Roger Fisher (professor)

Roger Fisher (1922-2012) was a professor at Harvard Law School. Fisher was renowned for his work in negotiation, and authored (with William Ury, and later, others) the seminal book Getting to Yes. Professor Fisher was active in the Harvard Negotiation Project founded in 1979, which specializes in the "principled negotiation" style described in the book. Until his retirement in 1993 (?), Professor Fisher helped run a week-long course (Harvard Negotiation Workshop). The 5-day, intensive workshop consisted of attorneys, law students, people from the business world, and others.

Fisher's approach to negotiation requires each participant privately to determine, in advance, what would be their Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). This is where you put your stake in the ground, and it is important to keep in mind what one's BATNA is, without necessarily explicitly discussing that with anyone else. Dr. Fisher recommended that people disentangle relationship interests from substantive interests and pursue each separately on its merits. He also believed that appeasement does not work. He reminded students that it is okay to be seen to be firm, but also okay to be flexible and reasonable during a negotiation (that it need not indicate weakness). He recommended that people focus on the "position" being discussed but at the same time, look behind the position to clarify the interests of other parties.

Fisher encouraged people to discuss what people might do without that giving any commitment that they will do a thing. He suggested it was helpful to invent options without commitment, and commit carefully only later. Thus, a negotiation should have, per Fisher, three distinct stages:

1. formulating possible decisions
2. evaluating comparative merits (how would that feel for each party?)
3. making a choice

The words "should" and "ought" were banned from discussions as taught by Fisher. It is okay, he said, to make offers or set limits, but cautioned people to be aware of one-way communication where one side does all the talking and none of the listening. He warned against making a decision before discussing it: Always Consult Before Deciding.

Fisher's training usually started with a long session to innoculate people against the most common useless trick that can arise in a negotiation: "positional bargaining". It has no criterion for fairness. Think of a car salesperson starting with an outrageous offer, then cutting it way down and acting like they are offering a fantastic deal, all without having brought any evidence at all for why the price should be that particular amount. Fisher's advice was "never engage in positional bargaining." Don't even start.

Next, he would describe a legal plea bargain scenario, which is really an example of hardball. Again, he recommended against using a hardball approach in most negotiations, because it is not really a negotiation at all. It's a bargaining technique that in essence goes down sort of like a mugging: "I have this baseball bat, and if you don't give me the money from your wallet right now, I'm going to crack your head open with it." Yes, maybe giving the money is better than getting one's head cracked open. But that is not a negotiation, really--it is more of a threat avoidance technique. In the workshop, it was often difficult to get attorneys not to take that approach in any negotiation because they had been trained so strongly to do it.

In the negotation workshops, Fisher offered examples of language he thought could be helpful in a negotiation with a landlady, such as:

1. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
2. We appreciate what you've done for us.
3. Our concern is fairness.
4. We would like to settle this on the basis, not of selfish interest and power, but of principle.
5. Trust is a separate issue.
6. Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?
7. What's the principle (reason) behind your action?
8. Let me see if I understand what you're saying.
9. Let me get back to you.
10. Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning.
11. One fair solution might be...
12. If we agree... AND If we disagree...
13. We'd be happy to see if we can leave when it's most convenient for you.
14. It's been a pleasure dealing with you.

If people try to be tricky, recognize the tactic and raise the issue explicitly, advised Fisher. Question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability--negotiate over it. Here are some "tactics" that could occur:

• deliberate deception (although "total disclosure is not required")
  • phony facts
  • ambiguous authority
  • dubious intentions
• psychological warfare
  • stressful situations (physically)
  • personal attacks
  • good guy/bad guy routines
  • threats
• positional pressure tactics
  • refusal to negotiate
  • extreme demands
  • escalating demands
  • lock in tactics

Instead, Fisher emphasized that parties need to engage in side-by-side, hard-headed problem solving. He suggested trying lots of different things, such as "trying talking (when before I would have considered it useless), avoid taking a position until I know as much as I can about both sides, work on my BATNA, recognize situations where planning techniques can be used, and journaling about my experiences".

Other advice:

• Ask open-ended questions, such as "What's on your mind?"
• Dare to be cooperative.
• Step back and see what the other side is doing, try to get inside their head.
• Find out more; ask.
• Ignore an offense from another party.
• Don't react--instead, be silent.
• Call someone's bluff: Why are you here?
• Acknowledge stalemate situations.
• Focus on result-producing ideas.

The goal in the end is to come to the decider with one clarified choice, which meets some interests of both (or all) parties, and say "This is the best I can do to meet your interests. Give me some suggestions, criticisms, comments". Postpone all commitments to the end. Fisher called this the "one-text" technique.

The last exercise of the workshop was typically a group negotiation. These are highly risky, and the biggest risk is that the shyest, quietest person at the table will not have their voice heard, and they will have veto power to prevent any agreement between the other parties from working successfully. This very often happens, so it is extremely important to make sure that all parties have had a chance to express their concerns before attempting any resolution.