Bargaining for advantage
The award-winning guide to business negotiation used by top negotiators and training programs all over the world—completely updated and revisedAs director of the renowned Wharton Executive Negotiation Workshop, Professor G. Richard Shell has taught thousands of business leaders, administrators, and other professionals how to survive and thrive in the sometimes rough-and-tumble world of negotiation. His systematic, step- by-step approach comes to life in this book, which is available in over ten foreign editions and combines lively storytelling, proven tactics, and reliable insights gleaned from the latest negotiation research.This updated edition includes:• A brand-new "Negotiation I.Q." test designed by Shell and used by executives at the Wharton workshop that reveals each reader's unique strengths and weaknesses as a negotiator• A concise manual on how to avoid the perils and pitfalls of online negotiations involving e-mail and instant messaging• A detailed look at how gender and cultural differences can derail negotiations, and advice for putting talks back on track
Stats for nerds
18recommend
36mentions
23people
2007–2022years
81% recommend17% neutral3% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- It's an OK book. I really liked "Bargaining for Advantage".
- How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini, 2021 edition
Never Eat Alone by Keith Ferrazzi, 2nd edition 2014
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury, 2011 edition
Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations by William Ury
Bargaining for Advantage by Richard Shell, 2nd edition 2006
Thinking Strategically by Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff
Nonviolent Communication: A language of life by Marshall Rosenberg, 2015 edition
The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker
- > 'a good book on negotiations will differentiate between strategies where the relationship is important and where it isn't'. What is one such book?
Bargaining for Advantage does this. I expect most "academic" books do it.
- Books I liked:
- Bargaining For Advantage (https://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Advantage-Negotiation-Stra...)
- Negotiation Genius (https://www.amazon.com/Negotiation-Genius-Obstacles-Brillian...)
- Getting To Yes (https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement-Wit...)
- The Coursera course from the University of Michigan (and not the Yale one).
- Getting Past No (https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Past-Negotiating-Difficult-Si...)
- Difficult Conversations/Crucial Conversations/Nonviolent Communications
The last bullet (arguably the last two bullets) are about conversation skills, but that is an essential part of negotiations.
I won't claim to be good at this stuff. It takes a lot of effort and practice to change habits you've formed your whole life. But still, I've improved somewhat. What I do think I've become much better at is identifying why someone's efforts succeeded (or in this case, failed).
I would also recommend Influence by Cialdini. It is not a negotiation book at all, but will make much of the material in those books more meaningful if you've read this book.
Books/courses I discourage:
- Never Split The Difference
- The Lynda course (there may be more than one now, but the one I took years ago was bad).
- I've read that book and others. NSTD is both extremely good and extremely bad.
TLDR: It's a great book if you can ignore his attitude. And ignore every negative thing he says about Ivy MBA programs and their books. He is simply wrong about them.
The good:
The methods advocated in the book are somewhat "simple" to remember. This is because he focuses on what will work 70-80% of the time, whereas other books tend to also target the remaining scenarios, creating bloat and complex methods.
This is probably the best book when it comes to the psychological aspect of negotiation. The other books do have it, but tend to focus more on the rational aspects.
The bad:
Writing style can be very offputting. An incredible amount of boasting. A lot of it is justified, given he was one of the FBI's top negotiators. But he goes well beyond it. He starts the book describing how he walked into a Harvard class on negotiating and completely dominated the other students with his negotiation prowess. And he goes on and on about how he beat the Harvard students. Really? In my warped view of the world, I thought it was a given that a Harvard student new to negotiations should be able to beat the FBI's top negotiator.
This was beyond pathetic. It's as if Roger Federer wrote a book boasting about how we visited a tennis academy and managed to trounce everyone. What an achievement!
The anti-academic bashing is strong, and quite unjustified. Throughout the book he boasts that his techniques are way better in the real world than what the academics/Ivy schools teach. Umm... no. I read the Ivy school's books before reading this one, and roughly 70-80% of the techniques in NSTD are the same as the ones taught in MBA programs.
I've noted many parts of NSTD where he makes a false claim against the Ivy Books, or where he claims the Ivy Books don't teach Y. One day I intend to write a detailed review on a blog somewhere listing all his claims, and next to each one quoting one of the Ivy Books refuting his claims. It's just very dishonest of the author to criticize other books this way.
(And no, I don't think any of the Ivy Books actually suggest splitting the difference as a good strategy - I recall one even saying it is an option, but mostly if nothing else is working and your BATNA is not good).
Finally, some good books talk about different negotiation strategies based on your relationship with the person. When you don't care about the other person (e.g. haggling in a marketplace), the strategy you would use differs very much from one where you value the relationship (e.g. business partner). He doesn't really distinguish, and it's not surprising given his background where most of his professional negotiations were one-off.
Please be careful when using his tactics with people you want to maintain good relations with. They work well the first few times, but some of them really start to annoy people. One of my managers left our team and was replaced by another one (new to managing). The new manager used some of these techniques, although she had not read the book (especially the continual "How can I do that?" questions). She was relatively successful in the negotiations, but it damaged a lot of relationships. 3 people eventually moved to other teams.
If one is looking for additional books to read, I recommend:
- Bargaining For Advantage (not very prescriptive, but this is the best one to make someone interested in negotiations and want to learn more).
- Getting Past No. You probably should read Getting To Yes before reading it, though. GPN has some overlap with NSTD regarding the psychological side of negotiating.
Getting To Yes is often recommended. It's decent. My only caveat is that it is not as broad as BfA, and because it gets recommended all the time, a lot of people feel GTY is "sufficient". When it fails for them, they abandon the whole discipline thinking they're just not cut out for it.
Not specific to negotiations, but I recommend as well:
- Influence. Many books (including NSTD) invoke this book.
- A good book on communications (e.g. Nonviolent Communications or Crucial Conversations).
A lot of negotiation techniques are derived from these two topics, and they'll make a lot more sense if you've read them.
Finally, regarding salary negotiations, there's actually a really good one in the book, which is the flip of what is usually taught. The conventional wisdom is that if you can't get your desired salary, negotiate on other things (work environment, work from home, hours, vacations, perks). He flipped it around. If it seems they won't match your salary, keep asking for benefits/perks that are somewhat reasonable, but you're confident they can't provide them. The company will usually say "Sorry, we can't provide that perk, would a $x increase in salary do?"
I haven't tried it, but I can see it would work - most large companies have a limited set of variables they can tweak, and cannot customize much for a single employee. So they compensate by increasing the offer.
- I see posts like these once in a while on HN.
I suggest folks read some good books on conversations and negotiations.
Conversations:
Nonviolent Communications:
https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Lif...
Crucial Conversations:
https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...
Difficult Conversations:
https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...
Negotiation books:
Bargaining For Advantage:
https://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Advantage-Negotiation-Stra...
Getting To Yes:
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement-Wit...
Getting Past No (billed as a negotiations book, but really more of a conversations book):
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Past-Negotiating-Difficult-Si...
I strongly recommend reading Influence before you read these - much of what is in the books above will make more sense once you've read Influence.
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Rober...
When you read these, keep in mind: Change is hard. Don't expect to read these and become good communicators quickly. It may take a few years of stumbling and practice.
I see a mixture of comments agreeing and disagreeing with the original submission. For those who disagree: Most of what the author is saying is in agreement with what the books say:
If your goal is to change someone, you will either fail, or will succeed at the cost of the relationship (and relationships at work do matter).
Another important related point: If you cannot summarize why the other person is acting this way without using phrases like "stubborn", "irrational" or similar negatives, then it means you have no idea about the other person's concerns and motives, and are being lazy. It is easier to label, and much harder to probe effectively. Additionally, people often act stubborn because they realize you are not really interested in their perspective. Internally their thought process (which is very rational) is "This person does not really want to hear me out, so I'm not going to invoke too many neurons engaging with him and will just dig in my heels." - which is why a lot of books focus a lot on listening skills (which includes skills to signal that you are listening - you may in reality be listening just fine but the other person does not know it - so you signal it by summarizing their stance).
A lot of the comments here are invoking false dichotomies. Since HN has a comment limit, I'll address some here:
>I don't believe you can have a successful software team with individuals who can't take a code review well.
This is tangential. You can give feedback in a code review poorly, or efficiently. Both ways allow for you to point out problems with the other's code. One way will not be taken well. The other way has a higher chance of being taken well. A big step forward is to realize you can have your cake and eat it too.
>I started to try and reason with people with carefully crafted questions to guide them towards my goal.
Leading questions is a bad idea (all the communications books say it). Learn how to state your concerns. It is OK to ask questions if genuinely curious. But if you want to point something out, learn how to state it in a non-defensive manner.
(3 separate comments below):
>If Kara's emotions and defensiveness can't handle a clearly articulated, rational, objective argument against design decisions, then for the sake of the product and the company, she probably needs to find another job. Avoiding discussions doesn't work for me.
>Learned to let go and he has his parts of the code base and I have mine.
>And this is how you end up with a terrible, in-cohesive product.
Again, false dichotomies. The solution is not to be quiet and let it go. The solution is to learn how to talk about the issues effectively. One of the books calls this "The Fool's Choice" - thinking that either you have to be quiet and not air your concerns (to save relationships), or that you have to air them and damage the relationship.
>It's either you convince them, or perhaps they convince you. Logic wins.
Logic alone rarely wins. One key point in one of the books: Don't pretend that emotions should not be part of the decision making process. The reality is that emotions are already part of the decision making process. If you get angry that someone cannot take your feedback well, emotions are present.
>It's safe to assume Kara wrote this article.
It is safe to assume that the author of this comment is unwilling to question his views on the topic.
That's what assumptions get you.
>I have seen more technical damage done by nice and competent people deferring to bullies in the workplace than by legitimate disagreements expressed passionately.
Another false dichotomy. What the submission describes is normal among non-bullies.
>The flaw here is that you assume that "Kara" will learn from her mistakes. Not always the case.
It is a similar flaw to assume that merely telling her what mistakes she made will make her learn from them. Definitely often not the case.
Related
Negotiation Genius
7 recommend · 10
Getting past no
11 recommend · 16
Getting to yes
105 recommend · 185
Influence
214 recommend · 408
The Secrets of Power Negotiating
10 recommend · 21
The happiness advantage
13 recommend · 16
Competitive advantage
3 recommend · 6
