Getting To YES SG- NR 335

Identify and explain the four major obstacles that inhibit the number of options parties consider to resolve a conflict.

(1) premature judgment- People come to the judgement that negotiation is simply a time for practical thinking, not crazy ideas. People might be fearful of such thinking endangering the negotiation (2) searching for the single answer- people get stuck looking for one answer, so they don't envision multiple ideas to satisfy both sides (3) the assumption of a fixed pie- Either I get what is in dispute or you do. (4) thinking that "solving their problem is their problem." - People get trapped in only thinking about there own interests, not the other side.

Explain the following phrases: "be hard on the problem, soft on the people;" be flexible, but concrete."

-Commit hard to your interests, not your position. Spend your aggressive energies here. Attack the problem without blaming the people. Create cognitive dissonance -Think about more than one agreement that meets your interests. Having thought about your interests you should go into a negotiation with one or more scenarios that meet your interests, but keep an open mind to what the other side may offer based on their interests.

Explain what "Don't Bargain over Positions" mean

-Depends on upon successively taking and then giving up a sequence of positions -Positional bargaining fails to meet the basic criteria of producing a wise agreement, efficiently and amicably.

Explain how to participate in negotiation jujitsu.

-Don't attack their position look behind it- accept their position as a potential option and find the interests that support it, ask them how their position assists both sides -Don't defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice -Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem -Ask questions and pause

What are the four kinds of differences that lend themselves to dovetailing? How can you use each one of these to your advantage?

-Dovetailing involves finding a solution despite differing -A good strategy is to ask about the other side's preferences (1)Different beliefs- If I believe I'm right, and you believe you're right, we can take advantage of this difference in beliefs. We may both agree to have an impartial arbitrator settle the issue, each confident of victory. If two factions of the union leadership cannot agree on a certain wage proposal, they can agree to submit the issue to a membership vote. (2)Different values placed on time- You may care more about the present while the other side cares more about the future. In the language of business, you discount future value at different rates. An installment plan works on this principle. The buyer is willing to pay a higher price for the car if he can pay later; the seller is willing to accept payment later if he gets a higher price. (3)Different forecasts- In a salary negotiation between an aging baseball star and a major league baseball team, the player may expect to win a lot of games while the team owner has the opposite expectation. Taking advantage of these different expectations, they can both agree on a base salary of $100,000 plus $50,000 if the player pitches so well that on the average he permits less than three earned runs per game. (4) Differences in aversions to risk- Take, for example, the issue of deep-seabed mining in the Law of the Sea negotiations. How much should the mining companies pay the international community for the privilege of mining? The mining companies care more about avoiding big losses than they do about making big gains. For them deep-seabed mining is a major investment. They want to reduce the risk. The international community, on the other hand, is concerned with revenue. If some company is going to make a lot of money out of "the common heritage of mankind," the rest of the world wants a generous share. In this difference lies the potential for a bargain advantageous to both sides. Risk can be traded for revenue. Exploiting this difference in aversion to risk, the proposed treaty provides for charging the companies low rates until they recover their investment — in other words, while their risk is high — and much higher rates thereafter, when their risk is low (5) Differences in interests- orange peel

According to your text, what does it mean to "look forward, not back"? Why is that important in a conflict situation?

-Looking back is a trap that will fail to satisfy your interests effectively. It is surprising how often we simply react to what someone else has said or done -You will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go rather than about where you have come from. Instead of arguing with the other side about the past — 30 about last quarter's costs (which were too high), last week's action (taken without adequate authority), or yesterday's performance (which was less than expected) — talk about what you want to have happen in the future. Instead of asking them to justify what they did yesterday, ask, "Who should do what tomorrow?"

Identify and explain the basic human needs.

Security Economic security Sense of belonging Recognition A control over one's life

What's the difference between making threats and explaining consequences?

-Making threats is designed to make the other side realize what will happen if they do not decide what we would like. -Focus on making them aware of the consequences of their decisions, but also consider ways to potentially improve those consequences. -To do think about the consequences of taking a proposed option from their side, how will their decision be perceived by others on their side, basically just think more about the concerns of the other side

What is a "Circle Chart?" How is it effective in creative problem-solving?

-The Circle Chart multiplies options by shuffling between the specific and the general approaches to an issue. It uses one good idea to generate many others. -The circle has four quadrants, each quadrant represents a step to be taken. -Step 1 Problem (General): What is the problem? What are the current symptoms. -Step 2 Analysis (specific): What is causing the problem? Sort the symptoms into categories. -Step 3 Approaches (General): What are some general ways to go about solving the problem. -Step 4 Action (Specific): What are specific steps to solve the problem, what actions.

What is the difference between "soft" and "hard" negotiations?

-The soft negotiator 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. -The hard 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. -Other standard negotiating strategies fall between hard and soft, but each involves an attempted trade-off between getting what you want and getting along with people. -In positional bargaining, the hard style wins over the soft

Explain the three stages of the period when you first begin to think about a conflict and negotiation until the time an agreement has been reached or you decide to break off the effort.

1. Analysis- Trying to diagnose the situation. Think about the people involved, your interests, their interests, is everyone on the same page, etc. 2. Planning- Doing the same things in the analysis stage, but generating ideas and planning what to do. 3. Discussion- The actual negotiations, laying everything out there and working things out

List the reasons why arguing over positions is the worst approach you can take in a negotiation. Summarize, in your own words, what the author means by each of these reasons. Give a personal example of how each of these reasons may have played a part in a negotiation in which you were engaged.

1. Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements- You become stubborn and attached to your position in the negotiation. 2. It is inefficient- the process takes a really long time because you are tied to your position and will only make small concessions to that position. The other party(s) are the same. 3. Endangers existing relationships- the whole process can be frustrating, positional bargaining becomes a contest of will 4. It becomes more complicated with more parties 5. You can't win at it by being nice, you will be taken advantage of by a hard bargainer.

Explain how you identify interests.

1. Ask Why- Put myself in their shoes, why do they stand where they do on the negotiation subject matter. Can also ask them directly. 2. Ask Why Not- Imagine why the other side sees you asking for in the negotiations and why they might object. What interests of theirs stand in the way. 3. Realize both sides have multiple interests-each person on the other side doesn't necessarily have the same interests, in general parties always have more than one interest 4. Make a List- It helps to write them down as they occur to you 5. Recognize the role basic human needs play into interests

Identify and define the categories of tricky tactics.

1. Deliberate deception- misconceptions about facts, reservation points, intentions, authority, ect. 2. Psychological warfare- Tactics that are designed to make you feel uncomfortable and thus want to come to a deal as quickly as possible. Stressful situations/environments, personal attacks, good guy bad guy routine, threats. All these things are forms of pressure. 3. Positional pressure tactics- is designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions. Refusal to negotiate, extreme demands, hardhearted partner, escalating demands, lock-in tactics, calculated delay, take it or leave it

Explain how to properly conduct a brainstorming session.

Brainstorming is designed to invent as many options in a judgement free space. Postpone all criticism and evaluation of each idea until later. Wild ideas are encouraged. Before: 1. Set your purpose for the brainstorming session 2. Choose few participants 5-8 3. Change the environment. 4. Design an informal atmosphere 5. Choose a facilitator During: 1. Face everyone physically toward a board where you are writing every idea down. 2. Establish that the brainstorming session is no-criticism 3. Brainstorm and write everything down After: 1. Star favorite ideas 2. invent improvements for each promising idea 3. Discuss pros and cons of each Consider brainstorming with the other party

What are the three basic points to remember when negotiating objective criteria and procedures? Explain what is mean by each of these three points.

1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria- before negotiating the issue areas set the criteria. Or respond to offers asking how you came to that as your offer, what is it based on in principle? The standards the other side uses you can use as levelers to persuade them. 2. Reason and be open to reason- as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied. Be open to the reasons proposed by the other side. Sometimes you may have to bring in a third party to decide. Avoid using principles to advance one's position, thus you should be open to objective criteria. 3. Never yield to pressure, only to principle- If the other party attempts to bring something unrelated to principle into the negotiation such as a threat or bribe, simply take the discussion back to objective criteria. Shift them away from positional bargaining.

What does it mean to "separate the people from the problem." What are the elements involved in separating people from problems? Give an example from your own experience where you did or didn't do this. What was the outcome?

1. Remember that negotiators are people first. 2. Every negotiator has two major interests: the substance and the relationship 3. The relationship tends to get entangled with the problem 4. Positional bargaining tends to aggravate the entanglement between the substance (problem) and the relationship 5. Separate the people problems from the substance; deal directly with the people problems

Identify and explain the four points to principled negotiation.

1. Separate the people from the problem- Participants in negotiation should attack the issues of the negotiation, not each other. 2. Focus on interests not positions- focusing on positions will likely obscure your interests. Interests give more flexibility and really allow the whole picture of the negotiations to be realized. 3. Invent options for mutual gains- allows efficient and wise agreements. Avoids tunnel vision 4. Insist on using objective criteria- Make sure the terms of the negotiation are backed up by some fair standard or criteria, in other words they should not be based off standards arbitrarily set by one side

How does the author define "a wise agreement."

A wise agreement can be defined as one which meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.

Explain "BATNA." What role does it play in negotiations? What happens in situations without BATNA's? Give an example of a situation in which you used your BATNA. What was the outcome?

BATNA- Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. (In other words it's an alternative to your reservation point/bottom line). BATNA more accurately describes underlying interests compared to an arbitrary reservation price. -It is a standard to which any deal can be compared to, obviously you're looking for something better than this. What happens in situations without BATNA's?- You often make an unwise/bad deal. You are negotiating with your eyes closed. -BATNA allows you to make the most out of your assets: BATNA can increase your power, example a wealthy tourist is trying to buy a gold pot from a vendor. Vendor knows he can sell to someone else, tourist does not know the value of the pot or where else he can get one -BATNA allows you to combat a power imbalance in negotiations

What do the authors' say is The Problem in negotiations?

Bargaining only on the positions

What does it mean to, "not be a victim" in difficult situations?

Be prepared to fight dirty negotiation tactics. You can be just as firm as the other side if not firmer. Just always default to defending principle, it's a lot easier than defending an illegitimate tactic. Establish the rules of the game early.

How do you develop objective criteria?

Determine fair standards- often times there will be more than one set of objective criteria from which to base negotiations. The objective criteria should apply fairly to both sides. It should be independent of both party's will. Establish fair procedures- the idea of one cuts and the other one chooses, it is supposed to be an incentive for the parties involved to put offers on the table that are fair to both parties. Overall this promotes the creation of joint gains.

How important are emotions in a conflict situation? Should they be ignored? How do the authors suggest you should deal with emotions in disputes?

Emotions are very important in a conflict situation. Emotions can quickly bring a negotiation to an end . People come into negotiations with their individual emotions about the negotiation and also often wear the emotions of the party they represent. 1. Recognize emotions involved in a negotiation both theirs and yours. 2. Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate 3. Allow the other side to let of steam 4. Don't react to emotional outbursts- Releasing emotions can be risky if they spark a bigger emotional outburst. 5. Use symbolic gestures- for example an apology

Who is involved in "one-text procedure?" What does it mean and how does it work?

Enabling a third party to come in on the negotiations to offer impartial bias for resolving differences. They can also separate inventing from decision-making, reduce the number of decisions required to reach agreement, and help the parties know what they will get when they do decide. -The third party asks each side about their interests , prepares a draft solution based on the interests and asks each side for criticism, improve the solution and repeat process until it can be prepared no more

What is a "meta-game?"

If you do not like the choice between hard and soft positional bargaining, you can change the game. The game of negotiation takes place at two levels. At one level, negotiation addresses the substance; at another, it focuses— usually implicitly — on the procedure for dealing with the substance. The first negotiation may concern your salary, the terms of a lease, or a price to be paid. The second negotiation concerns how you will negotiate the substantive question: by soft positional bargaining, by hard positional bargaining, or by some other method. This second negotiation is a game about a game — a "meta-game." Each move you make within a negotiation is not only a move that deals with rent, salary, or other substantive questions; it also helps structure the rules of the game you are playing. Your move may serve to keep the negotiations within an ongoing mode, or it may constitute a game-changing move

What is the difference between "positions" and "interests?" What should you focus on when in conflict/negotiations? Think of a conflict/negotiation (you may use the same one you used for the questions in Chapter 1) in which you have been involved. Explain your interests and positions in that situation. Explain the other parties' interests and positions. Which do you think would be easier to address: all of the parties interests or all of the parties' positions?

Interests are what motivate people; they are the silent movers behind positions. Positions are where a party stands on an issue, this is governed largely by interest. -Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons. First, for every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it. All too often people simply adopt the most obvious position, as Israel did, for example, in announcing that they intended to keep part of the Sinai. When you do look behind opposed positions for the motivating interests, you can often find an alternative position which meets not only your interests but theirs as well. Israel agreed that as long as there were tanks in Sinai they were chill with Egypt having the land. -You should focus on identifying converging and diverging interests. Agreements are made largely because interests differ

Define "principled negotiation."

Is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won't do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains wherever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks ' and no posturing. Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness.

What criteria should be used in judging a good negotiation?

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.

What is meant by "listening" actively? Give examples.

Listening enables you to understand their perceptions, feel their emotions, and hear what they are trying to say. This is why listening actively is so important. Standard techniques of good listening are to 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. Try to repeat what they say in a positive light- makes the other side feel as if there is legitamicy to their perspective and that you understand Examples: You might say, "You have a strong case. Let me see if I can explain it. Here's the way it strikes me...."

Think of a conflict/negotiation in which you are or have been involved. Step by step, explain how the authors description of how to handle such a situation conflict would have worked better or would not have worked at all in your situation.

Negotiating with my roommate about cleaning the bathroom. If I would have thought about the side he was taking (we don't have to clean it often) through thorough analysis and planning, I would have been able to identify potentially why he thought this way. I was too caught up in the positions of the conflict and sticking to mine (clean every 2 weeks, switching off who does it). If we would have laid our interests on the table perhaps we would have collaboratively been able to come to a mutual agreement serving both our interests.

What is negotiation jujitsu and when is it most likely to be used?

Negotiation jujitsu is the process of countering positional bargaining strategies in ways that direct their attention to the merits of the negotiation. Essentially you are trying to get them to negotiate principally. Rather than attacking/criticizing their position or defending yours, channel their force into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent objective standards.

Based on what the authors say about reality, how would you define "perception" and the role it plays in conflict and negotiations?

People often mistake their perception as reality and misunderstand other people's perceptions. Perception is how the parties involved in the negotiation think about the problem at hand. The thinking involved in the negotiation is the problem in the negotiation; thus it is important that you really put yourself in the other party's shoes to emphasize with their take on the negotiation situation, you have to understand the differences in thinking about the problem. Assess how the other party thinks their side has merit, don't assume they are faulted. -Remember the importance saving face has to people- adhering to a set of defined principles and maintaining a certain self-image

What do your authors say is a major consequence of "people problems?" What does it mean to "deal with people problems directly; don't try to solve them with substantive concessions"?

The substance and people can get tangled up. Dealing with a substantive problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits. Base the relationship involved in the negotiation on clear communication, accurate perceptions, appropriate emotions, and a forward looking outlook. Attempt to solve problems in these people problem areas away from the negotiation. Think about the people problems in three categories: perception, emotion, and communication.

How can you make decision-making easier for the other side? Why is this important? That is, what do you get out of this?

The success of the negotiation involves the other side making the decision want you might as well try all strategies that make it easier for the other side. Basically there has to be a solution appealing to them for them to pull the trigger. You want to make the decision a easy one but a hard one at the same time. -Do so by putting yourself in their shoes, shape solutions that the other side views a legitimate

In dealing with difficult negotiators who use tricky tactics, your authors discuss three steps. What are they?

Tricky bargaining is means to take advantage of people during negotiating. 1. Recognize the tactic 2. Raise the issue explicitly 3. Question the tactic's legitimacy- negotiate the tactic using the four principles of principled negotiation

Explain the case for using objective criteria. Give some examples of "objective criteria."

Using objective criteria commits yourself to reach an agreement based on principle, not on pressure or the will of the other party. Allows you to escape positional bargaining. Example: market value when negotiating the prices of good, safety regulations when negotiating design of a building, scientific criteria. -Generating objective criteria makes one appear reasonable and fair

In Chapter 1, the author talks about people having a need to "save face." What do you think is meant by saving face? Explain a time when you were unwilling to negotiate or to effectively settle a conflict/dispute, because of your need to "save face."

When your ego becomes identified with your position (you don't want to change it) this tends to govern the course of the negotiation. You attempt to reconcile future action with past positions.