The Power of Perspective: Separating People from the Problem in Negotiation

Negotiation is not just about the exchange of offers and counteroffers—it is also about human interaction. People bring emotions, biases, and personal experiences to the negotiation table, which can sometimes create unnecessary roadblocks. In Getting to Yes, Fisher, Ury, and Patton stress the importance of separating the people from the problem to ensure that negotiations remain constructive.

Chapter 2 of the book explores why relationship issues often derail negotiations and how negotiators can manage perception, emotion, and communication to stay focused on the actual problem. By recognizing these challenges and employing strategies to navigate them, negotiators can improve their ability to reach mutually beneficial agreements.

Why Relationship Issues Derail Negotiations

One of the most common pitfalls in negotiation is the tendency to personalize conflicts. Rather than focusing on the issue at hand, negotiators often view each other as adversaries. This mindset can escalate tensions, making it difficult to find common ground. The authors of Getting to Yes identify three key relationship barriers that can hinder negotiation success:

1. Perception: Seeing the Conflict Through a Biased Lens

Perception is one of the most significant obstacles in negotiation. Each party comes to the table with its own experiences, assumptions, and interpretations of events. These perspectives shape how they see both the conflict and the other party.

Common Perception Traps in Negotiation:

• • Stereotyping: Assigning negative labels to the other party (e.g., “They’re just being greedy” or “They don’t care about fairness”) makes it harder to consider their point of view.

  • Attribution Bias: Assuming negative intentions behind the other party’s actions while justifying one’s own behavior.

  • Selective Perception: Focusing only on information that supports pre-existing beliefs while ignoring facts that contradict them.

How to Overcome Perception Barriers:

• • Put yourself in the other party’s shoes. Try to understand their interests, motivations, and constraints.

  • Check assumptions. Ask questions instead of making conclusions about their intentions.

  • Frame issues neutrally. Avoid emotionally charged language that could put the other party on the defensive.

For example, if an employee is negotiating a raise, they might assume their employer undervalues them, while the employer might believe the employee lacks perspective on the company’s financial constraints. By clarifying perspectives and separating assumptions from reality, both sides can have a more productive conversation.

2. Emotion: How Anger, Fear, and Frustration Derail Negotiations

Negotiation is not purely logical—emotions play a significant role in how people approach conflict resolution. Fear, frustration, and anger can cloud judgment and make compromise more difficult. When emotions take over, negotiators may become defensive, aggressive, or completely disengaged.

How Emotion Affects Negotiation:

• • Escalation of conflict: Emotional reactions can turn a small disagreement into a full-blown argument.

  • Reduced problem-solving ability: When people feel threatened, their ability to think creatively diminishes.

  • Damaged relationships: Harsh words or aggressive tactics can create long-term resentment, making future negotiations more difficult.

Strategies to Manage Emotion:

• • Acknowledge emotions rather than suppressing them. If someone is frustrated, recognizing their feelings can help de-escalate tension.

  • Take a break if necessary. Walking away for a few minutes can prevent emotional reactions from spiraling out of control.

  • Stay focused on interests rather than personal attacks. Redirect conversations to the problem instead of dwelling on blame.

For instance, in a business partnership dispute, one party may feel betrayed by the other’s actions. Rather than retaliating emotionally, a productive approach would be to acknowledge their feelings while steering the conversation toward possible solutions.

A Better Way to Negotiate: An Introduction to Principled Negotiation

Negotiation is often seen as a tug-of-war between two opposing sides, each trying to pull the other closer to their position. However, as Fisher, Ury, and Patton highlight in Getting to Yes, there is a more effective approach—one that moves beyond rigid positions to focus on mutual interests and problem-solving. This approach, known as Principled Negotiation, is designed to produce wise agreements, preserve relationships, and improve negotiation efficiency.

The Problems with Positional Bargaining

Before diving into the principles of principled negotiation, it is important to understand why traditional positional bargaining often leads to suboptimal results. As outlined in Chapter 1 of Getting to Yes, positional bargaining—whether soft or hard—has inherent flaws:

• • It encourages stubbornness. When parties take rigid positions, they become less willing to explore alternative solutions that could better meet their needs.

  • It leads to inefficient negotiations. The back-and-forth process of making incremental concessions can be time-consuming and exhausting.

  • It strains relationships. Hard bargaining creates adversarial interactions, while soft bargaining can leave one party feeling exploited.

  • It overlooks underlying interests. Positional bargaining focuses on stated demands rather than the real motivations behind them, often missing opportunities for creative solutions.

Given these limitations, Fisher and Ury propose a more effective framework for negotiation—one that shifts the focus from positions to principles.

What Is Principled Negotiation?

Principled negotiation is a method that emphasizes mutual problem-solving over competitive haggling. It is built on four core principles, each designed to make negotiations more constructive, efficient, and fair.

1. Separate the People from the Problem

Negotiations often become emotionally charged, with parties viewing each other as obstacles rather than partners in problem-solving. This principle encourages negotiators to:

• • Distinguish personal relationships from the substantive issues at hand.

  • Acknowledge emotions and perceptions, while keeping discussions focused on objective concerns.

  • Use active listening to demonstrate understanding and defuse hostility.

For example, consider a workplace conflict where an employee demands a raise and their manager refuses. Rather than treating the situation as a battle of wills, both sides should explore why the employee feels underpaid—perhaps they believe their contributions are undervalued. By addressing concerns about recognition and career growth, rather than focusing solely on salary figures, the parties can work toward a solution that satisfies both sides.

2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions

A position is a stated demand (e.g., “I need a $10,000 raise”), while an interest is the underlying reason behind the demand (e.g., “I want financial stability and recognition for my contributions”). Effective negotiation requires looking beyond surface-level positions to uncover shared and differing interests.

To illustrate this point, imagine two roommates arguing over whether to keep a window open or closed. One insists on keeping it open for fresh air, while the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. A position-based negotiation might result in one person “winning” while the other is dissatisfied. An interest-based approach, however, reveals that the first roommate values ventilation while the second values warmth. A possible solution? Keeping the window open slightly while using a space heater—an outcome that satisfies both parties’ interests.