Yes, agreed.

How to negotiate without yielding

Roger Fisher and William Ury
Introduction:
Negotiation is a reality of everyday life. We negotiate all the time, as
Negotiation is a means we have to achieve what we want from the other. Generally, it is
presents the following dilemma when doing it: negotiate softly or hard.
• Soft negotiation: they are characterized by the fact that the negotiator seeks to avoid conflicts.
personal, that’s why concessions are made to reach an agreement. What is sought is an amicable solution,
but ends up feeling bitter and exploited.
• Hard negotiation: the negotiator sees all situations as a duel of wills. They win the
part that takes the most extreme position and resists for a longer time. However, the
Negotiator often ends up exhausted and there is a deterioration in the relationship with the other party.
Between these two extreme positions, the author presents an intermediate one, which is neither soft nor
hard, which is referred to as:
i. "Principled Negotiation". It was developed in the Negotiation Project
Harvard is based on deciding based on merit, allowing the negotiator to achieve
just and protect oneself; obtain their rights while being decent. It suggests that one should seek
mutual advantages whenever possible, and that when there is a conflict of interest it must
to insist that the outcome is based on some fair criterion, independent of will
from the parties. This method is tough on arguments but gentle with people.

The conflict: The conflict is the perception of the incompatibility of interests, and not necessarily the
incompatibility of these. Example of the orange

Causes of conflict generation:

• Principles and values: These are subjective criteria and are the most difficult to change.
• Implicit relationships: these are unexpressed psychological agreements (expectations). The
I'll call you in a bit.
• Goods: positions
• Territory: positions

The problem:
It is recognized as a problem to negotiate based on positions, referred to as
Negotiation model 'Competitive' or 'Win/Lose' (the position is what the party says they want), already
that it does not lead to a sensible agreement, understanding by such: one that satisfies the legitimate interests
from both sides as much as possible, that resolves the conflicts of interest with fairness, which is
durable and taking into account the interests of the community.
Any negotiation method should be judged based on three criteria:
• It should lead to a sensible agreement: The more attention is paid to positions, the lesser
attention is dedicated to the satisfaction of interests, causing the agreement to be less
satisfactory for both parties of what it could have been.
• It must be efficient: This method, although it may lead to agreements, requires a lot of
time. In this type of negotiations, the parties start from extreme positions and go
making small concessions only when they consider it necessary for the continuation of the
negotiation. The more extreme the positions and the smaller the concessions, the more
 time and effort will be required for the negotiation.
• It must improve, or at least not deteriorate, the relationship between the parties: the negotiation is based on
positions become a confrontation of wills, as each side tries to change
the position of the other through the force of will.
In other words, negotiating based on positions leads to foolish agreements, (since the
negotiators lock themselves inside them), it is inefficient (given the time required to reach
an agreement), endangers a relationship, (sometimes leading to the total destruction of the relationship,
which is more serious when there is a greater number of participants in the negotiation.
Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that being kind is not a solution, as it makes the kind part ...
be more vulnerable, running the risk of reaching an unbalanced agreement. The negotiation for
Positions generate advantages for hard negotiators.

The alternative: Principle-based negotiation (Collaborative negotiation model or win/win)

The question of whether it is better to use a hard or soft negotiation method is: Neither one nor the other.
the best method is the 'Harvard Negotiation Method based on Principles', which produces agreements
prudent, efficient, and friendly.
It is based on 4 principles, which must be maintained throughout the entire period of
analysis (diagnosis of the situation), planning (seeking ideas and solutions) and discussion (the parties)
they communicate seeking an agreement). These principles are:
• Separate people from the problem: Human beings are not computers, so
emotions intertwine with the objective merits of negotiation. Therefore, we must
separate the problem from the person, attack the problem and not the person.
• Focus on interests, not positions: expressed positions should be set aside.
for the parties (what they say they want), to satisfy the underlying interests of these (the
what they really want). Interests are of three types:
Common: the parties share them
Different: Both can be satisfied
Opposites: One's satisfaction implies the other's dissatisfaction.
• Invent mutually beneficial options: Seek a single solution under the pressure of the other
Part is not an easy task. Therefore, one must set aside time to think about a wide range of
possible options that favor shared interests and reconcile those that are not
shared.
• Insist on objective criteria: it should be insisted that the negotiation be resolved based on some
fair and objective criterion, such as market price or the opinion of an expert.

These 4 principles must be respected during the 3 stages of the process:

1. Analysis stage: This involves an analysis of the situation. The situation is analyzed in
based on the 4 principles.
2. Planning stage: The negotiation is planned by generating ideas and deciding what should be done.
To do. Negotiation is planned according to the four principles.
3. Discussion stage: The 4 principles are discussed with the other party. Each one of them must
understanding the interests of the other to be able to collaborate in generating options for
mutual benefit and agreements based on objective criteria.
 Analysis of each of the principles:
Separate the people from the problem
This principle is based on not forgetting that negotiators are people and therefore are not "entities.
"abstracts" or "abstract representatives", on the contrary, have feelings, emotions, values.
They are unpredictable.
Negotiators have two types of interests: in substance (satisfying their interests) and in the
relationship (link with the other party). A negotiator aims, at a minimum, to maintain a relationship.
good enough to reach an acceptable agreement, and if possible based on the
interests of both parties. What is proposed is to separate these interests since many times they
tends to confuse the relationship with the problem (for example: saying 'the kitchen is a disaster' can be
the identification of a problem, but the other party may take it as a personal attack), when
what should be done, for this theory, is to directly confront said problem. Consequently,
The question that must be asked is how to do it?, and the answer is given from the following
categories:

a) Perception:
Sometimes the conflict is not in reality, but in how it is perceived. For this reason, it is positive.
appreciate the situation as the other party does." To do this, as a first measure, when the other speaks
it is recommended:
Put yourself in the other person's shoes: One should try to appreciate the situation as the other party does.
avoiding seeing only the merits of their case and the flaws of the other. It should be suspended the
the judgment during which one interprets the other's point of view.
- Do not deduce their intentions based on their fears: the party should not consider that what they
fear is precisely what the other party wants to do.
Separate the symptoms from the person who is speaking. That is, do not interpret in the worst way.
what the other party says.
Do not blame the other for the problem: if the other party is blamed for one's own issues, it is likely
that the other party becomes defensive and resists what is being said.
Make perceptions explicit in order to manage them: It should be commented to the other party.
What are the perceptions of the situation?
Involve the other in the agreement: It is important for them to be part of the process. The agreement
it is much easier if both parties feel like part of the ideas. In a way, the process is
the product. Even if the terms of the agreement are favorable, the other party may reject them.
just for suspecting due to his exclusion from the process.
To come to a good agreement: understanding it as reaching a reconciliation of an agreement with the principles and
the self-image of the conciliators. For example: when a judge grounds his sentence in
based on law, jurisprudence, and doctrine, it does so not only to look good with him, with the
Judicial Power, also to please the parties, because its ruling does not seem arbitrary,
it's not correct.
In a negotiation, it may happen that the parties or one of them continues to resist because they want to.
avoid the feeling or appearance of retreating in front of the other party. For this reason, it is
relevant, that the substance can be expressed or conceptualized in a way that seems like a result
just.
b) Emotion:
Letting oneself be carried away by emotions can lead to the negotiation stalling or breaking down. Therefore,
it is recommended to try to recognize one's own emotions and those of others. It will be useful, for example,
write about how you feel and how you would like to feel. That is, it is advisable to make these emotions explicit
and recognize them as legitimate.
In addition, it should be ensured that emotions are explicit and commented on during the
negotiation, as freeing oneself from the weight of emotions will make people more proactive.
At the same time, in the face of an emotional outburst from the other party, it is advisable not to interrupt and to listen.
with attention.
Finally, it is advisable for the parties to make symbolic gestures, thus demonstrating
they understand the emotions of the other party and improve a hostile situation at a low cost.

It is mentioned as an exemplary case in this regard, the technique used in the Committee of
Human Relations (1950), consisting of only one person being allowed to get angry at a time.

c) Communication:
Firstly, without communication, there is no possible negotiation. In fact, negotiation is a
communication process; a joint decision is sought. It is very common that the
Communication is not easy, especially when they do not know each other and suspect one another.
Three major common communication problems can be mentioned:
Negotiators may not be addressing each other, but the public, which makes it impossible to
communication.
Sometimes, even if we speak clearly to the other person, he may be more focused on what he
what is going to be said next, that in listening to what one of the parties is saying in the
moment.
Misunderstandings, especially when different languages are spoken.

The proposed solutions are as follows:

Listen attentively and recognize perceptions, needs, and limitations. That is to say,
to propose not to think of a response while listening, and to repeat what the other person said to
see if it was clearly understood.
Try to understand the other, which does not mean agreeing.
Address the other party. A negotiation is not a debate or a trial. The opponent should be treated
like a colleague with whom a joint solution is sought.
Talk about oneself and not about others: in many negotiations, the parties explain and
extensively condemn the motivations and intentions of the other. However, it is better to describe
a problem in terms of the impact it had on oneself and not on what the other party did.
If one party asserts something that the other considers false, the latter will become angry and will not take it as valid.
Speak with a purpose, as sometimes the problem lies in an excess of communication: before
To say something meaningful, one must be sure of what one wants to communicate and the objective that
it is sought with that communication.
 But the best solution is to PREVENT the problem. How? By creating a personal relationship and
organizational with the other party, capable of protecting people from both sectors
against the blows of negotiation. To think of negotiation as a shared activity.
This can be achieved:
Establishing a working relationship: one should consider the other as an equal and not as
a diabolical opponent. This relationship must develop before negotiations begin.
Face the problem, not the people.

2. Focus on interests, not positions

Interests define the problem, not the positions. When we talk about 'interests', it refers to the
needs, desires, worries, and fears, is what hides behind what is being
deciding and what motivates people. Interests are what motivate decisions, and the position is
together the result of that motivation.
Interests must be reconciled for two reasons:
a) Because there generally existed several positions that could satisfy an interest. With much
People often adopt the most obvious positions.
b) Behind the opposing positions, there are many other interests, aside from those that may be opposed.
That is to say, when looking for interests that motivate opposing positions, it is often possible,
find an alternate position that satisfies not only your own interests but those of the other
part.
Furthermore, we tend to think that because the other party's positions oppose ours,
their interests also oppose. However, it is not always the case. In fact, many times we can
to reach agreements, precisely because there are different interests.

How to identify interests?

First of all, we must analyze the positions that the other takes and ask ourselves why? or why?
what not? Each of the other party's positions must be analyzed and one must ask themselves 'Why'
Assume that position?
He probably thinks that you are asking him, and then wonders why he hasn't been taken.
What are the interests that prevent them from doing it.
One must realize that each part has multiple interests. But, keep in mind that
It is also not a mathematical calculation. Likewise, it should be assumed that, although it is useful to think about the
negotiation between two parties, it almost never happens that within the same party, people have
the same interests.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs, considering the following:
Security
Economic well-being
Sense of belonging
Control over one's own life
Recognition.

It is a mistake to believe that the ultimate goal of any negotiation is money. Even within those that
a priori they have a pecuniary interest, hiding behind them other interests. The negotiations do not
they are likely to progress while one side believes the other is threatening
satisfaction of their basic human needs.
 It is recommended to make a list of interests, classify them, and organize them according to importance. All
This will contribute to generating ideas to take those interests into account.

Once the interests have been identified, it is advisable to communicate them to the other party, being specific, as
the other party may not know what one’s interests are and vice versa. Counting the details does not
only that the description has credibility, but it has a greater impact. We need to make sure that the
Another part understands exactly the importance and legitimacy of their interests and it must be
specific.
You also have to listen to the interests of the other party. People listen more attentively if
they feel that you have understood them, so if you want others to take your
interests must start by showing that you take theirs into account.
At the same time, it is also advisable to start explaining the reasoning and the interests, leaving for
the final conclusions or proposals. In other words, it is proposed to explain the problem and then the response,
given that, if done the other way around, one will probably hear the other person's position and will be preparing
in the mind the counterarguments, without listening to the justification.

On the other hand, when two people are asked why they are arguing, it is most likely
that a cause is exposed, not a purpose. The question 'why?' has 2 very different meanings:
a) looking back, in search of a cause and believing that our behavior is determined by
past events.
b) looking forward, in search of a goal and believing that our behavior responds to
our free will. This is the one that is most recommended.

It is also necessary to be concrete but flexible. It is important to know where you are going and at the same time
time to be open to new ideas. To maintain flexibility, each option should be treated as
It should be formulated as simply illustrative HP. One must think in terms of more than one option.
that can satisfy their interests.
Ultimately, what is sought is to be tough on the problem and kind to the people, because if you
attack these last ones, they will feel threatened and probably will not be proactive to
reach an agreement. While if two negotiators use their energy to be tough on the problem and
Interests will often be seen to stimulate each other to be creative in the search.
of mutually beneficial solutions. This combination of attack and support, being firm while also
open, will allow for a better agreement.

3. Invent options for mutual benefit

Often negotiations end like the famous children fighting over the orange,
which ends up dividing it in two. Then one throws away the peel and eats the fruit, while
that the other throws away the fruit and uses the peel to make a cake. They did not reach an agreement of
mutual benefit when they could have done so.
Despite how valuable this is, people rarely notice it. Why could that be? There are 4
obstacles that prevent the invention of a large number of options. Negotiation based on
principles provide answers to each of them.
 OBSTACLES ANSWERS
Premature judgment: under pressure Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them.
of a negotiation, the meaning First, possibilities are proposed and then their advantages and disadvantages are analyzed.

the critic tends to be sharper. criticisms. It may be done together with the other party or not. It
It seems that the negotiations It is important to propose all criticism and evaluation of ideas. There are many
practices require thinking ways to conduct a brainstorming session. Some guidelines:
practical, no crazy ideas. The judgment • Before the brainstorming: define a purpose (that you would like to
it inhibits imagination. having), select participants (large enough to
One might fear that by inventing stimulate exchange and small enough for everyone
options are being revealed participate), informal environment (so that everyone feels comfortable),
information that may weaken your select a facilitator (who will lead the meeting)
position in the negotiation. • During the brainstorming session: participants sitting next to each other
another front to the problem (reinforces the mental attitude of feeling like a
team and not enemies), clarify rules (exclude negative criticism from
brainstorming process), provide ideas however outrageous
let them be and register them so that everyone can see them.
• After the brainstorming: highlight the most promising ideas.
suspend the rule of not criticizing and the best idea should be chosen
promising), improve them (taking the best ideas
promising, improve them and make them more realistic) and set a moment
to choose which idea to use and its form.

The most important thing is to be able to separate the moment of development.

options of the act of deciding them.

Search for a single answer: Expand options in discussion instead of seeking a single answer.
it is often believed that seeking Negotiating requires a good number of different ideas. That is to say, starting from
responses will only delay and a brainstorming session goes from the general to the specific and vice versa. There is
will delay the decision-making process. a kind of circular diagram regarding this:
It is thought, 'we already have difficulty'
Step 1 - think about the particular problem:
to come to an agreement. The last Step 2 - diagnosing the problem: to organize the
What we need is a lot of problems in categories and their possible causes.
newideas Step 3 - look for remedies, possible solutions, approaches: think about what such
The premature termination of sometimes it must be done to solve the problem
the negotiation process is a Step 4 - suggest a specific and possible action:
obstacle to thinking
creative.
Supposition of a cake size Seek mutual benefit: the idea that 'if the other gains' is very little true.
Fixed: each party feels that the more, I get less." In fact, both parties could meet in
the situation is essentially 'everything or the worst situation they are already in.'
nothing Moreover, regardless of the common interest in avoiding losses
jointly, there is almost always the possibility of joint gains. These
they can consist of establishing mutually beneficial relationships
advantageous or in the satisfaction of the interests of both parties with a
creative solution.
Three things must be identified regarding common interests:
- that are latent in any negotiation,
- what are opportunities to formulate a common goal, but not
miracles
- Insisting on them can make the negotiation friendlier and easier.
 It is also useful to complement interests that are different. This is so.
because a satisfactory agreement is not possible if the parties do not have
different interests, and that in general problems are created not by the
interests, but rather because of the differences between the parties.

Belief that 'the solution of Invent ways to make the decision easier for others: for the
Their problem is that the success of a negotiation requires the other party to make a decision.
they”: each part is occupied what you want, and for that, everything possible must be done so that
only for their immediate another part finds it easy to decide. Without any attractive option for the other, it is
interests. However, for very difficult to reach an agreement.
reach an agreement on your own The goal is to generate options in such a way that it leads the other party.
interests, it is necessary that it be to make a decision that is satisfying for oneself.
find a solution that Giving legitimacy to the decision will make it more acceptable. It is proposed,
also satisfy or be attractive for example, to seek a precedent. It is more likely that the other party will accept
for the other party. one option if this seems correct or legitimate in terms of being legal,
honest, fair, etc.
Offers are more effective than threats and warnings. There are
to focus on making the other understand the consequences that can
wait if they decide how one wants and in what from their point of view those
consequences are better.
Another key point is to formulate the options in such a way that they can be
accepted with a simple "Yes, okay."
4. Insist on objective criteria
Generally, negotiators tend to negotiate based on positions, discussing what they are
willing and unwilling to give in. The result is achieved through the interaction of two wills. The
Attempting to reconcile based on will has significant costs, making it unlikely that the
negotiation is either efficient or friendly.
The way to solve this problem is through negotiation based on objective criteria, leaving
set aside the will of the parties. The more criteria of equity, efficiency, or scientific support
It can be used for negotiation, but it is more likely that a final agreement will be reached that is prudent and
Equitable. In turn, an agreement based on precedent and objective data is less susceptible to being
future attack.
Those who use objective criteria use their time more efficiently. They are more ...
still important, when there are more parties involved.
Principled negotiation involves asking oneself:
a) How can objective criteria be identified?
b) How can they be used in a negotiation?

Whatever the method, it is best to prepare it in advance.

Equitable criteria: there is more than one objective criterion available as a basis for an agreement. The
objective criteria should be: independent of the will of the parties, legitimate, practical,
applicable, at least in theory, to both parties.
Equitable procedures: they are used to resolve conflicting interests. Instead of
use fair criteria, a fair negotiation procedure is used. Examples of
ways to resolve differences: one cuts and the other chooses, take turns, draw lots, let another decide
the person decides, and the parties negotiate what they believe is a fair agreement before
decide what role each one will play in its compliance. Another procedure very
it is known to allow a third party to take a decisive role in the joint decision, such as by
example request for the participation of an expert or to involve a mediator/conciliator.

How do you proceed to discuss the objective criteria and procedures with the other party?
1. Formulate each aspect as a common search for objective criteria. For example, if it is
negotiating the buying and selling of something, you want to pay a low price and the owner one high.
you can say that you and the other party have conflicting interests, but now both have a
common goal: to establish a fair price, which is an objective criterion. Thus, one can suggest
some objective criteria, and the other part others. The choice of criteria must be made
before starting to negotiate.
2. Be reasonable and listen to reasons: One must approach the negotiation with an open mind and
open. Insisting that the agreement is based on objective criteria is not the same as insisting on
that is based solely on the criteria that you propose. A criterion of legitimacy not
excludes the rest, for which one must always be willing to use other criteria or to
apply one's own in another way.
3. Don't yield to pressure, but yield to principles. If the other party insists on pushing, ask them
that he explains his reasons, suggest objective criteria that you believe can be applied and
refuse to accept, except on the basis of objective criteria. It is easier to resist against a
arbitrary concession, which will lead the other party to resist seeking objective criteria.
DIDACTIC FRAMEWORK OF THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO NEGOTIATION

Interests of both Rephrasing: it is formulated in the form of a question:

parts How can we satisfy the interests?
from both sides?

A brainstorming session is held to see Options

what are the possibilities, and of
Hello surge
Objective: the criteria

The MONA Passes through two filters

(Better Options in Negotiation
Of the agreement Subjective: The MAAN

It is important to have it
before negotiating

Frequently asked questions

➢ What if they are more powerful?

There is no way to guarantee success if the other party has all the advantages. However,
There are ways to protect oneself. In response to power, the most any negotiation method can achieve
what can be achieved is to meet two objectives:
Protect yourself against an agreement that you should reject
2. Help him to make the most of the advantages he may have.
Among the forms, we can mention the minimum and the MAAN.
The minimum consists of defining in advance the worst of the acceptable outcomes. But this
minimum inhibits imagination, implies shutting down, limits the ability to take advantage of the information that
obtain during the negotiation. If a minimum is insisted upon, it is likely that not all options will be explored.
possibilities of an imaginative solution. In addition, the minimum may be too high, and
even too low.
In summary, adopting a minimum can protect you from a very inconvenient agreement, but
It can also prevent one from inventing something and accepting a solution that is prudent to accept.
The BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement): this is the criterion by which one must judge
any proposal. This is the only criterion that can protect you from accepting terms that are too
unfavorable and to reject terms that would be advisable to accept.
The MAAN must be flexible enough to allow for the exploration of imaginative solutions. Instead of
reject a proposal that does not meet the minimum, it can compare a proposal with the MAAN
and see if it better satisfies your interests. Whether you reach an agreement or not depends on how
the MAAN is attractive.
If there was no thought about what to do in case an agreement is not reached, one is negotiating with their eyes closed.

closed.
 The better the BATNA, the greater the power. The relative bargaining power of two parties.
it primarily depends on how unattractive the possibility of not reaching an agreement is.

To find possible MAAN, 3 operations are mentioned:

Invent a list of actions that could be taken in case of not reaching an agreement.
From those ideas, improve the ones that seem most promising.
Select tentatively the best of these options.
Regarding the appropriateness of revealing the MAAN, it depends on what one thinks about what the other
part thinks. If your MAAN is extremely attractive, it is beneficial for the other party to know it. If the other party
you believe that you lack a good alternative when in reality you do have one, then in almost
surely it should be made known to them. However, if their best alternative is worse than they think,
Revealing it will weaken your position instead of strengthening it.

It is always good to keep in mind the other party's BATNA, since if both parties have a
MAAN attractive, perhaps the best thing will be not to agree.

From here on, in theory, it does not count towards the exam.

➢ What happens if they do not enter the game?

It may happen that while one party tries to discuss the interests, the other only tries to
clearly state their position. While one seeks an agreement that maximizes benefits for
Both parties, others can only attack such proposals, seeking only to maximize their own
advantages.
Three strategies are proposed to focus attention on merits:
Focused on what you can do. Concentrate on merits and not on positions (what you
has been explaining so far)
Focused on what they can do. Called 'Negotiation Jujitsu'. It neutralizes the
negotiation based on positions in such a way as to direct it towards merits.
Centered on what a third party can do.

The jujitsu of negotiation

The maneuver of the counterpart will consist of:
A strong affirmation of your position. It is recommended not to accept it or reject it. See it as a
possible option. Try to improve it, find out the principles it hides.
The attack against your ideas. Do not defend your ideas. In fact, ask them to criticize and advise you.
Ask for advice.
The attack against you. Turn it into an attack on the problem. Let them vent.
Key weapons of those who practice Jujitsu:
Ask questions instead of making statements, as the latter generate resistance. While
that questions do not provide a target to hit and generate responses.
Silence. It creates a feeling of 'stalemate' that the other party may feel compelled to break.
answering your question or suggesting something. When you ask questions, take a pause.

Procedure with a single text

It is likely that a third party will be called when their own efforts to move past a negotiation
from position-based to a principle-based one have failed.
The mediator has an easier time separating the people from the problem and guiding the discussion.
towards interests and options.
It is useful in negotiations between 2 parties with a mediator. In multilateral negotiations it is
almost essential.
To use a procedure of this style, it is only necessary to prepare a proposal and ask for
they criticize it.
But how to get them to join the game? It is recommended to use the following phrases:
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
We thank you for what you have done for us.
We want it just right
We would like to fix this based on principles.
The problem here is not trust.
- What principles inspire your actions?
Let me see if I understand what you are saying.
Can we talk again?
One of the fair solutions could be...

➢ What happens if they play dirty?

The other party may use lies, psychological violence. These are called negotiations.
dirty.
The most common deceptive tactics can be classified as:
a) Deliberate deception: distraction about the facts, authority, or intentions. It is recommended
separate the people from the problem, do not assume that you have full authority and in case of doubts
regarding whether the agreement will be fulfilled, it may be possible to include rules for its compliance.
b) Psychological warfare: tactics that seek to make them feel uncomfortable, so that they have a desire
unaware of concluding the negotiation as soon as possible. It can be mentioned: circumstances
of the environment, whether the meeting is held in your office or in the other party's office, personal attacks
(appearance, status, not looking at the other as a thing, suggesting that they are ignorant, etc.), the good guy game and the
bad.
c) Pressures: such as threats and pressure tactics from the positions. Within these last ones
we can mention: refusal to negotiate, exaggerated demands, increasing demands, techniques of
entrenchment, premeditated delays, the unyielding partner (who justifies the refusal to concede
to the demands claiming that the negotiator would have no objection but that his unyielding partner would
leave it), tactic of "take it or leave it".
Most people react in one of the following two ways:
Tolerate it: because it is unpleasant to create problems. It tends to be thought that if one gives in to this
On occasion, the other party will calm down and will not demand more. But the truth is that this does not always happen.
so.
Respond with the same weapons. That is, if they threaten you, you respond with threats. In the end,
or one of the parties gives up or the negotiation breaks down.
These tactics, however, are not legitimate because they do not meet the reciprocity test; they are
made for one party to fulfill; it is assumed that the other party will not know it or
knowing her, he will tolerate her.
When using deceptive techniques, it is recommended:
1-Recognize the tactic. Even sometimes, just recognizing it can neutralize the tactic.
2-Express the problem explicitly. This can also lead to the other party stopping
use the tactic. In addition, this will allow you to have the opportunity to negotiate about the
 rules of the game.
3-Question the legitimacy and usefulness of the tactic and negotiate about it.
In addition, it is recommended:

separate the problem and the person

focus on interests, not on positions
invent options for mutual benefit
insist on objective criteria

Law of mandatory prior mediation (Law 26.589)

Mediation is a technique that allows parties to come closer with the intervention of a neutral third party that encourages
direct communication in the search for consensus.

For its part, pre-trial mediation is regulated by the pre-trial mediation law 26589 and consists of bringing together
the parts to see if an agreement can be reached.

Article 1: Mandatory mediation is established prior to any judicial process, which will be governed by the
provisions of this law. This procedure will promote direct communication between the parties for the
extrajudicial solution of the controversy.

Article 1 establishes the purpose of this law, determining the mandatory nature of pre-judicial mediation for
then enable judicial life.

Article 2 to 6: DO NOT TAKE THEM

Art. 7: Principles governing the procedure of mandatory preliminary mediation. The procedure of
mandatory prejudicial mediation will adhere to the following principles:
a) IMPARTIALITY OF THE MEDIATOR in relation to the interests of the parties involved in the process of
mandatory prejudicial mediation;
b) FREEDOM AND WILLINGNESS OF THE PARTIES in conflict to participate in the mediation;
c) EQUALITY OF THE PARTIES in the mediation procedure;
d) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE INTERESTS OF MINORS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS
DEPENDENT ELDERLY;
e) CONFIDENTIALITY REGARDING THE INFORMATION disclosed by the parties, their advisors, or third parties
cited during the procedure of mandatory preliminary mediation;
f) PROMOTION OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES aimed at creative exploration and
cooperative for conflict resolution;
g) SPEED OF THE PROCEDURE based on the progress of negotiations and compliance with the term
fixed, if it had been established;
h) EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE PARTIES FOR THIRD PARTIES TO WITNESS THE PROCEDURE OF
Mandatory prejudicial mediation.

This article determines the principles that govern the entire procedure, which must be clarified in
The initial speech of the mediator.

Art.8: Confidentiality includes the content of papers and/or any other working material that the
parts have drafted or evaluated for the purposes of mediation.

This article determines the scope of the principle of confidentiality established in Art. 7.
 Art. 9: The obligation of confidentiality ceases in the following cases:
a) By express waiver of all parties involved;
b) To prevent the commission of a crime or, if it is being committed, to stop it from continuing.

Then, the law continues to determine in which cases confidentiality ceases, expressly mentioning the waiver.
and the purpose of preventing the commission of crimes.

Article 16: The appointment of the mediator may be made:

a) By agreement of the parties, when the parties choose the mediator by written agreement;
b) By drawing, when the claimant formalizes the request before the entry desk of the jurisdiction before which
it would be appropriate to promote the demand and with the requirements established by the judicial authority. The table of
will draw the mediator who will intervene in the claim and will assign the court that may eventually
he will understand the cause. The presenter will deliver the duly completed form to the selected mediator.
through the court's registry within a period of five (5) business days;
c) At the request of the requirer to the required, for the purpose of the latter selecting a mediator from a list.
whose content and other requirements must be established by regulatory means;
d) During the processing of the case, the acting judge may refer the judicial process on a one-time basis.
file for the mediation procedure. This mediation will be conducted before registered mediators in the
National Mediation Registry, and its designation will be carried out by draw, except for an agreement between the parties regarding the
mediator's persona.

Article 16 regulates the matters concerning the appointment of the mediator, establishing that the same can be appointed from
4 ways:
• By decision of the parties: this is materialized in contractual clauses.
• By lottery (often miscalled public): The interested party must request at the entrance desk to be assigned a mediator.
In that same act, the mediator will be drawn and assigned to the corresponding court in case it does not.
the demand prospers (THIS LAST PART IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS KNOWING THE MAAN REGARDING THE
PRECEDENTS OF THE CHAMBER OR THE COURT). Notification to the other party may be by notice or CD.
• At the request of the requester: The requester notifies the other party of the mediation only by means of CD.
sending a list with a principal mediator and 4 alternates. In this regard, the requested party has a period of 5 days to
exercising the option, and silence implies acceptance of the principal mediator.
• By the acting judge: When he/she considers that the parties can reach an agreement, he/she refers them again to
a mediation.

Article 24: The mediator must notify the hearing by a reliable means or in person. The notification
must be received by the parties at least three (3) business days in advance. The notification by
The certificate only applies in the mediations provided for in article 16, paragraph b) of this law.

Article 24 determines the ways to notify mediation. In this regard, it categorically establishes that the
The only mediation that can be notified by means of a summons is that which is carried out by drawing lots.
Regarding the deadlines, it is established that notification cannot be made less than 3 business days in advance of the date.
of audience.