Samenvatting
Summary Boek:
Samenvatting van het boek "Getting to YES" van Roger Fisher & William Ury voor Negotiation and Social Decision Making. Check ook mijn samenvatting van de artikelen voor NSDM.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 5 van de 15 pagina's
Voorbeeld 5 van de 15 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
2 beoordelingen
Door: rozaspeksnijder1 • 5 jaar geleden
Door: serishrehman • 5 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Getting to YESRoger Fisher and William Ury. 2nd ed. 1991
Contents
Ch.1: Don’t bargain over positons........................................................................................................2
Ch.2: Separate the People from the Problem........................................................................................4
Ch.3: Focus on interests, not positons..................................................................................................6
Ch.4: invent Optons for utual Gain....................................................................................................7
Ch.5: insist on Using Objectve Criteria..................................................................................................9
Ch.6: What If They Are ore Powerful? BATNA..................................................................................10
Ch.7: What If They Won’t Play.............................................................................................................11
Ch.8: What If They Use Dirty Tricks (hard bargainer)...........................................................................13
,Ch.1: Don’t bargain over positions
People find themselves negotaton in two opposing ways: sof (avoid personal confict and make
concessions to reach agreement – ofen ends up biter and exploited) and hard (situatons are a
contest and side that takes the more extreme positon wins). Other strategies fall between hard and
sof but always involve a trade-oof between 1) getng what you want and 2) getng along with
people. But there is a third way:
Principled negotiation = neither hard nor sof but both; hard on merits (advantages or worth) and
sof on people. It focusses on mutual gains wherever possible and where interest collide, look for fair
standards independent of the will of either side.
Positional bargaining = each side takes a positon and argues, makes concessions in order to reach a
compromise (classic example: haggling over prices). Positon bargaining fails to meet the basic
criteria of producing a wise agreement, efciently and amicably. Because one side locks themselves
in a positon to defend it, the more this side becomes commited (saving face). When more atenton
is given to positons, less atenton is given to concerns of the partes involved, which leads to sub-o
optmal agreements.
Saving face: when positonal bargaining, eventually one side wants to defend their interest (ego
becomes identfied) to reconcile future acton with past decisions and therefore stcks to the
positon, making it impossible to reach a decision.
Judgement of ‘fair negotatono by three principles:
1. It should produce a wise agreement
2. It should be efcient
3. It should improve or at least not damage the relatonship between partes
Wise agreement = an agreement which meets the legitmate interests of each side to the extent
possible, resolves confictng interests fairly, is durable and takes community interests into account.
The four drawbacks of positonal bargaining:
1. Arguing over positions is ineecient: positons create incentves to stall setlement because
there is always a chance a certain setlement is favourable to the other side, therefore
stubbornly holding on to a positon by deceiving the other party and making small
concessions interfere with reaching a conclusion. Yielding to the other side results in
pressure to yield further and risk not reaching an agreement
2. Arguing over positions endangers ongoing relationssips: each side tries to force the other
to change its opinion (contest of will) and can shater relatonships. Trying to bend
someone’s will while legitmate concerns go unaddressed usually generates anger and
resentment.
3. Wsen tsere are many parties position bargaining is even worse : when several partes sit at
a table the serious drawbacks of positon bargaining enter. It inherently leads to forming of
coalitons among partes and it becomes difcult to develop a common positon (example:
UN conferences). These groups usually have higher authorites absent at the table and must
give their approval. Further straining the negotaton.
4. Being nice is no answer: People recognizing (hard) positon bargaining and trying to be
gentle or avoid negotaton end up with sub-ooptmal results. The sof negotatons emphasize
the agreement (common in families and friends) and while the process is efcient and
2
, produces results quickly, the quality of the agreements is sloppy and could have been beter
for both sides, especially if one side plays the hard side.
Tse alternative: changing the game to principled negotaton or ‘negotaton on merits’o
Every negotaton has two levels:
-o Substance level = focusses on the procedure for dealing with things (price, salary, etc.)
-o eta-ogame level = the structure of the rules by which you are playing (hard / sof)
Principled negotaton defines four key points that can be used under any circumstance:
1. People: separate tse people from tse problem
a. Humans are creatures of emoton and therefore emotons can become entangled
with objectve merits of the problems (eventually the ego becomes simultaneously
the positon). To disentangle them, partcipants in a negotaton should see
themselves as working side by side to atacking a problem
2. Interests: focus on interests, not positions
a. Negotaton positons obscure what someone really wants. Producing a compromise
around positons is fuelled by interests so it is beter to agree or negotate around
interests directly.
3. Options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding wsat to do
a. Having a lot of stakes constraints creatvity and therefore a possible agreement. If
there is a designated tmeframe to think up a wide range of possible solutons that
advance shared interests and reconciling difering interests.
4. Criteria: insist tsat tse result be based on some objective standard
a. An agreement must refect some fair standard independent of the will of either side.
This must not be a standard selected by either partcipant but a fair standard such as
market value, expert opinion, a custom or law. This gives both partes room to defer
to a fair soluton within the objectve standard.
Tsree stages = between the moment of thinking about negotaton and an agreement are three
stages that can be identfied: 1) analys’is’, 2) planning and 3) dis’cus’s’ion. These three stages all take
the four key points mentoned above in mind.
Analysis = simply diagnosing the situaton by gathering informaton. This can be done by considering
the perceptons, hostle emotons, unclear communicaton and identfying interests behind the
positons taken by both partes.
Planning = which key interests are most important, what is a realistc objectve, what additon
criteria is among them?
Discussion = partes communicate back and forth to reach an agreement. Each side should come to
understand the interests of the other, both can then jointly generate optons that are mutually
beneficial, or find objectve standards for resolving opposed interests.
3
,Ch.2: Separate the People from the Problem
Negotiators are people frst: they have emotons, deeply held values, diferent backgrounds and
viewpoints and are unpredictable. (technique: pay atenton to the people problem!)
-o Positive human aspect = working on an agreement can produce psychological commitment
where trust, understanding, respect and friendship are built up over tme to make future
negotaton more efcient.
-o Negative human aspect = the ego is easily threatened and therefore people can get angry,
depressed, fearful, hostle, frustrated and ofended. People confuse their perceptons with
reality and misunderstanding can reinforce prejudice.
The goal of a negotator is twofold: 1) the substance (make a profit or sale) and 2) relatonship (long-o
term ongoing relaton). These two goals (substance & relatonship) become entangled and people
treat them as one problem (example: “this’ problem proves’ that you donot value our relatons’hipp”
Separate tse relationssip from tse substance: deal directly wits tse people problem. There are
three basic categories: 1) percepton, 2) emoton and 3) communicaton.
1. Perception = understanding the other side’s thinking will help solve the problem, a lot of
confict lies in people’s head, not in objectve reality. When there are hopes or fears in a
negotaton, facts alone cannot solve the problem.
a. Put yourself in their shoes: because people focus on the facts that confirm their
perceptons and disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptons into
queston, it is essental to “try on their views. Understanding their point of view is
not agreeing with them! Furthermore it is important not to blame them for a
problem that exists because under atack the other side will become defensive and
resist. When you separate the problem from the person it doesn’t happen (example:
“the factory needs’ a functon generator and it has’ broken down 3 tmes’s what can
we do to; change s’ervice companies’ or s’ue the manufacturer or what?
b. Discuss other’s perceptons: It is possible to make diferent perceptons explicit
without blaming the other side for a problem. This way the other side knows what is
important in the negotaton and what is of less importance
c. Look for opportunites to act inconsistently with their perceptons : The best way to
change a percepton is to send a message diferent from what they expect.
d. Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they partcipate in the process : if
the other side is not moving, get them involved to make it seem like you are
reaching this conclusion together. If both partes feel ownership to the ideas
agreements become much easier!
e. Face-osaving; ake proposals consistent with their values : propose an agreement
that refects their principles and past words / deeds. This can be compared to a
judicial process where two judges base their decision on principle, law and
precedent. Ofen a disagreeable conclusion can be accepted if it is phrased as a fair
outcome for both partes. Face-osaving reconciles principles with the self-oimage!
2. Emotion = If the stakes are high, emotons run high and this will generate emotons on the
other side and this can bring negotatons to an impasse or end.
a. Recognize and understand emotons (both sides): it is useful to write down what you
feel and what the other side feels. This changes a representatve of an organisaton
4
, into a human with feelings, fears, hopes and dreams. If the other side is fearful and
feels their survival is at stake they see each other in terms of survival and it becomes
impossible to discuss and resolve things
b. ake emotons explicit and acknowledge them as legitmate : aking feelings or
fears explicit in the discussion (example: “we fear this’ can happen but we may be
wrongp) underscores the seriousness of the problem. It will make negotatons less
reactve and more pro-oactve, freed from the burden of unexpressed emotons, so
the actual problem is discussed
c. Allow the other side to let of steam: Letng of steam makes it easier to talk
ratonally later, recountng grievances leaves no residue to fester.
d. Don’t react to emotonal outbursts: if you lose control, you lose some face and
therefore a piece of the negotaton
e. Use symbolic gestures: in an impasse a note of sympathy or statement of regret can
go a long way. It is one of the least costly and both most rewarding investments.
3. Communication = there are three big problems with communicaton. First, negotators may
not be talking to each other but third partes to impress or to rip up. Second, people in
general do not pay enough atenton to what is being said. Third, communicaton is
misunderstanding, the other side may misinterpret what is being said.
a. Listen actvely and acknowledge what is being said : actvely listening improves what
hearing what is being said and what is being meant. This can be done by repeatng
what has been said (example: “Okays let me s’ee if I can explain this’… ) it is important
that this is phrased positvely because it takes in their perceptons, needs and
constraints. It is possible to understand perfectly and disagree completely.
b. Speak to be understood: talk like a judge discussing something with another judge
how to decide on a case. This also means limitng the size of the group by the
minimum number (i.e. 2) It is known that important decisions are typically made
when no more than two people are in the room.
c. Speak for yourself not about them: Don’t make statements about the other party
like “you broke your word / you are a racis’t because it angers them. Try “I feel let
down / we feel dis’criminated agains’t because it does not provoke a defensive
reacton!
d. Speak for a purpose: before making a significant statement, know what you want to
communicate and find out what purpose this informaton will serve. Sometmes its
beter to speak and other tmes beter to remain silent.
Prevention works best: describing the problems with people (percepton, emoton &
communicaton) works well. The best thing however is handling people before they become
problems. By building up personal and organizatonal relatonships people can be cushioned against
the knocks of the negotaton. This can be done in two ways:
5
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper WouterVK. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 60904 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen