Roger Fisher

Getting to Yes

Notify me when the book’s added
To read this book, upload an EPUB or FB2 file to Bookmate. How do I upload a book?
This book is currently unavailable
233 printed pages
Have you already read it? How did you like it?
👍👎

Impressions

  • 洪一萍shared an impression5 years ago

    Any method of negotiation should be judged by three criteria:

    It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible
    It should be efficient
    And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties
    The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it

    Arguing over positions is inefficient

    Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship

    When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse

    “Being Nice” isn’t the answer either

    The Straightforward, Principled, Negotiation Method

    People: Separate the people from the problem

    Negotiators are people first
    Every negotiator has an interest in the result, and in the relationship
    To work through people problems, think in terms of: Perception, Emotion, and Communication
    Perception

    The ability to see the situation from the other side is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess
    Look for opportunities to surprise their perceptions, especially if those perceptions put you in a bad light
    Give them a stake in the outcome by letting them participate in the process
    Discuss each other’s perceptions
    Don’t blame them for your problem
    Make your proposal consistent with their values, and let them save face
    Emotion

    Recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours
    Consider the role of identity, understand if their identity is threatened
    Emotions are always legitimate
    Allow them to let off steam if necessary
    Don’t react to emotional outbursts
    Use symbolic gestures (gift giving, etc.) to show empathy
    Communication

    Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said
    Speak to be understood, talk to every side of the disagreement
    Speak about yourself, not about them. Don’t superimpose your impressions on them
    Speak for a purpose, don’t waste breath
    Prevention is the best method

    Build a strong working relationship, be friends outside of the negotiation
    Face the problem, not the people. Don’t view the other side as adversaries
    Interests: Focus on interests, not positions

    For a wise solution, reconcile interests, not positions
    Interests define what the problem is
    Your positions are something you have decided upon, your interests are what caused you to decide
    How do you identify interests?

    Ask “Why?” put yourself in their shoes and try to figure out how they arrived at their positions
    Ask “Why not?” what interests of theirs stand in the way of your decision? Why do they not want what you want?
    Realize that both sides have multiple interests
    Most powerful interests are basic human needs (Maslow’s Pyramid)
    Talking about interests

    If you want the other side to consider your interests, you must explain what those interests are
    Acknowledge their interests and that you understand them
    Put the problem before your answer, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later
    Look forward, not back. Sometimes we argue for no reason, or purpose
    Be hard on the problem, but soft on the people
    By attacking the problem, and at the same time giving the person on the other side positive support, you create a cognitive dissonance for him. To overcome this dissonance, he will be tempted to dissociate himself from the problem in order to join you in doing something about it
    Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do

    In most negotiations, there are four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options:
    Premature judgement
    Searching for the single answer
    The assumption of a fixed pie
    Thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”
    To invent creative options, then you will need to:

    Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them
    Before you brainstorm

    Define your purpose: think about what you want to walk out of the meeting with
    Choose a few participants
    Change the environment
    Design an informal atmosphere
    Choose a facilitator: someone who can keep the meeting on track, make sure everyone can speak, enforce ground rules, and stimulate discussion
    During brainstorming

    Seat everyone side by side facing the problem
    Clarify the ground rules, and outlaw criticism of any kind
    Brainstorm
    Record the ideas in full view
    After brainstorming

    Star the most promising idea: relax the no-criticism rule to begin winnowing out the most promising ideas
    Invent improvements for promising ideas: make it as attractive as you can
    Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide
    Brainstorm with the other side too

    Broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer

    Search for mutual gains

    Identify shared interests

    Shared interests are latent in every negotiation
    Shared interests are opportunities, not godsends. You have to make something out of them
    Stressing your shared interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable
    Dovetail differing interests

    Different beliefs? Different values placed on time? Different forecasts? Differences in aversion to risk?
    Look for items that are of low cost to you, and high benefit to them, and vice versa
    Invent ways of making their decisions easy

    It is usually easier to refrain from doing something not being done than to stop action already underway. It is easier to cease doing something than to undertake an entirely new course of action.
    Few things facilitate a decision as much as precedent
    Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

    Deciding on the basis of Will is costly
    Use objective criteria instead
    Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and effectively
    Developing objective criteria

    Develop fair standards for evaluation
    Use fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests
    Negotiating with Objective Criteria

    Frame each issue as a search for objective criteria
    Ask for the theory behind positions “How did you arrive at that price?”
    Agree on principles first
    Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied
    Never yield to pressure, only to principle
    Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
    The cost of using a bottom line

    It keeps you from being more inventive with solutions
    It can sometimes prevent you from making an advantageous decision
    Know your BATNA

    If you can’t sell your house, will you rent it? Tear it down and sell the lot? Keep it on the market indefinitely?
    Formulate a trip-wire to activate your BATNA

    Develop your BATNA

    Invent a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached
    Improve some of the more promising ideas and convert them into practical alternatives
    Select, tentatively, the one idea that seems best
    Always consider the other side’s BATNA
    Negotiation Jujitsu, for When They Won’t Play
    How do you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? Don’t push back

    Avoid pitting your strength against them directly; instead, use your skill to step aside and turn their strength to your ends
    Do not attack their position, look behind it

    Assume every position is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of both sides
    Seek out and discuss the principles underlying their position
    Discuss what would happen if one of their positions were accepted. Sometimes framing it in this way can show its weaknesses
    Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice

    Ask them what’s wrong with your idea
    Ask for their advice, or what they would do in your situation
    Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem

    If they attack you personally, resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack back
    Let them let off steam
    Ask questions and pause

    Use questions instead of statements
    What if they use dirty tricks?
    Deliberate deception

    Phony facts

    Make the negotiation proceed independent of trustVerify factual assertions as you go
    Ambiguous authority

    Ask just how much authority they have on this matter
    Dubious Intentions

    Pretending to be in support of one thing to convince you of another
    Psychological Warfare

    Stressful situations

    If you find the situation prejudicial, say so, and try to change it
    Personal attacks

    If you’re being personally attacked, bring it up explicitly
    Good guy/Bad guy routine

    Threats

    Good negotiators do not resort to threats
    Warnings are much more legitimate, so long as they are backed by the reality of the situation
    Positional pressure tactics

    Refusal to negotiate

    Recognize this as a possible ploy to get some concession from you
    Talk about their refusal to negotiate. Why do they not want to?
    Insist on using principles
    Extreme demands

    Ask for principled justification of that stance to show them how ridiculous it is
    Escalating demands

    Call it to their attention, and stop negotiations for a bit. Insist on principles to make it more serious
    Lock-in tactic

    One side entirely locks in their positionIgnore the lock in, talk about the principles, and let them back down and save face
    “Take it or leave it”

    Ignore it, and then draw attention to it as a problem
    Don’t be a victim

  • Rajesh Chorariashared an impression9 years ago
    👍Worth reading
    🔮Hidden Depths

    Good

  • omark9838shared an impression9 years ago
    👍Worth reading

Quotes

  • Shaig Mursalzadehas quoted4 years ago
    Unless you have good reason to trust somebody, don’t.
  • Shaig Mursalzadehas quoted4 years ago
    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
  • Shaig Mursalzadehas quoted4 years ago
    To invent creative options, then, you will need (1) to separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; (2) to broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; (3) to search for mutual gains; and (4) to invent ways of making their decisions easy. Each of these steps is discussed below.

On the bookshelves

fb2epub
Drag & drop your files (not more than 5 at once)