Easily the best book on negotiating that I have ever read. I’m going to buy a physical copy just to be able to reference, it’s that good.

This book is a very useful and detailed guide to negotiating for mutual gain. It’s a mix of theory, application, and examples. The advice is realistic; it says to be optimistic but aware of your limits. I’ve seen this book mentioned in magazines like Inc. and Entrepreneur, and a few business and sales books. I finally decided to read it when it was recommended on This Week in Web Design.

Main ideas
• Understand empathetically their point of view.
• Explain your interests and reasoning before presenting your proposal. Otherwise, they may not listen to your reasoning.
• Never yield to pressure; only to principle.
• Expand the pie, don’t simply divide it. Aim for mutual gain.
• Negotiate to strengthen the relationship, not strain it.

Separate the People from the Problem
• Don’t blame.
• Involve them in the decision-making process.
• Talk about both sides’ emotions.
• An apology defuses emotions, even if you don’t take personal responsibility for the situation.
• Describe how the problem affects you, rather than accusing them.
• Sit and act side-by-side, not face-to-face.

Focus on Interests, Not Positions
• Show that you understand their interests.
• Don’t argue about the past; decide on the future.

Invent Options for Mutual Gain
• Shrink the scope of a proposal to reduce perceived risk; offer a trial phase.
• Offers are usually more effective than threats.

Insist on Using Objective Criteria
• Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Ask “What’s your theory?” or “how did you arrive at that proposal?”
• Agree on standards before negotiating.
• Go to a third party if necessary.

Develop Your BATNA
• Your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) helps determine the minimally acceptable agreement, and will likely raise that minimum.

Negotiation Ninjitsu
• Invite criticism about your proposal; ask what they’d do in your situation.
• Use questions, not statements.
• Be silent after they give an unsatisfactory answer; they’ll feel compelled to re-answer.
• Say, “please correct me if I’m wrong” to appear open to correction.
• Express gratitude for what they’ve done so far. Say, “I appreciate what you’ve done.”
• It’s not a question of trust, it’s a question of principle.
• Give a credible reason for taking a break from negotiating, such as talking it over with another.

Taming the Hard Bargainer
• When someone uses their “hardhearted partner” as an excuse, first get their commitment in writing, then ask to speak to the partner.

Ten Questions People Ask
• Negotiating doesn’t require compromising your principles. Find a solution consistent with both sides’ principles.
• Propose your opening figure as a suggestion based on objective standards, not a firm position.
• The more you try for, the more you’re likely to get.

Есть третий путь ведения переговоров, предусматривающий позицию, основанную не на слабости или твердости, а скорее объединяющий и то и другое. Метод принципиальных переговоров, разработанный в рамках Гарвардского проекта по переговорам, состоит в том, чтобы решать проблемы на основе их качественных свойств, т. е. исходя из сути дела, а не торговаться по поводу того, на что может пойти или нет каждая из сторон. Этот метод предполагает, что вы стремитесь найти взаимную выгоду там, где только возможно, а там, где ваши интересы не совпадают, следует настаивать на таком результате, который был бы обоснован какими-то справедливыми нормами независимо от воли каждой из сторон. Метод принципиальных переговоров означает жесткий подход к рассмотрению существа дела, но предусматривает мягкий подход к отношениям между участниками переговоров. Он не прибегает к трюкам и не использует фактор положения. Принципиальные переговоры показывают, как достичь того, что вам полагается по праву, и остаться при этом в рамках приличий. Этот метод дает вам возможность быть справедливым, одновременно предохраняя от тех, кто мог бы воспользоваться вашей честностью.

This book shows you strategies that can be used during negotiations. Most of them are probably well known to you, but you couldn't name it. It's a good summary of tools that we have and that we should be aware of during negotiations. Tools used to enhance our ability to negotiate.

What I’ve missed in the book were examples of dialogue on which I can learn. Saying go try it does not make me know how I might react. I could practice negotiation, but it would be nice to have some test scenarios.

As the author wrote towards the ending, "This book is about how to "win" that important game — how to achieve a better process for dealing with your differences.". Not about how to win an argument or any such thing. It makes no claim at introducing brand new ideas, but aims simply at organizing a lot of what you may already know are good or bad practices in negotiation, and structuring the reasons why they work - or don't. I walked out with 6 pages of notes, so for me it was worth it.

great book for girl bossing and gas lighting

This is a guide book, an instruction. Very well structured, stingy for providing examples, but the book you'll leave on your desk for reference. I made lots of notes and refer back to it before every more or less significant occasion to negotiate anything - weekend plans with my wife or to do list with my team at work.

This book is great for diving deep into the topic of negotiations. I compared this book's teachings with the 1957 film '12 Angry Men' directed by Sidney Lumet, whose original 1954 teleplay was by Reginald Rose. There will be spoilers for 12 Angry Men.

Fisher Talks about the acronym of 'PIOC', which stands for 'people', 'interest', 'options' and 'criteria'. I want to talk about the first alphabet, 'P' for 'People', which elaborates to “separating the people from the problem”. Juror #8, the protagonist of the film, demonstrates a remarkable ability to separate the people from the problem. Fisher, says that in order to do this, “the participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other”. When the jury first convenes, he notices the tension and emotional baggage carried by some of the jurors, such as juror #3, when he pulled out a photograph of him and his son while he lamented on about the younger generation respecting their fathers. Rather than engaging in confrontations or escalating emotions, Juror #8 makes a conscious effort to acknowledge and respect their feelings without making them the focal point of the discussion. He continuously repeats his stance on 'not guilty', and does not bring up other people’s possible personalities, such as Juror #3’s temper.

This would be an awesome book to go along with class lectures and in-class practice of the ideas in here. As the authors state, this isn't anything new, but to be able to follow a lot of these ideas, you really do need to practice a lot and prepare. It's filled with great examples to illustrate their points. Great for anyone who wants to up their negotiation game.

I read this book years and years ago and then, recently, I was helping to write an article on Asia literacy and how this is treated in the Australian media and one of the things that struck me was how much was written about how Australia would benefit economically from a booming Asia, but how little was written about how Asia might benefit from having a relationship with Australia. One of the things this book tells you over and over again is that to really negotiate you need to spend at least as much time thinking about ‘their’ position as you do thinking about ‘yours’. There is a lot of this that is really worthwhile. It is written as a kind of self-help book – and I mean that negatively, but it was a choice they made and so you have to accept that, in a sense. One of the best pieces of advice in this is that if you are going to negotiate ethically, you need to focus on ‘reasons’. That is, try to keep the discussion on why something is fair or what other people have done which can be used as a standard for negotiations.

Now, I found this book hard going this time. Mostly because I worked as a negotiator for a trade union full time for 8 years and as a senior delegate for 20 and this brought back far too many bad memories. And while I really do understand that the techniques discussed here are very useful, there actually are times when there are no objective measures by which to conduct negotiations. This is particularly true when you are trying to negotiate for ‘better’ conditions and wages. Then references to what has gone before and what is consistent with that simply tie the negotiations down and mean you can never expect any better - which is precisely why management seek to use that as a technique. At one of the last negotiations I was involved in the 'gold standard' that was offered was economists perception of the likely rate of inflation in 12 months to two years from the time of the negotiation. This was 2009 - immediately after virtually not a single economist had predicted the GFC. Finding 'gold standards' with this stuff sometimes can be a real challenge.

But, that said, you probably aren’t going to really be doing industrial negotiations, you are much more likely to be doing negotiations involving spouses or kids or your local mechanic. And the techniques used here for framing the negotiations and for teaching you ways to remain calm are really, really useful.

All the same, the self-help book style of this one is a bit hard to take. So this is basically some really good advice said in just about the worst way possible.

You probably, at some level, know all of these already. But it helps to actually see and read and absorb what you know at intuitive level so you can consciously use negotiating tactics to earn an advantage.

Should you read it? Yes.

A negotiations book. Could have had more interesting examples and I’m always skeptical of blanket advice (how would these tactics come across from a woman? A person of color? What adjustments should you make based on culture or geography? Etc) but I still took some good notes.

* Democracies surface rather than suppress conflict
* You should come to work side by side. Attacking the problem together, not attacking the other person.
* People listen better if they feel that you’ve understood them (Restate, then “have I understood you correctly?”)
* Give your interests and reasoning first and your proposals later
* Commit yourself to your interests, go hard on that. But be flexible on your position.
* Inventing options does not come naturally. People see thier job as narrowing the gap between positions not broadening the options possible.
* “Let’s get 10 ideas on the board and then critique later.” Separate the act of developing options from the act of deciding on them
* In response to personal attacks, turn their concern into a problem statement. “I hear that you are upset about x, how might we address this problem in a way where both our interests are met?”
* The best negotiators are creating dialogues, not placing plane. “Please correct me if I’m wrong…” “Did I misunderstand?”
* “We appreciate what you’ve done for us” Make sure the person feels seen, it’s the problem that’s up for discussion
* Use “and” instead of “but” whenever possible
* Phrase each fact as a question “is x really true?” Or “I’m just trying to get the facts right. Can you help me understand?”
* “Given what we’ve discussed, one fair solution seems to be…”
* Negotiation does not require compromising your principles. There is often an option that allows all sides to maintain their principles.
* Roleplaying as the other side can help you find gaps in your own case
* Your reputation for honesty can be critical for long term negotiation
* Make sure the other side knows that you understand before refuting or suggesting a new solution
* You will be able to maximize your negotiation power if you believe what you say and say what you believe