Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here. You have entered an incorrect email address! Contact us. Pasadena , United States. The book has been awarded with , and many others. Please note that the tricks or techniques listed in this pdf are either fictional or claimed to work by its creator. You are trying to understand a very human choice, not making a mathematical calculation. Realize that each side has multiple interests.
In almost every negotiation each side will have many interests, not just one. As a tenant negotiating a lease, for example, you may want to obtain a favorable rental agreement, to reach it quickly with little effort, and to maintain a good working relationship with your landlord. You will have not only a strong interest in affecting any agreement you reach, but also one in effecting an agreement. You will be simultaneously pursuing both your independent and your shared interests.
A common error in diagnosing a negotiating situation is to assume that each person on the other side has the same interests. This is almost never the case.
During the Vietnam war, President Johnson was in the habit of lumping together all the different members of the government of North Vietnam, the Vietcong in the south, and their Soviet and Chinese advisers and calling them collectively "he. He is going to have to learn that aggression doesn't pay. Thinking of negotiation as a two-person, two-sided affair can be illuminating, but it should not blind you to the usual presence of other persons, other sides, and other influences.
In fact the manager felt his position was unjustifiable, but he had strict instructions from the club's owners to hold firm without explaining why, because they were in financial difficulties that they did not want the public to hear about. Whether it is his employer, his client, his employees, his colleagues, his family, or his wife, every negotiator has a constituency to whose interests he is sensitive.
To understand that negotiator's interests means to understand the variety of somewhat differing interests that he needs to take into account. The most powerful interests are basic human needs. In searching for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particularly for those bedrock concerns which motivate all people.
If you can take care of such basic needs, you increase the chance both of reaching agreement and, if an agreement is reached, of the other side's keeping to it.
In many negotiations, we tend to think that the only interest involved is money. Yet even in a negotiation over a monetary figure, such as the amount of alimony to be specified in a separation agreement, much more can be involved. Possibly she wants the money in order to feel psychologically secure. She may also want it for recognition: to feel that she is treated fairly and as an equal. What is true for individuals remains equally true for groups and nations.
Negotiations are not likely to make much progress as long as one side believes that the fulfillment of their basic human needs is being threatened by the other.
In negotiations between the United States and Mexico, the U. Assuming that this was a negotiation over money, the U. Secretary of Energy refused to approve a price increase negotiated with the Mexicans by a U. Since the Mexicans had no other potential buyer at the time, he assumed that they would then lower their asking price.
But the Mexicans had a strong interest not only in getting a good price for their gas but also in being treated with respect and a sense of equality.
The U. Rather than sell their gas, the Mexican government began to burn it off, and any chance of agreement on a lower price became politically impossible. To take another example, in the negotiations over the future of Northern Ireland, Protestant leaders tend to ignore the Catholics' need for both belonging and recognition, for being accepted and treated as equals.
In turn, Catholic leaders often appear to give too little weight to the Protestants' need to feel secure. Treating Protestant fears as "their problem" rather than as a legitimate concern needing attention makes it even more difficult to negotiate a solution. Make a list. To sort out the various interests of each side, it helps to write them down as they occur to you.
This will not only help you remember them; it will also enable you to improve the quality of your assessment as you learn new information and to place interests in their estimated order of importance. Furthermore, it may stimulate ideas for how to meet these interests. Talking about interests The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests.
The chance of that happening increases when you communicate them. The other side may not know what your interests are, and you may not know theirs. One or both of you may be focusing on past grievances instead of on future concerns. Or you may not even be listening to each other. How do you discuss interests constructively without getting locked into rigid positions? If you want the other side to take your interests into account, explain to them what those interests are.
A member of a concerned citizens' group complaining about a construction project in the neighborhood should talk explicitly about such issues as ensuring children's safety and getting a good night's sleep. An author who wants to be able to give a great many of his books away should discuss the matter with his publisher. The publisher has a shared interest in promotion and may be willing to offer the author a low price. Make your interests come alive. If you go with a raging ulcer to see a doctor, you should not hope for much relief if you describe it as a mild stomachache.
It is your job to have the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate your interests are. One guideline is be specific. Concrete details not only make your description credible, they add impact. For example: "Three times in the last week, a child was almost run over by one of your trucks. About eight-thirty Tuesday morning that huge red gravel truck of yours, going north at almost forty miles an hour, had to swerve and barely missed hitting seven-year-old Loretta Johnson.
Part of the task of impressing the other side with your interests lies in establishing the legitimacy of those interests. You want them to feel not that you are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem you face legitimately demands attention.
You need to convince them that they might well feel the same way if they were in your shoes. How would you feel if trucks were hurtling at forty miles per hour down the street where you live? Each of us tends to be so concerned with his or her own interests that we pay too little heed to the interests of others. People listen better if they feel that you have understood them. They tend to think that those who understand them are intelligent and sympathetic people whose own opinions may be worth listening to.
So if you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs. Have I understood you correctly? Do you have other important interests? This is especially easy to do if you have shared interests: "It would be terrible for all of us if one of your trucks hit a child. In talking to someone who represents a construction company, you might say, "We believe you should build a fence around the project within forty-eight hours and beginning immediately should restrict the speed of your trucks on Oak Street to fifteen miles an hour.
Now let me tell you why He has heard your position and is no doubt busy preparing arguments against it. He was probably disturbed by your tone or by the suggestion itself. As a result, your justification will slip by him altogether.
If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later. Tell the company first about the dangers they are creating for young children and about your sleepless nights.
Then they will be listening carefully, if only to try to figure out where you will end up on this question. And when you tell them, they will understand why. Look forward, not back. It is surprising how often we simply react to what someone else has said or done. Two people will often fall into a pattern of discourse that resembles a negotiation, but really has no such purpose whatsoever.
They disagree with each other over some issue, and the talk goes back and forth as though they were seeking agreement.
In fact, the argument is being carried on as a ritual, or simply a pastime. Each is engaged in scoring points against the other or in gathering evidence to confirm views about the other that have long been held and are not about to be changed. Neither party is seeking agreement or is even trying to influence the other.
If you ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will typically identify a cause, not a purpose. Caught up in a quarrel, whether between husband and wife, between company and union, or between two businesses, people are more likely to respond to what the other side has said or done than to act in pursuit of their own long-term interests.
If they think they're going to get away with that, they will have to think again. I'll show them. One looks backward for a cause and treats our behavior as determined by prior events. The other looks forward for a purpose and treats our behavior as subject to our free will. We need not enter into a philosophical debate between free will and determinism in order to decide how to act. Either we have free will or it is determined that we behave as if we do.
In either case, we make choices. We can choose to look back or to look forward. You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from.
Instead of asking them to justify what they did yesterday, ask, "Who should do what tomorrow? In a negotiation you want to know where you are going and yet be open to fresh ideas.
To avoid having to make a difficult decision on what to settle for, people will often go into a negotiation with no other plan than to sit down with the other side and see what they offer or demand.
How can you move from identifying interests to developing specific options and still remain flexible with regard to those options? To convert your interests into concrete options, ask yourself, "If tomorrow the other side agrees to go along with me, what do I now think I would like them to go along with?
Think in terms of more than one option that meets your interests. Much of what positional bargainers hope to achieve with an opening position can be accomplished equally well with an illustrative suggestion that generously takes care of your interest. Something on the order of a five-year contract should meet his need for job security.
An open mind is not an empty one. Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. You can be just as hard in talking about your interests as any negotiator can be in talking about his position. In fact, it is usually advisable to be hard. It may not be wise to commit yourself to your position, but it is wise to commit yourself to your interests.
This is the place in a negotiation to spend your aggressive energies. The other side, being concerned with their own interests, will tend to have overly optimistic expectations of the range of possible agreements.
Often the wisest solutions, those that produce the maximum gain for you at the minimum cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests. Two negotiators, each pushing hard for their interests, will often stimulate each other's creativity in thinking up mutually advantageous solutions.
The construction company, concerned with inflation, may place a high value on its interest in keeping costs down and in getting the job done on time.
You may have to shake them up. Some honest emotion may help restore a better balance between profits and children's lives. Do not let your desire to be conciliatory stop you from doing justice to your problem. You wouldn't say that about your son. I don't believe you're an insensitive person, Mr. Let's figure out how to solve this problem. This is why it is important to separate the people from the problem.
Attack the problem without blaming the people. Go even further and be personally supportive: Listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express your appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize your concern with meeting their basic needs, and so on. Show them that you are attacking the problem, not them. One useful rule of thumb is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem. This combination of support and attack may seem inconsistent.
Psychologically, it is; the inconsistency helps make it work. A well-known theory of psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance, holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it.
By attacking a problem, such as speeding trucks on a neighborhood street, and at the same time giving the company representative positive support, you create cognitive dissonance for him. Fighting hard on the substantive issues increases the pressure for an effective solution; giving support to the human beings on the other side tends to improve your relationship and to increase the likelihood of reaching agreement. It is the combination of support and attack which works; either alone is likely to be insufficient.
Negotiating hard for your interests does not mean being closed to the other side's point of view. Quite the contrary. You can hardly expect the other side to listen to your interests and discuss the options you suggest if you don't take their interests into account and show yourself to be open to their suggestions. Successful negotiation requires being both firm and open. The problem is a common one.
There seems to be no way to split the pie that leaves both parties satisfied. Often you are negotiating along a single dimension, such as the amount of territory, the price of a car, the length of a lease on an apartment, or the size of a commission on a sale.
In a divorce settlement, who gets the house? Who gets custody of the children? You may see the choice as one between winning and losing — and neither side will agree to lose. Whatever the situation, your choices seem limited. The Sinai example also makes clear the opportunity.
A creative option like a demilitarized Sinai can often make the difference between deadlock and agreement. One lawyer we know attributes his success directly to his ability to invent solutions advantageous to both his client and the other side.
He expands the pie before dividing it. Skill at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have. Yet all too often negotiators end up like the proverbial sisters who quarreled over an orange. After they finally agreed to divide the orange in half, the first sister took her half, ate the fruit, and threw away the peel, while the other threw away the fruit and used the peel from her half in baking a cake.
All too often negotiators "leave money on the table" — they fail to reach agreement when they might have, or the agreement they do reach could have been better for each side. Too many negotiations end up with half an orange for each side instead of the whole fruit for one and the whole peel for the other.
In a dispute, people usually believe that they know the right answer — their view should prevail. In a contract negotiation they are equally likely to believe that their offer is reasonable and should be adopted, perhaps with some adjustment in the price. All available an- swers appear to lie along a straight line between their position and yours.
Often the only creative thinking shown is to suggest splitting the difference. In most negotiations there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options: 1 premature judgment; 2 searching for the single answer; 3 the as- sumption of a fixed pie; and 4 thinking that "solving their problem is their problem.
Premature judgment Inventing options does not come naturally. Not inventing is the normal state of affairs, even when you are outside a stressful negotiation.
How could you be sure that that person was the most deserving? Your mind might well go blank, or you might throw out a few answers that would reflect conventional thinking: "Well, maybe the Pope, or the President. Judgment hinders imagination. Under the pressure of a forthcoming negotiation, your critical sense is likely to be sharper.
Practical negotiation appears to call for practical thinking, not wild ideas. Your creativity may be even more stifled by the presence of those on the other side. Suppose you are negotiating with your boss over your salary for the coming year. In a tense situation like this you are not likely to start inventing imaginative solutions. You may fear that if you suggest some bright half-baked idea like taking half the increase in a raise and half in additional benefits, you might look foolish.
Your boss might say, "Be serious. You know better than that. It would upset company policy. I am surprised that you even suggested it. You may also fear that by inventing options you will disclose some piece of information that will jeopardize your bargaining position. If you should suggest, for example, that the company help finance the house you are about to buy, your boss may conclude that you intend to stay and that you will in the end accept any raise in salary he is prepared to offer.
Searching for the single answer In most people's minds, inventing simply is not part of the negotiating process. People see their job as narrowing the gap between positions, not broadening the options available. They tend to think, "We're having a hard enough time agreeing as it is. The last thing we need is a bunch of different ideas. If the first impediment to creative thinking is premature criticism, the second is premature closure. By looking from the outset for the single best answer, you are likely to short-circuit a wiser decision-making process in which you select from a large number of possible answers.
Why bother to invent if all the options are obvious and I can satisfy you only at my own expense? Thinking that "solving their problem is their problem" A final obstacle to inventing realistic options lies in each side's concern with only its own immediate interests. For a negotiator to reach an agreement that meets his own self-interest he needs to develop a solution, which also appeals to the self-interest of the other.
Yet emotional involvement on one side of an issue makes it difficult to achieve the detachment necessary to think up wise ways of meeting the interests of both sides: "We've got enough problems of our own; they can look after theirs. Shortsighted self-concern thus leads a negotiator to develop only partisan positions, partisan arguments, and one-sided solutions. Each of these steps is discussed below.
Separate inventing from deciding Since judgment hinders imagination, separate the creative act from the critical one; separate the process of thinking up possible decisions from the process of selecting among them. Invent first, decide later. As a negotiator, you will of necessity do much inventing by yourself.
It is not easy. By definition, inventing new ideas requires you to think about things that are not already in your mind. You should therefore consider the desirability of arranging an inventing or brainstorming session with a few colleagues or friends. Such a session can effectively separate inventing from deciding.
A brainstorming session is designed to produce as many ideas as possible to solve the problem at hand. The key ground rule is to postpone all criticism and evaluation of ideas.
The group simply invents ideas without pausing to consider whether they are good or bad, realistic or unrealistic. With those inhibitions removed, one idea should stimulate another, like firecrackers setting off one another.
In a brainstorming session, people need not fear looking foolish since wild ideas are explicitly encouraged. And in the absence of the other side, negotiators need not worry about disclosing confidential information or having an idea taken as a serious commitment.
There is no one right way to run a brainstorming session. Rather, you should tailor it to your needs and resources. In doing so, you may find it useful to consider the following guidelines. Before brainstorming: 1. Define your purpose. Think of what you would like to walk out of the meeting with. Clifton argues that the solution to creating good jobs must be found in cities, not in the federal government.
Clifton says that the next big breakthrough will come from the combination of the forces within big cities, great universities and powerful local leaders.
Strong leadership teams and a natural order are already in place within cities — in governments and local business and philanthropic entities, with caring leaders working on initiatives to fuel local economic growth and to create good jobs. The feat these leaders have to pull off is doubling their entrepreneurial energy by aligning their local forces: local tribal leaders, super mentors and universities.
Winning the jobs war will require all hands on deck, and failure is not an option, especially for the United States, which has been the global leader in promoting freedom and entrepreneurship.
The biggest threat? In this long awaited book, bestselling author Cohen offers a new--and humorous--look at the art and practice of negotiation in the 21st century. However, negotiation has changed. It's no longer about confrontation where there are winners and losers. Collaboration is now the name of the game. Can you afford to be without a modern framework for deal-making? By breaking negotiation into its three key elements of Attitude, Behaviour and Process, he helps you learn how to shape, create and close deals.
You will discover what your negotiating style is, and how you can apply it to influence others and give yourself the edge. This is the ultimate guide to using the power of negotiation to get more of what you want, in both business and life outside the office. This newly updated classic just got even better. Richard Shell has taught thousands of business leaders, lawyers, administrators, and other professionals how to survive and thrive in the sometimes rough-and-tumble world of negotiation.
In the third edition of this internationally acclaimed book, he brings to life his systematic, step-by-step approach, built around negotiating effectively as who you are, not who you think you need to be. Shell combines lively stories about world-class negotiators from J. Morgan to Mahatma Gandhi with proven bargaining advice based on the latest research into negotiation and neuroscience. It provides easily adaptable techniques that enhance negotiation, while remaining respectful and considerate to oneself and the adversary.
The reader is made to appreciate that there are two sides to a story and the solution most likely is to work to a third outcome, acceptable to all parties.
0コメント