Negotiation-Getting to Yes – Flashcards

-emphasizes the importance of building and maintaining a relationship ... preserving the relationship & separating people from the problem; compromise -wants to avoid personal conflict and so makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement. He -wants an amicable resolution; yet he often ends up exploited and feeling bitter.

dominance over a soft negotiator. sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme positions and holds out longer fares better. He wants to win; yet he often ends up producing an equally hard response which exhausts him and his resources and harms his relationship with the other side.

o It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. o It should be efficient. o It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.

successively taking — and then giving up —a sequence of positions.

People: Separate the people from the problem. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

the participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other focus on the issue what you want to change, not who is causing the problem. Other negotiators are also people.

Put yourself in their shoes, Discuss each other's perceptions, Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions, Perhaps the best way to change their perceptions is 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. & Face-saving: Make your proposals consistent with their values.

The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be.

Make your proposals consistent with their values. o Maintaining ones self-image o Reconciling an agreement with principle Face-saving involves reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators. Its importance should not be underestimated

First recognize and understand emotions, theirs and yours, Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate. Talk with the people on the other side about their emotions. Talk about your own, Allow the other side to let off steam, don't react to emotional outbursts, Use symbolic gestures.

is to deal with people's negative emotions by releasing those feelings...makes it easier to talk rationally later Often, one effective way to deal with people's anger, frustration, and other negative emotions is to help them release those feelings. People obtain psychological release through the simple process of recounting their grievances. If you come home wanting to tell your husband about everything that went wrong at the office, you will become even more frustrated if he says, "Don't bother telling me; I'm sure you had a hard day. Let's skip it." The same is true for negotiators. Letting off steam may make it easier to talk rationally later. Moreover, if a negotiator makes an angry speech and thereby shows his constituency that he is not being "soft," they may give him a freer hand in the negotiation. He can then rely on a reputation for toughness to protect him from criticism later if he eventually enters into an agreement. Hence, instead of interrupting polemical speeches or walking out on the other party, you may decide to control yourself, sit there, and allow them to pour out their grievances at you. When constituents are listening, such occasions may release their frustration as well as the negotiators. Perhaps the best strategy to adopt while the other side lets off steam is to listen quietly without responding to their attacks, and occasionally to ask the speaker to continue until he has spoken his last word. In this way, you offer little support to the inflammatory substance, give the speaker every encouragement to speak himself out, and leave little or no residue to fester.

listen quietly without responding to their attacks and occasionally encourage them to get it all out Releasing emotions can prove risky if it leads to an emotional reaction. If not controlled, it can result in a violent quarrel. One unusual and effective technique to contain the impact of emotions was used in the 1950s by the Human Relations Committee, a labor-management group set up in the steel industry to handle emerging conflicts before they became serious problems. The members of the committee adopted the rule that only one person could get angry at a time. This made it legitimate for others not to respond stormily to an angry outburst. It also made letting off emotional steam easier by making an outburst itself more legitimate: "That's OK. It's his turn." The rule has the further advantage of helping people control their emotions. Breaking the rule implies that you have lost self-control, so you lose some face.

a process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision.

People not talking, People not listening, people not understanding each other 1) Negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood. (Many talk to the peanut gallery) 2) People don't pay enough attention to what the other side is saying. (Instead they focus on their next point they're planning on making) 3) Misunderstanding.

Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said, Speak to be understood, speak about yourself, not about them, Speak for a purpose.

pay close attention to what is said, to ask the other party to spell out carefully and clearly exactly what they mean, and to request that ideas be repeated if there is any ambiguity or uncertainty. Make it your task while listening not to phrase a response, but to understand them as they see themselves. Take in their perceptions, their needs, and their constraints.

No matter how many people are involved in a negotiation, important decisions are typically made when no more than two people are in the room.

know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve.

Ask "Why?", Ask "Why not?" Think about their choice. Realize that each side has multiple interests, 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, Make a list

*When talking about your interests, keep in mind that you need to explain them in detail (be specific) + demonstrate appreciation for their interests in return

1) premature judgment; (2) searching for the single answer; (3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and (4) thinking that "solving their problem is their problem." In order to overcome these constraints, you need to understand them.

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.

To generate more options don't look for the one best answer and designate brainstorming times. the circle chart, look through the eyes of different experts, invest agreements of different strengths, and change the scope of proposed agreements

procedural solutions, look at other basic means of settling differences (taking turns, drawing lots, letting someone decide)

1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. 2. Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied. 3. Never yield to pressure, only to principle. In short, focus on objective criteria firmly but flexibly. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.

first, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible.

the worst acceptable outcome —If you are buying, a bottom line is the highest price you would pay. If you are selling, a bottom line is the lowest amount you would accept.

It limits your ability to benefit from what you learn during negotiation. Inhibits imagination, keeping you both from inventing and agreeing on a wise solution for both parties. Limited ability to benefit from what you learn during a negotiation Inhibited imagination Likely set too low or high while adopting a bottom line may protect you from accepting a very bad agreement, it may keep you both from inventing and from agreeing to a solution it would be wise to accept. An arbitrarily selected figureis no measure of what you should accept.

your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. That isthe only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept. (what you walk away to)

that you are too committed to reaching agreement. a major danger is that you will be too accommodating to the views of the other side — too quick to go along. The siren song of "Let'sall agree and put an end to this" becomes persuasive. You may end up with a deal you should have rejected. Your powert to affect the outcome is taken away b/c whether you or not you should agree depends on the BATNAs (its like negotiating with your eyes closed)

1) Inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached. 2) Improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives 3) Selecting, tentatively, the one alternative that seems best.

o Not reacting to any attacks o Do not push back o Sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem. focuses on what they may do...counter their basic moves of positional bargaining by directing their attention to merits. refusing to react

asserting their position forcefully, attacking your ideas, and attacking you.

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 which it reflects, and think about ways to improve it. Don't defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice, Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem. When the other side attacks you personally — as frequently happens — resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them. Instead, sit back and allow them to let off steam, Ask questions and pause

It helps to have stock phrases like "It's not a question of trust" to turn aside ploys like Mrs. Jones's plea for trust. When dealing with a party who is reluctant, try using a one-test mediation procedure-a third party

recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability — negotiate over it.

deliberate deception,less than full disclosure is not the same as deception,psychological warfare,stressful situtations, personal attacks, good guy/bad guy routine,threats,position pressure tactics, refusal to negotiate,extreme demands, escalating demands,lock in tactics,hardhearted partner, calculated delay,take it or leave it, o Deliberate Deception o Psychological warfare o Positional pressure tactics Deliberate deception (phony facts, ambiguous authority, dubious intentions) Psychological warfare (stressful situations, personal attacks, good guy/ bad guy routine, threats) Positional pressure tactics (refusal to negotiate, extreme or escalating demands, lock-in tactics, hardhearted partner, a calculated delay, "take it or leave it")