Saturday, November 27, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Fun Fun Mediation Video!
OK...Try this!
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5lxBn2SLM
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3ADyFKkaoY
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5lxBn2SLM
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3ADyFKkaoY
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Mediation Video
I hope that I did this right. Here is the link to my video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsFc4qA8NEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsFc4qA8NEI
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Creativity World Forum
Wow, I am immersed in learning about creativity and entrepreneurship and have been priviledged to hear Daniel Pink, David Pogue, Sir Ken Robinson, and Blake Mycowski among others. I have also heard some great musical performances and attended some sessions that are helping (hopefully) figure out how to process my new knowledge into something useful. I am heading back today for more inspiration and will share more later -- when I have time to elaborate.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Strategy 8
"Explore resistance, mediate and design systems for prevention and resolution"
I kept reading with the nagging doubt that I will end up encountering someone in negotiating (like at the car lot!) who just won't negotiate collaboratively. Sometimes the BATNA is there, but although it is the best alternative, it is certainly not better than a good agreement. For instance, I may have a car that runs, but is not dependable so I really do need to negotiate a good deal.
Once again we turn to critically analyzing the motives behind a refusal to collaboratively solve the problem. If we can define the reason, perhaps we can persuade them to collaborate. Cloke and Goldsmith list a large number of techniques for working through an impasse. A good example is to ask why your alternative is unacceptable. Oftentimes this will reveal ulterior motives and allow for a creative solution.
I kept reading with the nagging doubt that I will end up encountering someone in negotiating (like at the car lot!) who just won't negotiate collaboratively. Sometimes the BATNA is there, but although it is the best alternative, it is certainly not better than a good agreement. For instance, I may have a car that runs, but is not dependable so I really do need to negotiate a good deal.
Once again we turn to critically analyzing the motives behind a refusal to collaboratively solve the problem. If we can define the reason, perhaps we can persuade them to collaborate. Cloke and Goldsmith list a large number of techniques for working through an impasse. A good example is to ask why your alternative is unacceptable. Oftentimes this will reveal ulterior motives and allow for a creative solution.
Strategy 7
"Solve problems creatively, plan strategically and negotiate collaboratively"
This strategy expands on defining the problem. Again, by thinking critically about solving the problem, we can define it and begin looking for outside of the box solutions. Just like a physics problem, we must define the problem, define the variable, the knowns and unknowns, then choose the appropriate tool or equation to solve the problem.
Adapting a positive attitude is the first step. Again, as in physics, if we think about problem solving as drudgery or punishment it will be just that. If we view it as a challenge, we will experience joy and satisfaction when we have solved the problem. If we attempt to approach the process collaboratively, bringing in our opponent as a collaborator, then we will find ourselves working for a common goal.
I think the five steps are particularly useful:
1. Admit and decide to solve the problem
2. Collaboratively define and clarify the problem
3. Jointly analyze, categorize, and prioritize the problem
4. Invent solutions that satisfy everyone's interest
5. Jointly act, evaluate results, acknowledge efforts, and celebrate successes.
With no elaboration, we can follow these step and improve our conflict resolution dramatically.
While all of this is good, I just can't help but wonder, what if the other side just doesn't agree to collaboratively help solve the problem. Perhaps it's then time to explore resistance and mediation...
This strategy expands on defining the problem. Again, by thinking critically about solving the problem, we can define it and begin looking for outside of the box solutions. Just like a physics problem, we must define the problem, define the variable, the knowns and unknowns, then choose the appropriate tool or equation to solve the problem.
Adapting a positive attitude is the first step. Again, as in physics, if we think about problem solving as drudgery or punishment it will be just that. If we view it as a challenge, we will experience joy and satisfaction when we have solved the problem. If we attempt to approach the process collaboratively, bringing in our opponent as a collaborator, then we will find ourselves working for a common goal.
I think the five steps are particularly useful:
1. Admit and decide to solve the problem
2. Collaboratively define and clarify the problem
3. Jointly analyze, categorize, and prioritize the problem
4. Invent solutions that satisfy everyone's interest
5. Jointly act, evaluate results, acknowledge efforts, and celebrate successes.
With no elaboration, we can follow these step and improve our conflict resolution dramatically.
While all of this is good, I just can't help but wonder, what if the other side just doesn't agree to collaboratively help solve the problem. Perhaps it's then time to explore resistance and mediation...
Resolving Conflicts 6
"Stop rewarding and learn from difficult behaviors."
This chapter begins by explaining that defining the problem is the problem. I can't agree more. Once a problem is defined, the problem is half solved. This is very much analogous to working physics problems. Many physicists have quotes about defining problems. I watch as my physics students set up a problem incorrectly only to come up with an incorrect solution. How many times do we argue with a loved one only to find we've forgotten what we are arguing about? Clearly defining the problem and maintaining focus on that problem is the only way to come to an effective solution.
Chapter six also reiterates the concept of separating the people from the problem. It tells us to look at the difficult behaviors of people rather than at the people as being difficult themselves. This is an excellent tactic to help reframe your perspective, that you might be able to negotiate in a more critical and effective manner. I really like the section that elaborates on strategies for dealing with the difficult behaviors. Just like in teaching, we are often told to deal with the behavior, not the person, but are not given strategies for dealing with the person. This section gives us those valuable strategies.
This chapter begins by explaining that defining the problem is the problem. I can't agree more. Once a problem is defined, the problem is half solved. This is very much analogous to working physics problems. Many physicists have quotes about defining problems. I watch as my physics students set up a problem incorrectly only to come up with an incorrect solution. How many times do we argue with a loved one only to find we've forgotten what we are arguing about? Clearly defining the problem and maintaining focus on that problem is the only way to come to an effective solution.
Chapter six also reiterates the concept of separating the people from the problem. It tells us to look at the difficult behaviors of people rather than at the people as being difficult themselves. This is an excellent tactic to help reframe your perspective, that you might be able to negotiate in a more critical and effective manner. I really like the section that elaborates on strategies for dealing with the difficult behaviors. Just like in teaching, we are often told to deal with the behavior, not the person, but are not given strategies for dealing with the person. This section gives us those valuable strategies.
Yes, but...
Reading through the final chapter of getting to yes once again take my imagination back to the car lot. I guess that's just where I have done most of my negotiating...or perhaps that is where I have done my most dysfunctional negotiating.
The concept of BATNA is particularly helful in a situation like this. often times we approach the negotiation in need. If we are in serious need, our BATNA may be painfully obvious. The other party can detect that need and exploit it for maximum gain. However, in most cases, if we don't settle on an agreement our BATNA is merely to remain in the same state we are in, driving the same car, keeping the job we have already and perhaps continuing to live without that item we just couldn't live without.
I like the idea of chapter seven. Just like much of the other stuff we have read, chapter seven maintains and elaborates on a theme of critically thinking during a negotiation. It is of great benefit to control your emotion and think stratgeically about how your oponent might respond. It is almost a game of mental chess. It is interesting to contrast this to "Resolving Conflicts." The other book say to experience your emotions fully. I suppose experiencing them and maintaing control are two different things. You certainly wouldn't want to lose your temper while negotiating...Then the other side might use negotiational jujitsu on you.
I think the next section is particularly what reminds me of the car lot. In chapter eight, the book spoke of stall tactics, good guy bad guy, going to ask someone else. I can remember negotiating on a new Honda several years ago. The salesman left and was gone for ten or fifteen minutes...no doubt he was using the stall tactic. I wish I had some of these negotiating skills back then! I would have settled for my BATNA and walked out!
The concept of BATNA is particularly helful in a situation like this. often times we approach the negotiation in need. If we are in serious need, our BATNA may be painfully obvious. The other party can detect that need and exploit it for maximum gain. However, in most cases, if we don't settle on an agreement our BATNA is merely to remain in the same state we are in, driving the same car, keeping the job we have already and perhaps continuing to live without that item we just couldn't live without.
I like the idea of chapter seven. Just like much of the other stuff we have read, chapter seven maintains and elaborates on a theme of critically thinking during a negotiation. It is of great benefit to control your emotion and think stratgeically about how your oponent might respond. It is almost a game of mental chess. It is interesting to contrast this to "Resolving Conflicts." The other book say to experience your emotions fully. I suppose experiencing them and maintaing control are two different things. You certainly wouldn't want to lose your temper while negotiating...Then the other side might use negotiational jujitsu on you.
I think the next section is particularly what reminds me of the car lot. In chapter eight, the book spoke of stall tactics, good guy bad guy, going to ask someone else. I can remember negotiating on a new Honda several years ago. The salesman left and was gone for ten or fifteen minutes...no doubt he was using the stall tactic. I wish I had some of these negotiating skills back then! I would have settled for my BATNA and walked out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)