he begins to behave more intelligently.

However, both the material and emotional cost of the gap is very high. This is the loss of a client, the collapse of a career or the breakup of a family. Most often, the breakup of a relationship is the result of a rush, which we later regret. Each of us has acquaintances who, disappointed in the boss or spouse, hastily break off relations without giving themselves a chance to improve them. Often they misinterpret the behavior of the opponent and do not try to reach an understanding. The habit of ending relationships leads to stagnation — you never achieve anything, and you have to start all over again.

Danger of instinctive reaction

With an instinctive reaction, we forget about our interests. Consider the Pentagon’s response to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981.

Shortly after the hostage-taking, a reporter asked a Pentagon official what help the military could provide to free them. The official replied that any action would endanger the lives of American citizens. The Pentagon, he continued, is developing tough measures to be taken after the release of the hostages. But his reasoning is illogical. Why would Iranian students release the hostages if they know for sure that retribution from the United States will follow? The Pentagon made a very common mistake by confusing revenge with results.

Often the opposite side is counting on your instinctive reaction. The first victim of the attack is your objectivity — an essential quality for effective negotiation. Opponents are trying to confuse you and deprive you of the ability to think clearly and logically. They want to bait you like a fish and make you do what they want. It is worth succumbing to emotions — and you are on the hook.

The strength of the opposing side largely depends on the ability to provoke an instinctive reaction in you. Have you ever wondered why a small group of terrorists in the Middle East manage to attract the attention of the whole world and deprive the leader of the most powerful power on the planet of sleep? To do this, it is enough to capture an American walking down the street. The kidnappers themselves do not have any significant power — it is the reaction of American society that makes them strong.

Hetta if the instinctive reaction does not cause you to make a serious mistake, the result is a counterproductive action-response cycle. Ask a wife why she is yelling at her husband and you will hear the answer: «Because he is yelling at me.» Ask the same question to your husband, and he will say the same thing: «Because she yells at me.» An instinctive reaction only exacerbates the problem. It takes two to argue, just like tango.

Climb to the balcony

If you hate to hear that you are contributing to the development of a vicious cycle of action and response, I hasten to reassure you — you can break this cycle at any time, and yekalî. How? Don’t react. From the initial course of physics, we know that «for every action there is an equal and oppositely directed reaction.» However, this Newton’s law applies only to inanimate objects, and not to the human psyche. Objects are responsive. A person is able to restrain the reaction.

O. Henry’s story, «The Chief of the Redskins,» is a vivid illustration of the power restraint can be. The parents, whose son was kidnapped, did not react in any way to the demands of the kidnappers. Over time, the boy turned into a burden for criminals, and they were ready to pay their parents to take the child. The story reveals a psychological game, which is determined by the reaction of a person. Holding back the instinctive reaction, the parents destroyed the plans of the criminals.

Once in a difficult situation, you need to step back, collect your thoughts and objectively assess the state of affairs. Imagine that the negotiations are taking place on the theater stage, and you are going up to the balcony hanging over the stage. «Balcony» is a metaphor for psychological detachment. From the height of the balcony, you can calmly analyze the conflict, almost like an outside observer. You can put forward constructive proposals on behalf of both parties and seek a satisfactory solution to the dispute.

In the ancient Japanese art of swordsmanship, students are encouraged to look at their opponent as if they were a distant mountain. The great samurai Musashi called it «a look from afar at close things.» This definition is fully applicable to the view from the balcony.

Climbing to the balcony means distancing yourself from natural impulses and emotions.

In this regard, the example of Janet Jenkins, who entered into a multi-million dollar deal to sell television programs to a cable network, is indicative. An hour after the start of the final round of negotiations with a representative of the cable network, the head of the company burst into the office. He criticized Janet’s product, questioned her personal integrity, and demanded radical changes to the terms of the contract. However, Janet managed to contain her emotions and mentally «go up to the balcony». She realized that by defending herself or counterattacking, she would only add fuel to the fire and would not get any closer to a contract. So she just let the head of the company speak. After he finished his angry speech and left, Janet apologized for a minute — ostensibly to make a phone call, but in fact to calm down.

When she returned to the negotiating table, the cable network representative looked at her and asked: «So, back to where we left off?» In other words, he was letting her know, “Ignore what the boss says. He was just letting off steam. Let’s get back to business.» If Janet had not been able to restrain herself, the negotiations would have gone far to the side. But she «climbed to the balcony» and was able to calmly conclude the negotiations, making a deal.

You should «go up to the balcony» before the negotiations start — as a preparation. In addition, it is necessary at the first opportunity to «go up to the balcony» in the negotiation process. The behavior of the opposite side will constantly provoke you to an instinctive reaction. But you must not for a moment forget the ultimate goal.

Your goal is an agreement that suits your interests better than the best alternative. In addition, the agreement must also satisfy the interests of the opposing party. Once you have a goal, you need to focus on achieving it. It is not easy. When you are angry or cornered, you want to lash out at your opponent. Depression and fear cause a desire to quit and leave. How to deal with your natural reactions?

Name the game

Very often you are so absorbed in what is happening that you are not aware of your reaction. Therefore, your first task is to understand the tactics of the opposite side. Our distant ancestors believed that it was possible to neutralize an evil spirit by calling it by name. The same applies to dishonest tricks — recognize them and they will lose their power.

Three types of tactics

Tactics are numerous, but they can all be classified into three categories: restraining, aggressive, and misleading.

• Pêgirî. Obstruction tactics is the refusal of any concessions. The opposing side may convince you that they have no room to maneuver and that their only option is their position. Obstruction can take the form of a fait accompli: “What’s done is done. Nothing can be changed.» Sometimes the opposing party refers to company policy: “I can’t help you. It’s company policy.» It is also possible to appeal to previous commitments: «I promised to give up the position of the head of the union if I did not get an eight percent increase.» The other side may resort to endless delays: «We will contact you.» Or you will hear a categorical statement: “As you wish. You may not agree.» They reject any other offer.
• Attacks. Attacks are an aggressive practice designed to intimidate you to the point where you agree to your opponent’s terms. Probably the most common form of attack is the threat of repercussions if you do not accept their offer: “Agree, or else …” The other party may criticize your offer (“Your numbers do not add up!”), Your competence (“You are new to this position, right?”), your status and authority (“We want to talk to the one who actually makes the decisions!”). The aggressor will insult you, tease you and piss you off until he gets his way.
• Tricks. Subterfuge is a tactic designed to obtain concessions by fraudulent means. In this case, the other side uses your trust — you consider opponents honest and sincere. One of these tricks is data manipulation, that is, the use of fake, inflated or inconsistent numbers. Another trick is «lack of authority», where the opponent tries to convince you that he has the appropriate authority, and after getting concessions from you, he claims that someone else makes the decisions. Another trick is called «additions», when the other side makes additional demands after they convince you that an agreement has been reached.

Recognize Tactics

To successfully counter your opponent’s tactics, you need to recognize them.. If you understand that the other side is using filibuster tactics, then you are less likely to believe their lack of flexibility. Having recognized the attack in time, you will not become a victim of fear and discomfort, and having seen the trick in time, you will not succumb to deception.

Let’s illustrate this with an example.

Mr. and Mrs. Albin had just sold their house—or so they thought as they packed their things to move in. But then the buyer, Mr. Meloni, demanded a four-month delay in signing the paperwork because he couldn’t sell his house. Moreover, he refused to pay compensation to the Albin family for the delay. They, in turn, said they would look for another buyer. “You know,” Mr. Meloni replied, “you are very lucky to be dealing with me. There would be those who would sue you for trying to sell the house to another. The proceedings could drag on for many years, and all this time your property would be under arrest … But we are almost friends, and I am sure that we will be able to avoid all these troubles.

After saying goodbye to Mr. Meloni, Mr. Albin breathed a sigh of relief and said to his wife, “Thank God he’s not going to sue. Otherwise we would be stuck here for years. Maybe give him a little? To which Mrs. Albin replied: “Honey, you just got very well intimidated, and you didn’t even notice. He should be sued and we should deal with him accordingly.” Mr. Albin reacted to Mr. Meloni’s tactics exactly as Mr. Meloni intended, fear. But Mrs. Albin managed to suppress her emotions as she recognized the game.

Most often, these tricks succeed because of your ignorance. Suppose a client tells you that he is happy with the agreement, but that his partner will not sign the contract without significant changes. Not realizing that he is using a partner as a «bad guy», you can innocently agree to changes in the contract. Having understood the tactics of the opposite side, you will be on your guard.

The hardest thing to recognize lies. You must search ferq — between opponents’ words and their previous statements or actions, facial expressions, body language, intonations, and so on. Liars know how to manipulate words, but controlling the excitement that changes the timbre of the voice is much more difficult. It is equally difficult to control the symmetry of your face — for example, a liar’s smile can come out crooked. Remember, however, that anxiety can be caused by other causes and that one single sign cannot be relied upon. You need to look for a set of signs.

Watching your opponent’s tactics means being attentive, but not overly suspicious. Sometimes a person’s behavior is simply misinterpreted. One of the most famous images of politics in recent history is Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev thumping his boot on the podium during his speech at the UN in 1960. Everyone took his stunt as a tactic aimed at intimidating the West — a man who knocks his shoe on the podium can, without hesitation, use a nuclear weapon. Thirty years later, Khrushchev’s son Sergei explained that this was not what his father had in mind. Khrushchev, who had hardly been outside the Soviet Union, heard that the West loved heated political debate. So he showed the audience what he thought they wanted to see. Those present were shocked, and Khrushchev himself was most surprised by this. He was just trying to look like «his boyfriend». What has become synonymous with the unpredictability of Russians was actually the result of common misunderstandings between people of different cultures.

Therefore, you should turn on the radar, but do not wear armor. Mentally note a possible ruse or sneak attack. Neutralize it with knowledge and take it into account as a probability, not as an irrefutable fact. Look for additional evidence, remembering that difficult opponents are rarely limited to any one tactic.

Perwerdehiya Boris Polgeim li Sinton

• Muzakereyên bê têkçûn

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​