The First Principle: Separate the People from the Problem
The foundational argument of principled negotiation, and perhaps the most crucial for transforming a confrontational encounter into a collaborative one, is the directive to “Separate the People from the Problem.” This principle addresses a fundamental, inescapable truth of human interaction: negotiators are people first. They are not abstract representatives of interests or disembodied legal entities; they are complex human beings with deeply ingrained emotions, values, differing backgrounds, and unique perspectives. They are, like all of us, unpredictable creatures of feeling and perception. The failure to recognize and address this human element is the primary reason why so many negotiations descend into acrimony, inefficiency, and ultimately, failure.
Traditional negotiation, particularly positional bargaining, inherently fuses the person with the issue at hand. When a negotiator states a position—”My offer is $50,000, take it or leave it”—their ego becomes inextricably linked to that number. An attack on the position is perceived as a personal attack. A rejection of the offer is felt as a personal rejection. The negotiation ceases to be about finding a mutually acceptable solution to a substantive issue and instead morphs into a contest of wills, a battle of egos. In this environment, saving face becomes as important, if not more important, than satisfying the underlying interests that prompted the negotiation in the first place. The relationship between the parties becomes entangled with the substance of their disagreement, and this entanglement creates a destructive conflict where one must be traded off against the other. To get a better substantive deal, one must damage the relationship; to preserve the relationship, one must make damaging substantive concessions. This is the negotiator’s dilemma.
The principle of separating the people from the problem is the master key that unlocks this dilemma. It posits that a negotiator has two distinct categories of interests: an interest in the substance of the agreement and an interest in the relationship with the other party. The goal is not to sacrifice one for the other but to pursue both independently and simultaneously. You can and should be hard on the problem—insisting on a fair and wise outcome based on objective standards—while remaining soft on the people, treating them with respect, courtesy, and empathy. The method for achieving this separation involves a sophisticated understanding and application of psychological techniques, which can be categorized into three primary domains: Perception, Emotion, and Communication.
1. Addressing the Domain of Perception
Conflict does not exist in objective reality; it exists in people’s minds. The book provides the powerful insight that the other side’s thinking is not an obstacle to solving the problem; their thinking is the problem. A dispute over a piece of land is not merely about the geographical coordinates and acreage; it is about what that land signifies to each party—sovereignty, security, historical identity, or economic opportunity. Therefore, to resolve the problem, one must first understand and address the differing perceptions that define it.
Putting Yourself in Their Shoes: This is the most fundamental perceptual skill. It requires more than a superficial acknowledgment that “they see things differently.” It demands a genuine, empathetic effort to see the world from their vantage point, to feel the emotional force of their perspective. This is not about agreeing with them; it is about understanding them. Imagine a negotiation between a technology startup and a venture capital firm over funding. The startup founder sees the negotiation as a validation of years of hard work, a chance to change the world, and a partnership. She perceives the venture capitalist’s tough questions about financial projections as a lack of faith in her vision. The venture capitalist, however, sees the negotiation through the lens of fiduciary duty to her investors. She is evaluating one of a hundred potential investments, assessing risk, and seeking terms that will provide a substantial return. Her tough questions are not a personal attack but a necessary part of her due diligence. Without each side making a concerted effort to understand the other’s perspective, they will talk past each other. The founder will feel defensive and undervalued, while the investor will see the founder as naive and unprepared. By stepping into the other’s shoes, the founder can present her vision in terms that address the investor’s need for a clear return on investment, and the investor can frame her concerns in a way that respects the founder’s passion and commitment. This empathetic understanding allows them to reframe the problem from “How much equity do I have to give up?” versus “How much control can I get?” to “How can we structure this investment to maximize the company’s chances of success, thereby satisfying both my need for creative freedom and your need for a financial return?”
Don’t Deduce Their Intentions from Your Fears: This common psychological trap is a primary driver of conflict escalation. When we are anxious or threatened, we tend to project our worst fears onto the other party’s intentions. A union negotiator, fearing layoffs, may interpret a management proposal for “operational flexibility” as a secret plan to fire workers, when management’s true intention might be to cross-train employees to make the company more competitive and secure everyone’s jobs. This assumption of malign intent creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The union rejects the proposal outright, management sees the union as obstructionist, and the relationship deteriorates, making actual layoffs more likely. To counter this, one must consciously separate observed actions from imagined intentions. “You have proposed a new flexibility clause. Our members are deeply concerned that this could be used to eliminate jobs. Can you help us understand what specific problems you are trying to solve with this proposal and discuss how we might build in safeguards to protect job security?” This approach invites dialogue rather than triggering a defensive reaction.
Don’t Blame Them for Your Problem: Blame is the antithesis of joint problem-solving. When you blame the other side, you cast them in the role of the villain and yourself as the victim. This forces them into a defensive posture, compelling them to either deny responsibility, deflect blame back onto you, or disengage entirely. The focus shifts from solving the problem to a sterile debate over historical culpability. Even if the blame is justified, it is rarely productive. Instead of saying, “Your shipping department is completely incompetent; our delivery was two weeks late and cost us a major client,” which invites a defensive denial, reframe the issue in terms of its impact on you and as a shared problem. “Our last delivery was two weeks late, which caused us to lose the ABC account. We need to work together to figure out a system that ensures timely deliveries. Let’s look at the entire supply chain, from our ordering process to your shipping procedures, to see where the bottlenecks are.” This formulation invites a collaborative audit of the process, not a personal defense of character.
Give Them a Stake in the Outcome by Making Sure They Participate in the Process: This principle is rooted in the powerful psychological need for agency and ownership. People are far more likely to support and implement a solution if they have had a hand in creating it. A unilateral decision, no matter how wise its content, often invites resistance precisely because it was imposed. If you want a state environmental agency to approve a modified waste disposal plan for your factory, do not develop the plan in secret and present it as a finished product. Instead, involve them early. Ask for their advice. “We’re facing a challenge with our current waste disposal system and are exploring several options. Given your expertise and the agency’s concerns, we would value your preliminary thoughts on which approaches seem most promising.” By involving them in the process of shaping the solution, you make it their solution as well as yours. It becomes a testament to their constructive input rather than a proposal they must critique from an adversarial stance. The process, in a very real sense, becomes the product.
Face-Saving: Make Your Proposals Consistent with Their Values: Face-saving is often dismissed as a trivial matter of ego, but it is a profound need to maintain one’s sense of identity and consistency. A person needs to reconcile any agreement with their past words, actions, principles, and the image they project to their constituents. A union leader who has publicly sworn he will “never accept anything less than a 5% raise” cannot easily come back to his members with 4.5%, even if objective conditions make that a wise and fair outcome. To facilitate an agreement, you must help him save face. You could, for instance, reframe the package: “We can’t do 5% on the base wage, but we can offer a 4.5% raise plus a new productivity bonus that could easily be worth another 1% or more. You would be delivering on your promise of a better financial package for your members.” This allows the leader to present the agreement not as a retreat, but as a victory achieved through creative negotiation that is consistent with his commitment to his members’ well-being.
2. Navigating the Domain of Emotion
Negotiations are not purely logical exercises; they are emotional events. Feelings of anger, frustration, fear, and suspicion can be more powerful than any fact or argument. Unexpressed emotions can fester, blocking communication and making rational problem-solving impossible. Ignoring emotions—theirs or your own—is like ignoring a leaky gas pipe in the room. You can try to proceed with business as usual, but you risk a sudden explosion.
First, Recognize and Understand Emotions, Theirs and Yours: Before you can deal with emotions, you must be aware of them. This requires emotional self-awareness and empathy for the other side. Ask yourself: What am I feeling? Is it nervousness? Anger? Frustration? What might be causing these feelings? Then, extend the inquiry to them: What is their emotional state? Are they defensive? Exuberant? Wary? What might be causing their feelings? A negotiator who seems irrationally stubborn may be acting out of a deep-seated fear for their job security. A party that seems overly aggressive may be responding to pressure from constituents who feel they have been mistreated in the past. Understanding the root of the emotions is the first step toward managing them.
Make Emotions Explicit and Acknowledge Them as Legitimate: Once recognized, emotions should be brought to the surface. Bottled-up feelings often emerge indirectly through passive aggression, sarcasm, or stonewalling. By making them explicit, you can deal with them directly. “You seem very angry about this point.” or “I’ll be honest, I’m feeling frustrated and concerned that we’re not making progress. I suspect you might be feeling the same way.” This is not about being therapeutic; it is a pragmatic move. It signals that you are paying attention to the human dimension and that their feelings are a legitimate part of the discussion. Acknowledging their feelings does not mean agreeing with them. You can say, “I can understand why you would feel that you’ve been mistreated,” without conceding that they have been mistreated. This simple act of validation can drain much of the negative energy from an emotion, clearing the way for a more rational discussion.
Allow the Other Side to Let Off Steam: Often, the most effective way to deal with intense negative emotions is to provide a safe outlet for them. When people are angry or frustrated, they have a powerful need to vent. Interrupting them, telling them to “calm down,” or walking out will only intensify their feelings. The better strategy is to listen actively and patiently without responding in kind. Let them say everything they need to say. Do not defend yourself against their attacks. Encourage them to get it all out. “Is there anything else?” This process provides psychological release. Once the emotional storm has passed, the person is often more capable of rational thought and more willing to listen. By providing a non-judgmental audience, you transform yourself from the target of their anger into a confidant who has heard their grievances, making it easier to then work together on the problem that caused them.
Don’t React to Emotional Outbursts: This is the core of emotional jujitsu. When the other side launches an emotional attack, the natural instinct is to fight back. This is precisely the wrong move, as it validates the attack and draws you into a useless emotional brawl. The key is to recognize the outburst for what it is—a tactic or simply a release of frustration—and refuse to take the bait. Let them criticize your proposal, let them question your motives, and do not rise to the defense. A lack of reaction is a powerful tool. It breaks the cycle of action and reaction. Once they have finished, you can then recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem, as discussed earlier. For example, if they shout, “You are trying to bankrupt us with this proposal!” you can respond calmly, “I hear your deep concern about the financial viability of your company. That is a critical issue. Let’s look at the numbers together to see how we can meet our needs without jeopardizing your financial stability.”
Use Symbolic Gestures: Actions can speak far more powerfully than words, especially in emotionally charged situations. A simple, heartfelt apology can defuse years of resentment, even if you are not admitting personal fault. “I am sorry that your company had to go through that difficult period.” Other gestures, like meeting on their territory, sharing a meal, making a small personal gift, or a simple handshake at a critical moment, can build a bridge across an emotional chasm at very little substantive cost. These gestures communicate respect and a desire for a positive relationship, creating a more favorable climate for problem-solving.
3. Mastering the Domain of Communication
Even with well-understood perceptions and managed emotions, a negotiation can fail due to poor communication. The book identifies three core communication problems: negotiators not talking to each other in a way that can be understood; negotiators not hearing each other even when they are talking; and negotiators misunderstanding what is being said. Mastering communication is about overcoming these three hurdles.
Listen Actively and Acknowledge What Is Being Said: Most people in a negotiation do not truly listen. They are too busy formulating their own rebuttal, thinking about their next point, or listening to their own constituency. Active listening is a conscious discipline. It is not passive silence; it is an active process of understanding. It involves paying close attention, asking clarifying questions, and, most importantly, paraphrasing what you have heard. “Let me see if I understand. If I’m hearing you correctly, your primary concern is that any agreement must be fully implemented within six months, and you’re skeptical of our ability to meet that timeline. Is that right?” This simple act of restating their point has a threefold benefit. First, it ensures you have actually understood them. Second, it proves to them that you have understood, which is a powerful psychological concession. They feel heard, and are therefore more likely to listen to you in return. Third, it gives them an opportunity to correct any misunderstanding, preventing the negotiation from proceeding on false premises. The cheapest concession you can make is to let the other side know they have been heard.
Speak to Be Understood: Negotiation is not a debate where you are trying to score points before a judge. You are trying to persuade the person sitting across from you. This means tailoring your communication to be effective with them. It means speaking with a purpose, knowing what you want to communicate. It means avoiding accusatory and judgmental language. Instead of attacking them, speak about yourself. Use “I-statements.” Rather than saying, “You broke your promise,” say, “I feel let down.” Rather than, “Your proposal is totally unreasonable,” say, “I am having difficulty seeing how that proposal meets our core need for budget certainty.” A statement about yourself is difficult to argue with; a statement about them invites defense and argument. The goal is to convey information in a way that allows them to absorb it without becoming defensive.
Speak for a Purpose: Before making any significant statement, know why you are making it. Is it to understand their interests? To explain your own? To generate options? Or to present a firm proposal? Sometimes, too much communication can be counterproductive. Talking aimlessly can reveal information that weakens your position or create misunderstandings. Every communication should be a deliberate step toward a better outcome.
In conclusion, the principle to “Separate the People from the Problem” is not a soft-hearted platitude. It is a hard-headed, pragmatic strategy for being more effective. By disentangling relationship issues from substantive merits, you free yourself to deal with each on its own terms. You can be empathetic and respectful toward the people without making substantive concessions. You can be firm and principled on the merits without damaging the relationship. It requires discipline to manage perceptions, emotions, and communication with the same rigor you apply to analyzing the substantive issues of price, terms, and conditions. But this discipline is the key to transforming negotiation from a trial of strength into a side-by-side search for a wise and mutually beneficial agreement. It is the essential first step in changing the game from adversarial bargaining to joint problem-solving.