Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton
Contents
Questions About Power
Overview
This chapter argues that negotiating skill, not raw resources, drives power. It urges optimism, discourages power comparisons, and details six power sources: relationships, communication, interests, options, objective criteria, and BATNA (plus micro-BATNA). It adds the power of commitments—what you will do, will not do, and want others to do—and stresses integrating these coherently.
Summary
The chapter asks whether negotiation technique matters when the other side seems stronger and how to enhance one’s power. It acknowledges limits—success requires offering something better than the other side’s BATNA—but asserts that method often determines agreement quality, relationship outcomes, and even whether a deal is reached.
It distinguishes resources from persuasion power and warns against ranking “who’s more powerful,” which undermines preparation and morale. Instead, it recommends optimistic aspiration, noting that skilled, persistent negotiators can find allies and levers even in asymmetric contexts.
Multiple power sources follow. Relationship power grows from mutual understanding, respect, and clear two-way communication. Communication power includes crafting persuasive messages, sharing mixed views to reduce fear, and active listening that reveals concerns, as shown when a medical intern uncovers an elderly patient’s abandonment fears and secures consent to transfer. Demonstrating that you heard the other side increases your influence.
Interest power comes from diagnosing underlying concerns. A buyer saves nearly a million by meeting a station manager’s desire to remain part owner/manager rather than paying her initial price. Option power arises from elegant designs like second-price (stamp) auctions that align incentives and enlarge the pie.
Legitimacy power uses external standards to persuade and to resist arbitrary pressure (e.g., comparable sales, precedent). BATNA power involves strengthening your fallback and revealing it judiciously; prepare a micro-BATNA and exit lines for inconclusive meetings. Sometimes, legitimately worsening the other side’s BATNA (e.g., removing temptations) shifts choices toward agreement.
Commitment power means clarifying what you will do (firm, concrete, sometimes fading offers), what you will not do (credible “final” terms after exploring interests), and exactly what you want the other side to do to avoid ambiguity. Historical examples show unclear incentives reduce compliance. The chapter concludes: use all power sources in harmony and in ways you genuinely believe, enhancing overall persuasiveness.
Who Appears
- PurchaserConsiders a supplier’s bid but voices capacity concerns, illustrating transparent communication to enable problem-solving.
- Supplier (Bidder)Submits a competitive bid; benefits when the purchaser shares concerns, allowing reassurance and potential agreement.
- Businessman (Radio-station buyer)Uncovers the manager’s real interest and structures a deal saving nearly a million dollars.
- Station manager and one-third ownerDemands a high price but truly values continued management and ownership; accepts a tailored offer.
- Elderly patientInitially refuses transfer; reveals abandonment fears, enabling agreement once concerns are addressed.
- Medical internListens empathetically, identifies the patient’s underlying concern, and secures consent to move hospitals.
- FatherImproves his position by removing his wallet, legitimately worsening his son’s BATNA to induce lawn mowing.
- SonReveals his BATNA; changes behavior when the father eliminates that alternative.
- U.N. Security CouncilImposes sanctions on Iraq without clear relief terms, illustrating the need for explicit commitments.
- Saddam HusseinTarget of sanctions; ambiguous U.N. commitments reduce his incentive to withdraw from Kuwait.
- President Ronald ReaganHis impending inauguration creates a fading opportunity in the Iran hostage negotiations.
- Iranian authoritiesTime their hostage release around a changing U.S. administration, showing deadline-driven persuasion.