Notes of the book:

Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight by Mnookin, Robert

First, for an act to be evil, the perpetrator must intend to inflict harm. Carelessness is not enough. Second, the harm must be very serious. I use the word grievous to connote harms that are severe. Third, the infliction of harm must lack an adequate justification or excuse.

Interests

What are my interests? What are my adversary’s interests?

  • When individuals are in conflict, they often think in terms of “positions”—what they want or demand. Interests are the fundamental needs and concerns that lie underneath positions. There is only one way to meet a position, but often many ways to serve an interest.

  • People in conflict often find it difficult to articulate their interests. This is usually because they haven’t thought about them, or are not used to thinking about goals on this level. They know what they want—or what they say they want—but not why they want it.

  • What are my basic goals in this situation? What am I trying to achieve—and why? In the big scheme of things, what’s important to me?

  • Next, given the available information, what do you know about your adversary’s interests? What do they value—and why?

Alternatives

What are my alternatives to negotiation? What are my adversary’s?

  • Once you have evaluated your alternatives, identify the best of the lot. This is your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or “BATNA.”

Negotiated outcomes

Are there potential negotiated outcomes that can satisfy both sides’ interests better than our respective alternatives to negotiation?

Costs

What are the expected costs of negotiation?

  • Transaction Costs: The negotiation process involves costs in terms of time, money, manpower, and other resources.

  • The negotiation process may also impose costs arising from the disclosure of information.

  • Spillover Costs: Negotiating with one party may adversely affect you in future dealings with other parties. One such cost may involve reputation.

  • A related spillover cost concerns precedent.

Implementation:

If a deal is struck, will it be implemented?

  • Put a great deal of effort into preventing such defections by building penalties into the deal.

  • With an adversary who has violated agreements in the past, the lack of any enforcement mechanism may be a deal killer.

  • What issues of recognition and legitimacy are implicated in my decision?

CONCLUSION

There are also deeper critiques of cost-benefit analysis,

  • The first is that it favors analytic over intuitive reasoning.

    • The analytic side of the brain doesn’t understand intuition, so it may discount or ignore valuable information.

  • A second criticism of cost-benefit analysis is that it values pragmatic concerns over moral categorical principles.

    • Get advice from others in evaluating the alternatives: don’t do the analysis alone.

    • Have a presumption in favor of negotiation, but make it rebuttable.

    • If you think the costs and benefits of negotiating are roughly equal to those of not negotiating, I would apply a presumption in favor of negotiation.

    • When deciding on behalf of others, don’t allow your own moral intuitions to override a pragmatic assessment.