This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorized distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

Version 1.0

Epub ISBN 9781473505711

www.randomhouse.co.uk

Copyright © William Ury 1991

The right of William Ury to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

First published in Great Britain in 1991 by
Business Books Limited

This edition published in 1992 by Century Business

An imprint of Random Century Limited

20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London SW1V 2SA

Research at Harvard University is undertaken with the expectation of publication. In such publication, the authors alone are responsible for statements of fact, opinions, recommendations and conclusions expressed. Publication in no way implies approval or endorsement by Harvard University, any of its faculties, or by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Britsh Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 9780712655231

For Roger Fisher
with gratitude

Author’s Note

Ten years ago Roger Fisher and I wrote a book called Getting to Yes, which presented a step-by-step “dance routine” for negotiating mutually satisfactory agreements. That book continues to have considerable appeal, but there are questions almost every reader ends up asking: “What if the other side hasn’t read your book? What if they won’t dance that way? What if their answer is no?”

Getting Past No responds to these tough questions. I have tried to distill the techniques of successful negotiation in difficult situations into an all-purpose, five-step method called “breakthrough negotiation.” If Getting to Yes outlines a dance routine, Getting Past No shows how to get a reluctant partner to dance. While the two books complement each other, each stands on its own. You don’t need to have read the earlier book in order to understand and appreciate this one.

In writing this book I faced several troublesome language problems. What should the difficult person be called? “The other person” seemed too bland, while “adversary” risked reinforcing a win-lose mindset. In the end, I have relied principally on the term “your opponent.” By definition, “opponent” doesn’t mean an enemy but simply someone who has taken a position opposite to yours.

Then there was the question of pronouns. Should the opponent be “he” or “she”? I tried interchanging “she” and “he,” but readers found it confusing. At last I fell back on using “he” and “him” as generic pronouns. I apologize to any readers offended by this usage.

In working on successive drafts, I often felt like the opera tenor whose finale was greeted with enthusiastic cries of “Encore! Encore!” After the fifth encore, the tenor asked the audience, “How many more times do you want me to sing?” And the answer came back: “Until you get it right!”

My audience has been equally demanding. I am immensely grateful for the comments and suggestions of those who read drafts, including Linda Antone, James Bot-kin, William Breslin, Nancy Buck, Stephen Goldberg, Richard Haass, Deborah Kolb, Linda Lane, David Lax, Martin Linsky, David Mitchell, Bruce Patton, John Pfeiffer, John Richardson, Carol Rinzler, Jeffrey Rubin, James Sebenius, Dayle Spencer, William Spencer, Daniel Stern, Douglas Stone, Elizabeth Ury, and Janice Ury.

I should also mention my enormous debt to the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Over more than a decade my colleagues there have provided me with intellectual stimulation and camaraderie. My ideas on negotiation have been forged and tested in the freewheeling seminars and conversations that take place under the Program’s hospitable roof.

Another Harvard colleague and friend, Ronald Heifetz, generously allowed me to use his evocative phrase “going to the balcony,” a metaphor for taking a step back and getting some perspective.

I would also like to thank two able research assistants. Sarah Jefferys and Annette Sassi rummaged through the Harvard libraries for relevant books and articles, assiduously collecting negotiation examples. In addition, Annette wrote many insightful memos commenting on the evolving manuscript.

Throughout the process my assistant Sheryl Gamble proved indefatigable, working around the clock to help me meet publisher’s deadlines. With unfailing good spirits she managed successive crises and kept my office under control.

Without my agent, Raphael Sagalyn, there might not have been a book. He urged me to move my work on Getting Past No from the back burner to the front, provided valuable feedback, and put me together with Bantam.

Bantam’s fine team improved the book considerably. It has been a privilege to work with Genevieve Young, a superlative editor who took the time to coach and coax me through endless drafts. Danelle McCafferty, my line editor, applied her skillful pencil to the finished manuscript and cheered me along through the last stretch. Betsy Cenedella provided meticulous copy editing.

Let me end with a personal note. Shortly before I began writing this book, I had the great fortune to marry Elizabeth Sherwood. Little did I realize that she came from a family of determined and devoted editors. Dorothy, Richard, and Benjamin Sherwood marked up each successive draft with skill and savvy. Elizabeth read the book aloud with me from start to finish, making it leaner and more lucid. My greatest debt is to her: Her love and support got me past Getting Past No.

William Ury
January 1991
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Overview

Negotiating with Difficult People

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way.

—DANIELE VARE, Italian diplomat

Daily life is full of negotiations that can drive you crazy. Over breakfast you get into an argument with your spouse about buying a new car. You think it’s time, but your spouse says, “Don’t be ridiculous! You know we can’t afford it right now.”

You arrive at work for a morning meeting with your boss. You present him with a carefully prepared proposal for a new project, but he interrupts you after a minute and says, “We already tried that and it didn’t work. Next item.”

During your lunch hour you try to return a defective toaster-oven, but the salesperson refuses to refund your money because you don’t have the sales slip: “It’s store policy.”

In the afternoon you bring an already-agreed-upon contract to a client for his signature. You have trumpeted the deal to your associates and made the necessary arrangements with manufacturing. But your client tells you: “I’m sorry. My boss refuses to okay the purchase unless you give us a fifteen percent discount.”

On your drive home you flip on the radio, only to learn that yet another airplane has been hijacked by terrorists who threaten to kill all the passengers unless the government meets their demands. You feel sympathy for the families of the hostages but wonder out loud how anybody can negotiate with madmen.

In the evening you need to return some phone calls, but the line is tied up by your thirteen-year-old daughter. Exasperated, you ask her to get off the phone. She yells, “Why don’t you get me my own phone line? All my friends have them.” You try to reason with her, but she slams her door.

Each of us has had to face tough negotiations with an irritable spouse, an ornery boss, a rigid salesperson, a tricky customer, or an impossible teenager. Under stress, even nice, reasonable people can turn into angry, intractable opponents. Negotiations can bog down or break down, consuming our time, keeping us awake at night, and giving us ulcers.

These kinds of situations call for more than just ordinary negotiation skills. How do you deal with someone who won’t listen to you? Someone who throws a temper tantrum in order to get his way? Someone who tells you: “Take it or leave it!”

How do you handle someone who constantly interrupts you? Or who accuses you of being unreliable and incompetent? Or who tries to make you feel guilty? Or who threatens you with dire consequences unless you give in?

How do you negotiate with someone who uses false, phony, or confusing information? Someone who leads you to believe you have an agreement, only to make yet another last-minute demand? Or who drags his feet endlessly? Or who just plain refuses to negotiate?

Ideally, you would engage the other person in a game of problem-solving negotiation. You would begin by identifying his interests—his concerns, needs, and desires. You would proceed to explore different options for meeting both sides’ interests. Your goal would be to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement in an efficient and amicable fashion.

But what if your opponent is not interested in this kind of negotiation? You may want to get to yes, but what if his answer is no? How do you get past no?

Five Challenges

To get past no, you need to understand what lies behind the “no.” What makes your opponent refuse to cooperate? It is easy to believe that stonewalling, attacks, and tricks are just part of his basic nature, and that there is little you can do to change his difficult behavior. But you can affect his behavior if you can deal successfully with his underlying motivations.

Behind your opponent’s attacks may lie anger and hostility. Behind his rigid positions may lie fear and distrust. Convinced he is right and you are wrong, he may refuse to listen. Seeing the world as eat-or-be-eaten, he may feel justified in using nasty tactics to defend or avenge himself.

Further, your opponent may dig in and attack, not because he is unreasonable but because he knows no other way to negotiate. He is merely using the conventional negotiating tactics he first learned in the sandbox. In his eyes, the only alternative is to give in—and he doesn’t want to do that.

Even if he is aware of the possibility of cooperative negotiation, he may spurn it because he does not see how it will benefit him. Even if you can satisfy his interests, he may be afraid of losing face as he backs down from his position. And if it is your idea, he may reject it for that reason alone.

Moreover, if he regards negotiation as a win-lose proposition, he will be determined to come out the winner. Feeling more powerful, he may not see why he should engage in problem-solving negotiation. He may be guided by the precept “What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.”

Frustrated and angered by your opponent’s intransigence, you may feel like striking back. Unfortunately, this will probably provoke him even further. Or you may feel like giving in just to get him off your back. However, not only will you lose, but he may be encouraged to demand more. The problem you are up against is not only your opponent’s behavior but your reaction, which can easily perpetuate the very behavior you would like to stop.

To get past no, you must overcome each of these barriers to cooperation: his negative emotions, his negotiating habits, his skepticism about the benefits of agreement, his perceived power, and your reaction. You thus face five challenges.

The first step is to control your own behavior. Instead of reacting, you need to regain your mental balance and stay focused on achieving what you want. The first challenge is Don’t react.

Next you need to help your opponent regain his mental balance. You need to defuse his negative emotions—his defensiveness, fear, suspicion, and hostility. You need to break through his resistance and get him to listen. The second challenge is to Disarm your opponent.

Once you have created a favorable negotiating climate, you need to get your opponent to stop bargaining over positions and start exploring ways to meet both sides’ interests. You need to break through his stone walls, deflect his attacks, and neutralize his tricks. The third challenge is to Change the game.

Once you have engaged your opponent in problem-solving negotiation, you need to overcome his skepticism and guide him to a mutually satisfactory agreement. You need to bridge the gap between his interests and yours. You need to help him save face and make the outcome appear as a victory for him. The fourth challenge is to Make it easy to say yes.

Your opponent may still believe, however, that he can prevail through superior power. You need to enhance your negotiating power and use it to bring him to the table. You need to deploy your power without making him an enemy who resists you even more. The fifth challenge is to Make it hard to say no.

The Breakthrough Strategy

This book lays out a five-step strategy for meeting these challenges—the strategy of breakthrough negotiation. Taken in sequence, the five steps enable you to change the game from face-to-face confrontation to side-by-side problem-solving. While no method can guarantee success, the breakthrough strategy will maximize your chances of getting what you need in even the toughest negotiations.

The breakthrough strategy is counterintuitive: It requires you to do the opposite of what you might naturally do in difficult situations. When your opponent stonewalls or attacks you, you feel like responding in kind. When he insists on his position, you want to reject it and assert your own. When he exerts pressure, you are inclined to retaliate with direct counterpressure. But in trying to break down your opponent’s resistance, you usually only increase it.

The essence of the breakthrough strategy is indirect action. You try logo around his resistance. Rather than pounding in a new idea from the outside, you encourage him to reach for it from within. Rather than telling him what to do, you let him figure it out. Rather than trying to break down his resistance, you make it easier for him to break through it himself. In short, breakthrough negotiation is the art of letting the other person have your way.

Breakthrough negotiation can be used with any opponent—with an irascible boss, a temperamental teenager, a hostile co-worker, or an impossible customer. It can be used by diplomats trying to stave off a war, lawyers trying to avoid a costly court battle, or spouses trying to keep a marriage together. It is an all-purpose strategy that anyone can use.

STEP ONE

Don’t React

GO TO THE BALCONY

Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.

—AMBROSE BIERCE

If you watch the negotiations going on around you, you will see countless instances in which people react to each other without thinking. Too many negotiations proceed like this:

HUSBAND (thinking he is focused on the problem): Honey, we’ve got to do something about the house. It’s a mess.

WIFE (perceiving this as a personal attack): You don’t lift a finger! You don’t even do the things you promise. Last night—

HUSBAND (interrupting): I know. I know. It’s just that—

WIFE (not listening): —you said you’d take out the garbage. I had to do it this morning.

HUSBAND (trying to return to the problem): Don’t get defensive. I was just trying to point out that we’re both—

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

HUSBAND (reacting): Come on! I told you I had a breakfast meeting this morning.

WIFE (beginning to shout): Oh, so your time is more important than mine, is it? I have a job too! I’m sick and tired of playing second fiddle in this band.

HUSBAND (beginning to shout): Give me a break! Who’s paying most of the bills around here?

Neither the husband’s interest in a clean house nor the wife’s interest in more help is advanced by this exchange. But that doesn’t stop either spouse from going at the other. Action provokes reaction, reaction provokes counterreaction, and on it goes in an endless argument. The same pattern repeats itself when business partners quarrel about who gets the corner office, when union and management officials wrestle over work rules, or when ethnic groups battle over territory.

Three Natural Reactions

Human beings are reaction machines. The most natural thing to do when confronted with a difficult situation is to react—to act without thinking. There are three common reactions:

Strike Back

When someone attacks you, your instinctive reaction is to attack right back, to “fight fire with fire” and “give him a taste of his own medicine.” If he takes a rigid and extreme position, you do the same.

Occasionally, this will show your opponent that two can play the same game and will make him stop. More often, however, this strategy will land you in a futile and costly confrontation. You will provide him with a justification for his unreasonable behavior. He will say to himself: “Ah, I knew that you were out to get me. This proves it.” Escalation often follows in the form of a shouting match, a corporate showdown, a lawsuit, or a war.

Take the example of the senior manager who had developed a new information system for his company’s manufacturing process. To implement it he needed the agreement of all the plant managers across the country. Everyone agreed except for the manager of the largest plant in Dallas, who told him: “I don’t want your people fooling around in my business. The only way things get done around here is if I’m in control. I can do the job better on my own.” Frustrated, the systems manager reacted by threatening to take the matter to the company president, but that only enraged the plant manager. The end result: the systems manager’s appeal to the company president backfired, since it implied the manager couldn’t work smoothly with his peers. What’s more, the president refused to intervene, and the new information system languished on the drawing table.

Striking back rarely advances your immediate interests and usually damages your long-term relationships. Even if you do win the battle, you may lose the war.

The other problem with striking back is that people who play hardball are usually very good at it. They may actually be hoping that you are going to attack them. If you do, you put yourself on their home turf, playing the game the way they like to play it.

Give In

The opposite of striking back is giving in. Your opponent may succeed in making you feel so uncomfortable with the negotiation that you give in just to be done with it. He pressures you, implying that you are the one who is blocking agreement. Do you really want to be the one responsible for dragging out the negotiations, disrupting the relationship, missing the opportunity of a lifetime? Wouldn’t it just be better to say yes?

Many of us make agreements only to wake up the next morning slapping our foreheads and exclaiming, “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 all the fine print. Why? Because the salesperson is leaning over us, the kids are eagerly waiting to drive home in the new car, and we’re afraid of looking stupid if we ask questions about the contract, which is totally incomprehensible anyway.

Giving in usually results in an unsatisfactory outcome. You feel “had.” Moreover, it rewards your opponent for bad behavior and gives you a reputation for weakness that he—and others—may try to exploit in the future. Just as giving in to a child’s temper tantrum only reinforces this behavior pattern, so, too, giving in to an angry person only encourages angry outbursts in the future. Your boss’s or client’s terrible temper may appear to be uncontrollable—but a temper can be controlled. He probably doesn’t throw a tantrum in front of his boss.

Sometimes we are intimidated and appease an unreasonable person under the illusion that if we give in just this one last time, we will get him off our back and will never have to deal with him again. All too often, however, that person comes back for further concessions. There is a saying that an appeaser is someone who believes that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will eventually become a vegetarian.

Break Off

A third common reaction is to break off relations with the difficult person or organization. If it’s a marriage, get a divorce. If it’s a job, resign. If you are involved in a joint venture, dissolve it.

At times, avoidance is a perfectly appropriate strategy. Sometimes it is better to end a personal or business relationship if continuing means being taken advantage of or getting into fights again and again. Sometimes, too, breaking off reminds your opponent of the stake he has in the relationship and leads him to act more reasonably.

But the costs—both financial and emotional—of breaking off the relationship are often high: a lost client, a career setback, a shattered family. Breaking off is frequently a hasty reaction that we come to regret later. We all know people who take a job or enter a personal relationship, become frustrated with their boss or partner, and then leave without giving it a chance. Often they misinterpret the other person’s behavior and do not try to work it out. A pattern of breaking off relationships means you never get anywhere because you are always starting over.

The Dangers of Reacting

In reacting, we lose sight of our interests. Consider the Pentagon’s reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979–1981. Shortly after the crisis began, a news reporter asked a Pentagon spokesperson what the armed forces were doing to help. The spokesperson answered that there was not much they could do without jeopardizing the lives of the American hostages. The Pentagon, he continued, was working on tough measures to be carried out after the hostages were released. But he wasn’t thinking clearly: Why would the Iranian students release the hostages if they believed that the United States would retaliate soon afterward? The Pentagon made the all-too-common mistake of confusing getting even with getting what you want.

Often your opponent is actually trying to make you react. The first casualty of an attack is your objectivity—the faculty you need most to negotiate effectively. Your opponent is trying to throw you off balance and prevent you from thinking straight. He is trying to bait you like a fish so that he can control you. When you react, you are hooked.

Much of your opponent’s power lies in his ability to make you react. Have you ever wondered how a small terrorist group in the Middle East can command worldwide attention and create sleepless nights for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth—simply by nabbing a passing American on the street? The hostage-takers have hardly any power in and of themselves—their power comes from the reaction of the American public.

Even if reacting doesn’t lead to a gross error on your part, it feeds the unproductive cycle of action and reaction. Ask the wife why she shouts at her husband and she may answer, “Because he shouts at me.” Ask the husband and he will give the same answer: “Because she shouts at me.” By reacting, you become part of the problem. Just as it takes two to tango, it takes two to tangle.

Go to the Balcony

If the bad news is that you contribute to the vicious cycle of action and reaction, the good news is that you have the power to break the cycle at any time—unilaterally. How? By not reacting. In physics class we learn that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Newton’s law, however, applies to objects, not minds. Objects react. Minds can choose not to.