Getting to Yes

realize that each side has multiple interests. in almost every negotiation each side will have many interests, not just one. as a tenant negotiating a lease, for example, you may want to obtain a favorable rental agreement, to reach it quickly with little effort, and to maintain a good working relationship with your landlord. you will have not only a strong interest in AFFECTING any agreement you reach, but also one in EFFECTING an agreement. you will be simultaneously pursuing both your independent and your shared interests.

A common error in diagnosing a negotiating situation is to assume that each person on the other side has the same interests. this is almost never the case.

Thinking of negotiation as a two-person, two sided affair can be illuminating, but it should not blind you to the usual presence of other persons, other sides, and other influences.

To understand that negotiator's interests means to understand the variety of somewhat differing interests that he needs to take into account.

THE MOST POWERFUL INTERESTS ARE BASIC HUMAN NEEDS. In searching for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particular for those bedrock concerns which motivate all people. if you can take care of such basic needs, you increase the chance both of reaching agreement and, if an agreement is reached, of the other side's keeping to it.

Basic human needs include:

security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life

As fundamanetal as they are, basic human needs are easy to overlook. in many negotiations, we te3nd to think that the only interest involved is money. yet even in a negotiation over a monetary figure, such as the amount of alimony to be specified in a separation agreement, much more can be involved.

negotiations are not likely to make much progress as long as one side believes that the fulfillment of their basic human needs is being threatened by the other.

make a list. to sor out the various interests of each side, it helps to write them down as they occur to you. this will not only help you remember them; it will also enable you to improve estimated order of importance. furthermore, it may stimulate ideas for how to meet these interests.

talking about interests\

the purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. the chance of that happening increases when you communicate them. the other side may not know what your interests are, and you may not know theirs. one or both of you may be focusing on past grievance instead of on future concerns, or you may not even be listening to each other.

if you want the other side to take your interests into account, explain to them what those interests are.

make your interests come alive. its your job to have the other side understand exactuly how important and legitimate your interests are.

one guideline is be specific. concrete details not only make your description credible, they add impact. as long as you don't seem to imply that the other side's interests are unimportant or illegitimate, you can afford to take a strong stance in setting forth the seriousness of your concerns. inviting the other side to [correct me if im wrong] shows your openness, and if they do not correct you, it implies that they accept your description of the situation.

part of the taski of impressing the other side with your interests lies in establishing the legitimacy of those interests. you want them to feel not athat your are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem you face legitimately demands attention. you need to convince them that they might well feel the same way if they were in your shoes.

acknowledge their interests as part of the problem each of us tends to be so concerned with his or her own interests that we pay too little heed to the interests of others. people listen better if they feel that you have understood them, they tend to think that those who understand them are intelligent and sympathetic people whose own opinions may be demonstrating that you appreciate theirs.\in addition to demonstratign that you have understood their interests, it helps to acknowledge that their interests are part of the overall problem you are trying to solve. this is especially easy to do if you have shared interests.

put the problem before your answer. if you want someone to listen and understand your resoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later. tell the company first about the dangers they are creating for young children and about your sleepless nights. then they will be listening carefully. if only to try to figure out where you will end up on this question. and when you tell them, they will understand why.

look forward, not back. its surprising how often we simply react to what someone else has side or done. two people will often fall into a pattern of discourse that resembles a negotiation, but really has no such purpose whatsoever. they disagree with each other over some argument is being carried on as a ritual, or simply a pastime. each is engaged in scoring points against the other or in gathering evidence to confirm views about the other that have long been held and are not about to be changed. neither party is seeking agreement or is even trying to influence the other.\

if you ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will typically identify a cause, not a purpose. caught up in a quarrel, whether between husband and wife, between company and union, or between two businesses, people are more likely to respond to what the other side has said or done than act in pursuit of thir own long-term interests. [they can't treate me like that, if they think they re going to get away with that, they will have to think again. ill show them.]

the question [why] has two wuite diff meanings, one looks backward for a cause and treats our behavior as determined by prior events. the other looks forward for a purpose and between free will and determiniism in order to decide how to act. either we have free will or it is determined that we behave as if we do. in either case, we make choices. we can choose to look back or to look forward.\you will satisfy your interests better if you talk about where you would like to go gather than about where you have come from. instead of arguing with the other side about the past-talke 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?]

beconcrte but flexible. in a negotiatino you want to know where you are going and yet be open to fresh ideas. to avoid having to make a difficult decision on what to settle for, people will often go into a negotiation with no other plan than to sit down with the other side and see what they offer or demand.\

how can u move from identifying interests to developing specific options and still remain flexble with regard to those options, to convert your interests into concrete options, ask yourself [if tomorrow the other side agrees to go alone with me, what do i now think i would illustrative. think in terms of more than one option that meets your intersts.] illustrative specificity is the key concept.

much of what positional bargainer hopeachieve with an opening position can be accomplished equally well w/ an illustrative suggestion athat generously takes care of your interes.\

haveing thought about your interests, you should go into a meeting not only with one or more specific options that would meet your legitimate interests but also with an open mind. an openmind is not an empty one.

\

3-focus on interest, not position

For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions-look for each sides’ interest that hides under positions, knowing the differences between positions and interests is crucial.

Interests define the problem.- the basic problem in negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s need, desires, concerns, and fears. The parties may say one thing but actually want other thing.

Such desires and concerns are interests. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.

Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reason. First, for every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it. All too often people simply adopt the most obvious position. 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.

Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions also works because behind opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones.

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. We tend to assume that because the other side’s position are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed. If we have an interest in defending ourselves, then they must want to attack us. If we have an interest in minimizing the rent, then their interest must be to maximize it. A close examination of the underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that are shared or compatible than ones that are opposed.

They must have some level of shared interest and they may have interests that do no conflict but simply differ.

Agreement is often made possible precisely because interest differ. You and a shoe seller may both like money and shores. Relatively, his interest in the thirty dollars exceed his interest in the shoes, for you, the situation is reversed, u like the shoes better than the thirty dollars.(actually i want shoes for free:) hence the deal, shared interests and differing but complementary interests can both serve as the building blocks for a wise agreement.

How do you identify interests?

2- interests: focus on interests, not positions.

For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions.就是要你想办法找到中间点让两方满意，比方说一个想开窗户要通风，一个想关窗户觉得太吵了你怎么办，书里说把门打开（不是）把另外一个房间的窗子打开。彡(-_-;)彡

真的好长，已经不想看下去了，可是半天了才看到22页/

1- people: separate the people from the problem. 2- interests: focus on interests, not positions. 3- options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. 4- criteria: insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

--------------------------------

1- people: separate the people from the problem.--Negotiators are people first

A basic fact about negotiation(easy to forget) is that u are dealing not w/ abstract representatives of the "other side," but w/ human beings. They have emotions, deeply held values, and diff backgrounds and viewpoints; and they are unpredictable.

This human aspect of negotiation can be either helpful or disastrous. The process of working out an agreement may produce a psychological commitment to a mutually satisfactory outcome. People's desire to feel good about themselves, and their concern for what others will think of them, can often make them more sensitive to another negotiator's interests. On other hand, people get angry, frustrated, and offended. They have egos that are easily threatened. They see the world from their own personal vantage point, and frequently confuse their perceptions w/ reality. fail to interpret what u say in the way u intend and do not mean what u understand them to say.

unless we are careful, this process is almost automatic; we are seldom aware that other explanations may be equally valid.

E.g landlords vs. Tenant

understanding their point of view is NOT the same as agreeing w/ it. it is true that a better understanding of their thinking may lead u to revise your own views about the merits of a situation. But that is not a COST of understanding their point of view, it is a BENEFIT. it allows u to reduce the area of conflict, and it also helps u advance your newly enlightened self-interest.

don't deduce their intentions from your fears. people tend to assume that whatever they fear, the other side intends to do. we make assumptions base on our fears.

It's all too easy to fall into the habit of putting the worst interpretation on what the other side says or does. A suspicious interpretation often follows naturally from one's existing perceptions. but the cost of interpreting whatever they say or do in its most dismallight is that fresh ideas in the direcion of agreement are spurned, and subtle changes of position are ignored or rejected.

Don't blame the for your problem. Blaming is an easy mode to fall into, its tempting to hold the other side responsible for your problem. even if blaming is justified, it is usually conterproductive. Under attack, the other side will become defensive and will resist what you have to say. Assessing blame firmly entangles the people w/ the problem.

Discuss each other's perceptions, make them explicit and discuss them w/ the other side.

Look for opportunities to act inconsistently w/ their perceptions. (huh??搞不太懂？）

Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process. if they are not involved in the process, they are hardly likely to approve the product. if u want the other side to accept a disagreeable conclusion, it is crucial that u involve them in the process of reaching that conclusion.(this is precisely what people tend not to do, when u have a difficult issue to handle, your instince is to leave the hard part until last) even if the terms of an agreement seem favorable, the other side may reject them simply out of a suspicion born of their exclusion from the drafting process.

A agreement becomes much easier if both parties feel ownership of the ideas.

to involve the other side, get them involved early. ask their advice, giving credit generously for ideas wherever possible will give them a personal stake in defending those ideas to others. it may be hard to resist the temptation to take credit for yourself, but forbearance pays off handsomely. apart from the substantive merits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the single most important factor in determing whether a negotiator acceps aproposal.--- In a sense, the process is the product.

Face-saving: make your proposals consistent w/ their values. face-saving reflects a person's need to reconcile the stand he takes in a negotiation or an agreement w/ his principles and w/ his past words and deeds. oftent in a negotiation peple will continue to hold out not because the proposal on the table is inheretly unacceptable, but simply because they want to avoid the feeling or the appearance of backing down to the other side.( if the substance can be phrsed or conceptualized differently so that it seems a fair outcome, they will then accept it.)

face-saving involves reconciling an agreement w/ principle and w/ the self-image of the negotiators. its importance should not be underestimated.

一直以为这是中式英语/

重要*

重要*