This blog is created for students in EDLE 5593, Leadership and Communication Processes at Midwestern State University. Course Professor is Martha Burger, Ed.D.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Getting to Yes - pp. 1-94
Post an idea or thought about what you are learning in Getting to Yes in the comments for this post.
I found the chart on page 13 to be eye-opening. Providing concrete statements that show how most people view conflicts ("soft bargaining" vs. "hard bargaining") was quite informative. It then provides the solution that is the best of both worlds by offering up "prinicpled bargaining." This view involves nuggets of advice such as separate the people from the problem, inventing options for mutual gain, focus on interests not positions, and insist on using only objective criteria.
I think of the movies where the street vendor is haggling over a price with a customer. It certainly makes much more sense to negotiate from an objective standard.
As I read I have been thinking about when I negotiate hard, soft or principled. It almost seems that if we are not objective about the process, power and circumstances(just as Fisher and Ury explain) dictate how we will negotiate. At the car lot we default to positional bargaining, when the blue book value would be a much more effective tool. If we are bargaining with family members we default to soft bargaining to avoid hurt feelings. It seems that in every scenario, some critical thinking about the negotiation and tactics from the book would be very effective. Sometimes I find myself mediating between students or colleagues. In a situation where you are not emotionally involved it's pretty easy to stay objective and look for alternatives to positions.
I really like the idea of inventing options. So many times we haggle over position when some creative problem solving will enable us to invent a much better alternative to either position.
I found the chart on page 13 to be eye-opening. Providing concrete statements that show how most people view conflicts ("soft bargaining" vs. "hard bargaining") was quite informative. It then provides the solution that is the best of both worlds by offering up "prinicpled bargaining." This view involves nuggets of advice such as separate the people from the problem, inventing options for mutual gain, focus on interests not positions, and insist on using only objective criteria.
ReplyDeleteIt's a new way of thinking of behaving for most of us. Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI think of the movies where the street vendor is haggling over a price with a customer. It certainly makes much more sense to negotiate from an objective standard.
ReplyDeleteAs I read I have been thinking about when I negotiate hard, soft or principled. It almost seems that if we are not objective about the process, power and circumstances(just as Fisher and Ury explain) dictate how we will negotiate. At the car lot we default to positional bargaining, when the blue book value would be a much more effective tool. If we are bargaining with family members we default to soft bargaining to avoid hurt feelings. It seems that in every scenario, some critical thinking about the negotiation and tactics from the book would be very effective. Sometimes I find myself mediating between students or colleagues. In a situation where you are not emotionally involved it's pretty easy to stay objective and look for alternatives to positions.
I really like the idea of inventing options. So many times we haggle over position when some creative problem solving will enable us to invent a much better alternative to either position.