Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

hinders imagination!

tense situations
1. Premature Judgement
real intentions disclosure
fear
take raw idea as offer
delay
process fear 2. Search for Single Answer
confuse
Obstacles
No room for invention
3. Assumption of a Fixed Pie
If I win, you lose, and vice-versa
feels disloyal
emotional involvement necessary
4. "Solving their problem is their problem" Roger Fisher
yours
interests satisfy awareness authors William Ury
theirs
Bruce Patton
Define Purpose book 1991
Few participants
200 pages
Change environment Before
Informal Atmosphere on amazon.com
Facilitator Luciano Passuello
Side-by-side facing problem
no criticism! Clarify Ground Rules Suggested guidelines brainstorming session 1. Separate Inventing from Judging
About
During
Brainstorm
Record ALL ideas litemind.com
mind map
Rank 2008
Most promising ideas
Improve Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0
After
set a time limit Decide Everaldo Coelho
images Crystal Clear
www.everaldo.com
brainstorm IS NOT finding needle in haystack
map contains full contents of book divided by chapters
Don't search for single answer, make plenty of room for choices
What's wrong?
1. Problem
Current Symptoms?
wise agreement
Suggest causes
requirements efficient
Sort symptoms in categories 2. Analysis
improve/not damage relationship
Note barriers to resolving the problem
Circle Chart
the more you defend, you
Possible strategies
lock in positions become more committed
Theoretical cures 3. Approaches
Broad ideas about what to do identify ego with position effort in "saving face"
unwise
Specific steps 4. Action Ideas tendency to mechanical
2. Broaden your options
3. Invent Options splitting of the difference
child (50/50) instead of crafted solution
for Mutual Gain less focus in underlying concerns
banker
psychiatrist How would a ... see it? Look through the eyes of takes a lot of time
different experts incentives stall settlement
socialist
doctor start with extreme position
combine with Circle Chart problems stubbornly hold to it no incentive to move quickly!
inefficient
provisional agreement make small concessions as necessary
Invent agreements of increase chance for yourself
agree on what you disagree different strengths Prescription slow process!
second-order agreement
issues on dispute not always obvious walking out
higher chance
small agreements Break down positional bargaining no agreement
Change scope of agreement
will
identify shared interests battle
power
on perceptions hard positions
endangers relationship
form x substance resentment
economical x political bending to other's will feels bad
anger
internal x external
emphasis victory
symbolic x practical hard
look for principles? The Negotiation dominates soft
immediate future x distant future
ad hoc results x relationship agreement often based on Problem emphasis reach agreement
disagreement
progress x respect for tradition families
negotiation styles
reputation x results soft used
friends
beliefs? 3. Look for Mutual Gains
concerned with relationship sloppy agreements
values placed on time?
forecasts? comparison table
aversion to risk? negotiation on the merits
All opportunities to better deal! working side-by-side
People Separate the people from the problem.
let them choose attacking the problem not each other!
create lots of options
all acceptable for you
Interests Focus on interests, not positions. human needs behind positions
low cost for you ask for their preference
high benefit to them look for Deciding on the presence of adversary narrows vision
basic points
vice-versa Options Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
lot of stakes inhibits creativity
nobody deals with an abstract entity
Whose shoes? Expert opinion
Focus on ONE person
Criteria Insist that the result be based on some objective standard. market value
give them an answer, not a problem Principled negotiation
What decision? etc.
give them an easy decision
4. Make their decision easy diagnose the situation
offers are more effective
gather information
Consider how they might be analysis
Making threats is not enough organize
imagine other side's most criticized if they adopted
powerful critic your offer. think about it

stages same four above again


planning
one party always feels defeated handle people problems
open to reason communicate
closed to threats deciding on will is costly discussion understand interests
be
based on principle attack the problem
not pressure
defending position not abstract representatives of "the other side"
no time efficient
attacking position get angry
Negotiators are People First
have egos
independent of each side's will
confuse perceptions with reality
legitimate
practical Relationship usually more important
if buying a house
Should apply to both sides Object of Negotiation
how would the seller buy a house?
egos
market value when using Positional Bargaining
precedent The two become entangled
Conflict Relationship
scientific judgement trade-off
Fair Standards Two Interests Object of Negotiation
professional standards
separately
efficiency
deal directly with people problem theirs
costs examples
Separate them! yours too!
what a court would decide
don't make concessions in the negotiation,
moral standards 4. Insist on Using based on the people problem don't mix the two!
equal treatment Objective Criteria
tradition not just useful to know
their thinking
IS THE PROBLEM!
reciprocity
one cut, other chooses perceptions
between
before deciding who's on each role negotiate with roles conflict not reality
Fair Procedures
picking among a collection taking turns truth is just another argument maybe weak!

arbitrator The most important negotiation skill


pretend he used objective criteria Ask "What's your theory?" Frame each issue as a joint feel

agree on standards first


search for objective criteria Put yourself on their shoes his point
try to understand try to believe same emotional force as his
split the difference! different results two standards
not same as agreeing!
Perception Don't deduce their intentions
right standard Reason and be open to reason
ask third party from your fears
without knowing who's
proposing what standard will become defensive
under attack
bribe Don't blame them for your problem will resist

threat better wording


manipulative appeal to trust Discuss perceptions
Never yield to pressure
invite them to reveal reasoning Look for Opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
suggest objective criteria strategy otherwise, may reject even if favorable
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process
refuse to budge except with reasoning ownership
make easy for the other part self-image
too rigid explain the agreement
Face-Saving avoid other part's ridicule
inhibits imagination
ignores what you learn during negotiation theirs
bottom-line
when in groups hard to raise (i.e. sell price) 1. Separate the People be aware yours
from the Problem write it down
wrong question! What price you "ought" to get...
Getting to Yes Emotions are non-refutable!
Book Summary Make explicit
Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement Facts are refutable!
http://litemind.com
right question! What is the alternative? value other side's strong emotions
1. Protect Yourself
Emotion Allow other side to let off steam
be too optimistic unknown BATNA listen quietly ask for more!

psychological Don't react to emotional outbursts spiral


alternative 1 OR
BATNA
seeing the sum of values Note of Sympathy
alternative 2 OR seeing from all alternatives pitfalls Techniques
Visit to Cemetery
value alt 1 + value alt 2 as Use Symbolic Gestures
Small Present
What If they're more powerful?
you will have to choose! Eat Together
too committed to reach agreement
impress
1. Not talking to each other audience
attractiveness of NOT reaching agreement power = BATNA make them take sides
busy thinking about arguments
list of actions Problems
2. Not hearing hearing only your people
if agreement is not reached imagine
(constituency)
alternatives
3. Misunderstanding
imaginative develop your BATNA
improve alternatives Did I understand correctly you put their case better than them!
make practical 2. Make the most of the deal just said that ... ?
...and later refute it!
alternatives
selecting not killing time
best Listen Actively
satisfaction to other party being heard
only if it's attractive disclose BATNA
being understood
maybe non-agreement is the solution if both BATNAS are good consider other side's BATNA Negotiation is not a Debate! No persuading of third parties!

the rest of the book principled negotiation Speak to be Understood make it confidential, if possible
limit the size of the group meeting
neither reject or accept Communication Not about them
treat as one possible option force positions
"We feel discriminated against."
look for interests Example
Speak about yourself "You're a racist."
don't defend! Tips
Prevent defensive reactions
criticism
invite Difficult for them to rebate!
advice
don't ask for acceptance don't talk too much
find interests your ideas Speak for a purpose disclosure of flexibility harder to reach agreement
analyze response ask what's wrong with it enemy attacks
improve ideas What purpose the information will serve?
ask for advice Know other side personally
"what would you do if you turn sides arrive early
What YOU can do
were in my side?" Build a Working Relationship
Negotiation Jujitsu meet informally
let them let off steam Prevention find about likes and dislikes
never defend
seat back and relax
you Sit at same side of table
Face the Problem, not the People
as attack on problem recast it! partners facing problem raise explicitly

can't be resisted!
questions instead of statements
reveal information What if they won't play? positions what you decided
honest question +
interests why you decided
insufficient answer = if they're wrong, they will be uncomfortable Best Tools
WAIT silence one interest multiple positions that satisfy it
generating suggestions
they will try to break feeling of stalemate shared
answering your question
behind opposed positions interests conflicting usually makes agreement possible!
third-party
deflects positional bargaining different (neutral)
third party learns both parts interests "Why?"
hard to make concessions Ask
generates draft repeat Yes, But... "Why not?" What interests of theirs stand in the way?
easy to criticize "one-text procedure"
ask for improvements Assume interests are the same!
Each side has multiple interests Common Error
final draft almost never true

one decision: yes or no Most powerful interests see also: classic motivation theories
mediate your own dispute Can be done without third-party easy to overlook
Page 117 Book we see as the only interest involved
money
Very Good! Case Study How to Identify may not be the case! even on monetary disputes

long (not included here) security


Basic Human Needs
usual response be quiet, hope for the best economic well-being
sense of belonging
about the negotiation process principled negotiation examples
recognition
usually about negotiation procedure control over one's life
by default ...

make assertions verifiable make negotiation don't trust people phony facts or a mind map
independent of trust make a list
verify assertions put it on paper
ask "How much authority you have in this decision?" communicate
"We reached an agreement, be specific
but I have to check with my deliberate deception
shows openness
boss" agreement for further negotiation
ambiguous authority
2. Focus on Interests, "correct me if I'm wrong"
not Positions implies they accept your description if they don't correct you
insist on reciprocity
"you check with your boss, and
I will also sleep on it and intelligent
People listen better if they fell that
propose changes" joint draft (both can change) you have understood them. if you understand them you're sympathetic
dubious intentions Acknowledge their interests worth listening

stressful situations communicate explicitly


comment on clothes
hearing you
make you wait reasoning first opponent will be
personal attacks Put the Problem before the answer not preparing arguments
make you repeat yourself
conclusions/proposals later
interruptions psychological warfare
1. bad guys plays hard cause
people frequently argue based on
2. good guy interrupts and not purpose
make little concession good-guy/bad-guy routine
looks for causes
seems like he's doing you a favor 3. you accept 1. recognize the tactic backward
behavior determined by prior events
What if they use dirty tricks? Talk Look forward, not back
variant: prerequisites to negotiate make interests come alive looks for purpose
don't attack "Why?" 2 meanings forward
refusal to negotiate behavior determined by free will
find their interests
ask them justify what they did yesterday
goal: lower your expectations choose wisely! ex: instead of
extreme demands who should do what tomorrow?
make ridiculous even for them ask for justification
Be concrete, but flexible An open mind is not an empty one!
for every concession, ask for a new one
escalating demands
reopen agreed issues interests
commit not positions
1. announce publicly desired result lock-in tactics
spend aggressive energies there!
positional pressure tactics
"I would be happy to accept,
don't allow it to stop you from
but I have to talk to..."
hardhearted partner Desire to be conciliatory doing justice to your problem
find him and speak with him!
Hard on the problem, soft on the people
create a time window positive support human being
calculated delay
invert pressure vigor which you emphasize the problem
ignore it and keep talking Tip Equal strengths cognitive dissonance people try to dissipate ambiguity
at first
introduce new solutions Psychologically helps him dissociate people
"Take it or leave it" from problem
point out what they loose if
you don't reach agreement later

normally is enough 2. raise the issue explicitly


3. question legitimacy and
desirability
"you put me facing the sun"
ex: separate people from problem use the 4 principles
"I am having trouble with the sun"

w923917_Getting_to_Yes.mmap - 28/01/2008 - Luciano Passuello