Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Getting to Yes - Roger Fisher y William Ury, Names: Mateo Merino, Martin…
Getting to Yes -
Roger Fisher y William Ury
The method
Focus on the Interests, not the positions
Identify interests
The underlying interests can be implicit, intangible, and perhaps inconsistent
Ask "Why?"
Analyze every position and ask yourself why
Ask "Why not?" Think about their choice
Identify the basic decision that the other party probably thinks you are asking for, and then ask yourself why they haven't made it.
Realize that each side has multiple interests
Whose decision do I want to affect?
What decision people on the other side perceive that you are asking them to make?
Understanding the interests:
Understanding the range of slightly different interests that must take into account
Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones
Agreements can often be reached precisely because there are different interests.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs
Try to find particularly those fundamental concerns that motivate everyone
Make a list:
To accommodate those interests.
For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions
Conflict between needs, desires, worries and fears
Interests define the problem
Interests motivate people
Reconciliation of interests:
Behind the opposite positions there are many other interests.
Several positions:
Satisfy an interest
Talking about interests
To favour your needs
Make your interests come alive
Be especific
To establish their legitimacy
Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem
Showing them that you have theirs in mind.
Put the problem before your answer
Explain your interests and reasoning
Conclusions or proposals
Look forward, not back
To talk about where you want to go than where you come from
Be concrete but flexible
To know
Where you are going
Be open to new ideas
Be hard on the problem, soft on the people
It is necessary to commit to your interests
Attack the problem without blaming them
Create options of mutual benefit
Diagnosis
People involved in negotiation rarely realize this need.
Premature judgment
Judgment inhibits the imagination.
It seems that practical negotiations require practical thinking, not crazy ideas
The normal thing is not to invent them
Not easy
to invent options.
Fear:
Revealing information that may weaken your position in the negotiation
Searching for the single answer
Fear:
Free discussion will only contribute to slowing down and confusing the process
Premature criticism=Premature termination
Appreciate their role:
Narrowing the distance between positions
Not as widening the options available
Single best answer from the beginning
Select from a large number of possible answers
The assumption of a fixed pie
Each party feels that the situation is essentially all / nothing.
Either I get what is under discussion, or you get it.
Thinking that "solving their problem is their problem"
Find a solution that is also attractive from the point of view of the other party's interests.
Emotional engagement to have new prudent solutions
Each party cares only for its immediate interests
Psychological difficulty in granting legitimacy to the other party's views
Prescription
Broaden your options
Multiply options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The Circle Chart:
Descriptive analysis:
You diagnose an existing situation in general terms
Consider what ought, perhaps, to be done
Thinking about a particular problem, the factual situation you dislike
To come up with some specific and feasible suggestions for action
Look through the eyes of different experts:
To examine your problem from the perspective of different professions and disciplines
Invent agreements of different strengths:
If you cannot agree on substance, perhaps you can agree on procedure
Change the scope of a proposed agreement:
"Fractionate" your problem into smaller and perhaps more manageable units
Look for mutual gain
The less for you, the more for me
Satisfying the interests of each side with a creative solution
It divides
Identify shared interests
Inventing an idea which meets shared interests
is good for you and good for them.
Dovetail differing interests
Satisfactory agreement:
Each side wants different things
Ask for their preferences
Work an option, and again present two or more other options.
Consider brainstorming with the other side
To reduce the risk of appearing to be committed to an idea
To protect yourself, when brainstorming with the other party
Make their decision easy
Whose shoes?:
Who has the decision
What decision?:
What is profitable and acceptable
Making threats is not enough:
Try to influence others by threats and warnings of what will happen if they do not decide as we would like.
Separate inventing from deciding
Separate the creative act from the critical act
Make up first; then decide
Brainstorming
Before
Modify the environment:
Time and place from a normal discussion
Create an informal setting:
Comfortable
Select a few participants:
Encourage participation
Define your purpose:
What would like to have at the end
Select a facilitator:
Enforce some rules and stimulate discussion
During
Clarify the rules
, including the no-criticism rule
Supply the ideas:
Allow your imaginations to run wild
Arrange the participants next to each other and facing the problem
Record the ideas for all to see:
Tangible sense of collective achievement
After
Come up with how to improve promising ideas:
Realistic
Take time to evaluate the ideas and decide:
Make the idea as attractive as possible
Point out the most promising ideas
The separation between invention and decision can be achieved
Criteria - Results are based on objective standards
The case for using objective criteria
Be open to reason, but closed to threats
Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently
More you bring standards of fairness, efficiency, or scientific merit to bear on your particular problem
=
more likely you are to produce a final package that is wise and fair.
Developing objective criteria
How do you develop objective criteria, and how do you use them in negotiating?
Fair standards
Whatever method of negotiation you use, you will do better if you prepare in advance.
Fair procedures
Resolving the conflicting interests:
Produce an outcome independent of will
Deciding on the basis of will is costly
Try to resolve such conflicts by positional bargaining in otherwords, by talking about what they are willing and unwilling to accept.
Negotiating with objective criteria
Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.
Shared goal:
To determine a fair price
Reason and be open to reason
Practical differences escalate into principled ones
It's a matter of principle
that becomes a battle cry in a holy war over ideology.
Never yield to pressure
Guarantee a favorable result
Separate the people from the problem
Negotiators are people first
Disastrous:
Failing to deal with others sensitively as human beings prone to human reactions.
Unpredictable:
Emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints.
Basic Fact
Dealing with people
: Easy to forget in corporate and international transactions.
Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship
Interest in his relationship with the other side
The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem
To treat people and problem as one
Positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict
In a good relationship by trading one off against the other.
Separate the relationship from the substance; deal directly with the people problem
Deal with people problems directly
Perception
Put yourself in their shoes
See the situation as the other side sees it
Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it.
Discuss each other's perceptions
To make them explicit and discuss them with the other side
Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions
To send them a message different from what they expect
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process
Agreement becomes much easier if both parties feel ownership of the ideas
Ask their advice
Giving credit generously for ideas
Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values
Not be underestimated:
Reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators
Emotion
May quickly bring a negotiation to an impasse or an end
First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours
All
have personal feelings, fears, hopes, and dreams
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
To make the negotiations less reactive and more "pro-active.
Allow the other side to let off steam
Release feelings:
To deal with people's anger, frustration, and other negative emotions
Don't react to emotional outbursts
If not controlled:
Can result in a violent quarrel
Use symbolic gestures
Apology
may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments you can make
Communication
Not to pay attention
Misunderstanding
Solutions
Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said
Asking the others to state carefully and clearly exactly what you want to say and ask to repeat the ideas if they are not clear
Speak to be understood
See the situation differently and trying to process it
Speak about yourself, not about them
Persuasive:
A statement about your own feelings is difficult to object
Speak for a purpose
Be sure about what you are trying to say or find out
Negotiators may not be talking to each other, to be understood
Prevention works best
The best moment to solve a problem is before it is presented.
Build a working relationship
Create relationship:
Before the negotiation begins
Build rapport
It helps a lot
getting to know the other party personally
Face the problem, not the people
Effective way to perceive each other:
As partners in a difficult common search for a fair and mutually beneficial agreement.
The Problem
Don't negotiate based on positions
Criteria
Be efficient
Improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties
Produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible
Taking and giving up positions
It provides an anchor in an uncertain and pressured situation
Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise
Example:
Haggling - Customer and the proprietor of a secondhand store
Topics
Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements
As more attention is paid to positions, less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties.
Difficult agreement
Bargain
Lock themselves into those positions
New interest:
Saving face making less likely that any agreement will wisely
Being nice is no answer
People may reach an unwise agreement
Instead of seeing the other side as adversaries, they prefer to see them as friends
Types of negotiations
Hard
4 more items...
Soft
4 more items...
Arguing over positions is inefficient
The more extreme the opening positions, the smaller the concessions
More time and effort it will take to discover whether agreement is possible
Arguing over positions creates incentives to delay the agreement
Each decision not only involves yielding to the other side but will likely produce pressure to yield further.
It takes a lot of time, increase time costs.
When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse
More people involved
More serious the drawbacks to positional bargaining
More difficult to develop a common position
There is an alternative
Principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits.
Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship
Each side tries through sheer will power to force the other to change its position.
Positional bargaining becomes a contest of will, the parts asserts what they'll do and what they won’t.
Anger and resentment
One side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other
Sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties.
Names: Mateo Merino, Martin Tirado, Ariadna Estrella and Mishelle Obando
Problems
