COMMUNICATIONDays to result

Negotiation Jujitsu

Sidestep attacks and redirect energy toward problem-solving

Problem it solves

aggressive or hostile counterparts

Best for

Negotiations where the other side uses positional bargaining, attacks you personally, refuses to engage on the merits, or uses hardball tactics; dealing with aggressive or hostile counterparts; breaking out of adversarial cycles

Not ideal for

Situations where both parties are already engaged in principled negotiation, or where the power imbalance is so extreme that deflection alone cannot change the dynamic

Overview

Why this framework exists

Negotiation jujitsu is a strategy for dealing with a counterpart who refuses to engage in principled negotiation and instead uses positional bargaining: asserting positions forcefully, attacking your ideas, and attacking you personally. Like the martial arts of judo and jujitsu, the method avoids pitting your strength directly against theirs and instead uses skill to sidestep their attacks and channel their energy toward solving the problem.

The core principle is: do not push back. When they assert positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, do not defend them. When they attack you personally, do not counterattack. Instead, sidestep and redirect. Treat their position as one possible option and look for the interests behind it. Invite criticism of your ideas rather than defending them. Recast personal attacks as attacks on the shared problem.

Two key tools make this work: questions and silence. Questions generate answers rather than resistance. They allow the other side to get their points across, pose challenges without providing a target to attack, and educate rather than criticize. Silence is equally powerful: after an unreasonable proposal or unjustified attack, sit quietly. People feel uncomfortable with silence and will often retract or improve upon something they have said.

Core principles

6 total
  1. Do not push back: Rejecting their position locks them in, defending yours locks you in, and counterattacking creates a vicious cycle
  2. Sidestep and redirect: Channel their energy into exploring interests, inventing options, and searching for independent standards
  3. Questions over statements: Statements generate resistance, questions generate answers and offer no target to strike at
  4. Use silence as a weapon: After unreasonable proposals or unjustified attacks, silence creates discomfort that impels the other side to improve their position
  5. Look behind positions: Treat every position as one possible option and search for the interests that drove it
  6. Invite criticism instead of defending: Ask what is wrong with your ideas rather than insisting they are right

Steps

4 steps
  1. Don't attack their position, look behind it
    When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for the interests behind it, seek out the principles it reflects, and think about ways to improve it. Ask them how they think their position addresses the concerns of each side. Discuss hypothetically what would happen if their position were accepted.
    Pro tipAsk 'What are the budget trade-offs involved?' or 'Why do you feel a need to maintain control over this?' Mining their position for underlying interests opens doors that rejecting it would slam shut.
  2. Don't defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice
    Rather than resisting criticism, invite it. Ask 'What concerns of yours would this proposal fail to take into account?' Rework your ideas in light of what you learn, turning criticism from an obstacle into an essential ingredient of the process. Ask them what they would do if they were in your position.
    Pro tipAsking for advice reverses the dynamic entirely. It leads the other side to confront your half of the problem, and in doing so they may invent solutions that meet your concerns.
  3. Recast personal attacks as attacks on the problem
    When they attack you personally, resist the temptation to defend yourself or counterattack. Sit back, let them vent, show you understand what they are saying, and when they finish, reframe their attack as a shared concern about the problem.
    Pro tipUse stock phrases to redirect: 'When you say we don't care, I hear your concern about the issue. We share that concern. What can we both do now to solve this as quickly as possible?'
  4. Ask questions and pause
    Use questions instead of statements to make your points. Questions generate answers rather than resistance, allow the other side to get their points across, and offer no target to attack. After asking a question, pause. Do not fill the silence. People feel uncomfortable with silence and will often volunteer additional information or soften their position.
    Pro tipSome of the most effective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking. If they give an insufficient answer to an honest question, just wait.

Common mistakes

4 traps
Pushing back when provoked
The natural human response to an attack is to counterattack. But in negotiation, pushing back only locks both sides into their positions. Rejecting their position makes them defend it harder. Defending your position makes you more committed to it.
Defending ideas instead of inviting criticism
When someone criticizes your proposal, the instinct is to explain why it is good. This locks you into defending a position. Instead, treat criticism as valuable information about their interests and use it to improve your proposal.
Filling silence after asking questions
After asking a question, many negotiators rush to fill the silence with another question or comment. This lets the other side off the hook. Silence creates pressure for the other party to respond substantively.
Taking the bait on personal attacks
When attacked personally, responding to the attack sidetracks the negotiation into a clash of personalities. The key move is to acknowledge the emotion behind the attack while redirecting attention to the substantive problem.

Origin story

How this framework came to be

Fisher and Ury developed negotiation jujitsu as the answer to the question 'What if they won't play?' The metaphor was drawn from the Oriental martial arts of judo and jujitsu, where practitioners avoid meeting force with force and instead redirect an attacker's energy. The technique was illustrated in the book through a detailed real-life case study of Frank Turnbull negotiating with his landlord Mrs. Jones over rent overcharges, demonstrating how each move of principled negotiation and jujitsu can be applied in practice.

Source

Traced to primary
Source · BOOK
Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in
Roger Fisher & William Ury · 1981
Open source →