Getting to Yes

"The classic book on the art of negotiation."

"Basic but solid."

"This is the kind of book where after you read it, you think, "bah, of course I knew that already," but then the next day you find yourself using some of its principles consciously in a discussion, and you wonder whether you would have thought to use them if you hadn't read it. At the very least, the book will prompt insightful reflections on how to negotiate; even if hindsight bias makes such reflections appear as things you already knew, simply bringing such principles into recent memory may make you more likely to follow them.<br/><br/>Some things this books says are:<br/><spoiler><br/>*The flaw in positional bargaining is that if both sides are focused on their positions, they overlook alternatives that also address the underlying issues from which the positions developed (p. 6).<br/>*Understanding the other side's view isn't just an activity that will help resolve the conflict, the difference in views <em>is</em> the conflict (p. 24).<br/>*The more strongly you associate something with your identity, the more likely you are to feel angry or scared when someone says something that challenges that aspect of your identity (p. 32-3).<br/>*"An open mind is not an empty one." Brainstorming several solutions that would fulfill your needs before each round of negotiation helps to ensure success (p. 55).<br/>*Supporting a person while attacking a problem creates cognitive dissonance that will make the person more likely to join you in attacking the problem (p. 56-7).<br/>*One way of generating solutions is to determine one concrete problem, theorize about causes, theorize about solutions to those causes, and then determine concrete solutions based on those theories (p. 69).<br/>*If you can get someone to suggest a standard behind their proposed position, then using that standard shows value for the person even if you expand the scope it was applied to (p. 89-90)<br/>*In a negotiation, power derives from having a good alternative to fall back on rather than from conventional power relations between the parties (p. 105).<br/></spoiler>"