Skip to main content

getting to yes summary

Negotiation methods should be judged by three criteria

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

Common obstacles to the negotiation

when another party is more powerful

  • avoid establishing a "bottom line" (worst acceptable outcome) in an attempt to protect themselves against a poor agreement since it would limit/prevent creativity in generating options
  • concentrate on assessing BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement)
  • power in a negotiation comes from the ability to walk away from talks.
  • The weaker party will better understand the negotiation context if they also try to estimate the other side's BATNA.

When the other party doesn't use principled negotiation

  • when to refuse to budget from their positions, asking for reasons behind that position
  • when attacking the other side's ideas, should take it as constructive criticism and invite further feedback and advice. Personal attacks should be recast as attacks on the problem. Generally, the principled party should use questions and strategic silences to draw the other party out.
  • Brought in a third party to interview each side separately to determine each side's interests individually. Then the third party assembles the list of both sides' interests and asks each side for their comments and criticism of the list. Then the third party works with both sides to hash out the proposals iteratively.

When the other party uses dirty tricks

  • such as good guy/bad guy routines, uncomfortable seating, and leaks to the media. This could be responded to by explicitly raising issues in negotiations and engaging in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules.
  • Parties may deliberate deception about the phoney facts, their authority, and their intentions. Principled negotiators may seek verification other side's claims.
  • Another common tactic is psychological warfare, such as using stressful environments, subtle personal attacks. Instead, the principled party could identify the problematic element and suggest a fair change or simply recognize what they are.
  • Positional pressure tactics attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions. The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead of treating them as proposals or expressed interests, insist that any recommendations be evaluated on their merits, and don't hesitate to point out dirty tricks.

Four principles for effective negotiations

separating people from the problem

to work through people problems, think in terms of perception, emotion, and communication

Perception
  • most conflicts are based on differing interpretations of the facts. Stick to the facts
  • both sides must understand the other viewpoints.
  • Should not assume that their worst fears will become the other party's actions. Nor should one side blame the other for their problems.
  • Give them a stake in the outcome by letting them participate in the process
  • make your proposal consistent with their values, and let them save face.
Emotion
  • recognize and understand the feelings of all parties and the source of the feelings.
  • Don't react to an emotional outburst.
  • Use symbolic gestures (gift-giving, etc...) to show empathy,
  • make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate.
  • Then, allow the other side to let off steam.
Communication
  • employ active listening, such as giving speakers their full attention and acknowledging what is said.
  • Occasionally, summarizing the speaker's point to confirm their understanding.
  • It is important to remember that understanding the other's case does not mean agreeing with it.
  • Speakers should focus on communicating the intent and reasonings of themselves.
  • Avoid blaming and attacking the other.
  • Speak to be understood. You're not trying to persuade some third party.
  • speak about yourself, not about them. However, it is more persuasive to describe a problem in terms of its impact on you and in words of what they did and why.
Generally, the best way to deal with people's problems is to prevent them from arising. People's problems are less likely to come up if parties have a good relationship and think of each other as partners in negotiation rather than adversaries. Asks for help give the other party the comfortable feeling of knowing that someone owed them a favour.

Focusing on interests rather than positions

  • when a problem is defined in terms of the parties' underlying interests, it is often possible to find a solution that satisfies both parties' interests.
  • Be hard on issues but soft on people.
  • Your positions are something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to choose
  • how to identify interests
    • ask "why?" put yourselves 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?
    • most powerful interests are basic human needs
      • Security
      • Economic well-being
      • Sense of belonging
      • Recognition
      • Control over one's life.
    • Identify shared interests
      • shared interests are latent in every negotiation
      • stressing your shared interests can make the negotiation smoother and more amicable.

generating a variety of options before settings on an agreement

  • find win-win options
  • 4 significant obstacles inhibit the inventing of an abundance of possibilities
    • premature judgement
    • searching for the single answer
    • assumption of the fixed pie
    • thinking that " solving their problem is their problem."
  • create first, decide later. Separating the act of inventing options from the act of judging them.
  • Look for items of low cost to you and high benefits to them and vice versa.

Insisting that the agreement be based on objective criteria 

  • agree first on principles. Before even considering possible terms, you may want to decide on the standard or standards to apply.
  • Never yield to pressure, only to the principal. When pressured, invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria that you think apply, and refuse to budget except on this basis.
  • Using the other parties' reasoning to support your position can be a powerful way to negotiate.
  • Willing to reconsider their positions when there is reason to.
  • frame each issue as a search for objective criteria





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

implementing domain driven design summary

DDD overview anatomy of domain-driven design Putting the model to work Domain-Driven Design is an approach to the development of complex software in which we: Focus on the core domain Explore the models in a creative collaboration of domain practitioners speak a ubiquitous language within an explicitly bounded context. Bounded Context Explicitly define the context within which a model applies. Explicitly set boundaries in team organization, usage within specific application parts, and physical manifestations such as code bases and database schemas. Apply continuous integration to keep the model concepts and terms strictly consistent within these bounds, but don't be distracted or confused by issues outside.  Ubiquitous Language Use the model as the backbone of a language. Then, commit the team to exercise that language relentlessly in all communication within the team and in the code.   Use the same language in diagrams, writing, and speech within a bounded context. Recognize ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Code Retreat 2017 retrospective

  In general, this year is much better compared to previous years There are several important points that I need to write down Typically, the main reason for me to do code retreat to help developers in the community to expose more to TDD/craftsmanship. Recently, I asked myself question: “How come it’s not eas y  to adapt TDD, automated testing which should be the core value of any efficient teams?” I don’t think that people is lazy or people is resistance, I think as the industry, there’s lots of ambiguity in how people should approach TDD (SOLID principles, 4 simple rules of design, etc … are too generic) and agile practices (agile manifesto, etc…) How can I apply SOLID, 4 simple rules of design into my day to day jobs? What’s the most important reasons for developers to write automated tests? is it testability design, is it executable documentations?…. what’s the different between integration/component/API tests? should we care? when I discuss about unit tests with QA, typic...
Post a Comment
Read more

What’s a simple way to share and learn refactor?

  I have been organizing coderetreat and creating screencasts on refactoring and TDD, etc… however, I find it takes lots of time and effort to organize, preparing and facilitate. (it’s not that I complain about it as a matter of fact I love it every single second and I’m amazed at how much I have learned from the community) I have been asking myself, what’s the simpler way for me to learn to refactor and share with others? (why refactor, you may ask? it’s because it’s my favourite topic in the long never-ending list of agile technical practices) and for some reason, I really like to share my boring meme jokes, so I guess why not share a list of animated gifs of refactoring and the motivation of it. I guess since I’m an Asian guy (hopefully some kind of descendants from Bruce Lee) so this saying is pretty cool to me: “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 different kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” Another way to look at it, from J.B Rain...
Post a Comment
Read more