More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
by
Roger Fisher
Read between
November 14 - December 11, 2020
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.
The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it.
In fact, with many long-term clients, business partners, family members, fellow professionals, government officials, or foreign nations, the ongoing relationship is far more important than the outcome of any particular negotiation.
If I take a firm position that you consider unreasonable, you assume that I also think of it as an extreme position; it is easy to conclude that I do not value our relationship—or you—very highly.
Are you feeling nervous? Is your stomach upset?
Excellent advice. those body cues help a lot when you listen to them. they tell you to evaluate the situation and figure out the meaning.
Nor are the problems of emotion limited to the negotiators. Constituents have emotions
Making your feelings or theirs an explicit focus of discussion will not only underscore the seriousness of the problem, it will also make the negotiations less reactive and more
Hence, instead of interrupting polemical speeches
What i uesually call letting them talk themselves out
convince them that you do grasp how they see it, you may be unable to get them to hear when you explain your viewpoint to
The moral is: Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve.
Listen well and speak slowly
Instead she looked to their underlying interests of fresh air and no draft. This difference between positions and interests is crucial.
Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.
A position is likely to be concrete and explicit; the interests underlying it may well be unexpressed, intangible, and perhaps inconsistent.
interests lies in establishing the legitimacy of those interests. You want them to feel not that you are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem you face legitimately demands attention.
If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later.
In a contract negotiation they are equally likely to believe that their offer is reasonable and should be adopted,
The other side always believes their request is reasonable. a bad faith negotiator has some reason too.
Nothing is so harmful to inventing as a critical sense waiting to pounce on the drawbacks of any new idea.
Under the pressure of a forthcoming negotiation, your critical sense is likely to be sharper.
I would say this is definitely true especially with high stakes where you are worried about getting screwed .
Seat the participants side by side facing the problem.
In a remote only setting making sure everone is camera on and also remote helps. No groups together and no hidden participants.
People are so accustomed to meeting for the purpose of reaching agreement that any other purpose needs to be clearly stated.
This seems very difficult to overcome. its more than what people are accustomed to in meetings but the nature of pursuing ideas and plans together. many people in my experience have a hard time exploring the theoretical very far without attaching to the concrete
shared interests lie latent in every negotiation. They may not be immediately obvious.
one backed down; no one appeared weak—just reasonable.
In principled negotiation you present your reasons first
Don’t be diverted from the negotiation by the urge to teach them a lesson.
Whatever you do, avoid making the commitment a central question. Deemphasize it so that the other side can more gracefully back down.
