Reading Consider the following reading before responding to questions

 

 

This book is a classic in conflict resolution. It was a best seller when it came out and now, more than 35 years after publication, it's still ranked a best seller. Yes, it's a textbook but most people read it for enjoyment, not because they have to for some class. Both authors have written numerous follow-up books (check out Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets To Yes, by Roger Fisher & Scott Brown that focuses just on the Separate the Person from the Problem step). The concepts presented here are relatively common sense approaches yet we don't use them often.

The key to the book is explaining the difference between positional bargaining which is how most of us negotiate and principled bargaining, which is the method they outline. Most of us are either hard bargainers or soft bargainers; the point is that both of those styles come from a positional mindset, a win-lose mindset. Some hard bargainers can be successful in the short term but that wears thin really fast. What Fisher and Ury say we should do is use principled bargaining,, which means attacking the problem but being soft on the other person. The first five chapters detail the

The assignments for this week and next week give you a chance to work through the steps of principled bargaining, especially Focusing on Interests not Positions and Inventing Options for Mutual Gain. The first one, focusing on interests, follows up on the conflict goals work you did earlier. In effect, Fisher & Ury say focus on what the real goal is (often a relationship or identity issue) rather than arguing over the position each of you take on an issue.

One of the other steps, Separating the Person from the Problem, is the stickiest one. Yeah, it makes sense and most people say it's a good idea, but how do you do it? Fisher wrote a follow-up book (mentioned above) just to answer that question. The book presents five basic steps detailing how to separate the person from the problem. They say:

1.  Disentangle relationship issues from substantive ones (separate topic/content goals from relationship and identity goals)

2.  Be unconditionally constructive (think about what that means. That's intriguing!)

3.  Balance emotion w/reason - i.e., acknowledge & talk about emotions

4.  Learn how they see things

5.  Be wholly trustworthy, but not wholly trusting (again, think about that one a second).

That's the first half of the book in a nutshell. Next week, we'll finish the book and discuss some of the complexities to their proposal.

 

 

Getting to Yes book Review

 

Synopsis: Good book that suggests a novel framework for improving your negotiating skills and outcomes. Instead of negotiating based on power and positions using compromises details how both sides can gain a better deal from negotiating through principled agreement; basing neogtiations on understanding each others interests, looking for mutual wins, using objective criteria and comparing any deal to your best alternative if you don't negotiate

 

Aim: Practical method for negotiating agreements amicably w/out giving in

 

Intro

Principled negotiation: a way that is neither hard nor soft

   - decided issues on their merits

   - look for mutual gains

   - if conflict of interest insist result based on fair standards, independent of the will of either side

 

1. The Problem

   - negotiation takes place @ two levels 1) substance 2) procedure

     - Bargaining over positions: i.e. take a position, argue for it & make concessions to comprise (the standard form of negotiation e.g. over antiques)

   - INSTEAD negotiate success and look to:

     a. produce wise agreement

     b. be efficient

     c. improve relationships

   - 5 problems w/ bargaining over positions

     i] unwise agreement

        - lock yourself into position (more defend => > commitment to it & ego identifies with the position)

        e.g. Kennedy and ban on nuclear testing, position was 10 inspection vs. 3 but no definition on what inspection was

     ii] inefficient

        - time: take extreme position & hold giving small concessions despite true feelings

        - effort: many small decisions need to be made on each concessions

     iii] endangers relationships: battle not a task jointly to find solution

     iv] harder more ppl involved

     v] being nice no answer: hard negotiating technique beats soft

   - Alternative: Principled negotiation

     People: separate ppl from problem

     Interests: focus on interests not positions

     Options: generate variety possibilities b4 decideding what to do

     Criteria: insist that the result be based on an objective standard e.g. mrkt value, law, expert opinion, custom

   - Stages:

     i. analysis: diagnose situation via info gathering, organise data and analyse. Understand ppl problems, interests of each side and initial options

     ii. planning

     iii. discussion   

 

II. THE METHOD

2. Separate ppl from the problem

   i. Negotiators are emotional ppl first

   ii. Every neogtiator has two kinds of interest

     a. substance: wants to reach agreement that satisfies substantive interests

     b. relationship: turn into regular customer, maintain working relationship

        BUT relationship gets entangled w/ problem (e.g. statement 'kitchen is a mess' becomes personal attack)

        & ppl draw from comments on substance unfounded inferences about person's intentions & attitudes

   => separate relationship from substance: deal directly with the ppl problem

     - base relationship on accurate perceptions, clear comms, forward looking outlook

     - deal w/ psych problems using psych techniques & also be aware of own ppl problems e.g. emotions

 

3 categories of ppl problems

   A. Perception: other side's thinking is the problem, differences defined by gap between your and their thinking. To resolve

     - put yourself in their shoes

        - don't deduce their intentions from your fears

        - blaming is counterproductive => push back

        - "our x that you x broke down again. That's 3x in last month. Our x needs it functioning. I want your advice on how to resolve. Should we a, b, c"

     - discuss each other's perceptions: make explicit even if don't seem to block path to agreement

     - look for opps to act inconsistently with their perceptions

     - give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process: e.g. involve them in investigation of the problem

     - face-saving: make your proposals consistent w/ their values - ppl often hold out, even if proposal acceptable, because don't want to be seen to bk down

   B. Emotion: feeling may be more important than talk

     i. recognise & understand their emotions & yours

     ii. make emotions explicit & acknowledge as legitimate => proactive not reactive

     iii. allow the other side to let off steam: e.g. allow polemic speeches as may be a) let off steam b) for their constituents, so seen as tough

     iv. don't react to outbursts: don't fuel the fire

     v. use symbolic gestures: roses, coffee, sorry

   C. Communicating

     Problems

        - negotiators won't talk to one another in way to be understood

        - ppl may not hear you

        - misunderstanding

     => to resolve

        - listen actively & acknowledge what is being said

        - speak to be understood: speak as an equal & allow private comm

        - speak about yourself not about them: I feel let down not you broke the agreement

        - speak for a purpose: know the reason you are speaking

   Prevention works best

     - build a working relationship, get to know the person personally (b4 negotiation, Franklin & books)

     - face the problem not the ppl: view as partners in search for fair agreement e.g. sit on same side

 

3. Focus on interests not positions

   - for a wise solu reconcile interest not positions e.g. fresh air vs. stop draft => open vs. shut

   - interests define the problem. The basic problem is not the position but needs, wants, fears e.g. estate dev - he needs cash, I want peace & quiet

   - interest motivate ppl, positions are decided on

     -> often solution to be found when look at interest not positions i.e. behind opposed positions lie shared & compatible interests as well as contrasting

     e.g. landlord vs. tenant: both want stability, well kept accommodation, gd relationships but differ on downpayment (landlord needs, tenant don't care)

   - realise each side has multiple interests

   - most powerful interests are basic human needs - take care of these & negotiation becomes much easier

     - security

     - economic well-being

     - sense of belonging

     - recognition

     - control over one's life

 

   - How define interests?

     - ask why? examine each position and ask why it is held

     - ask why not? why haven't they make a decision, what interests stand behind it

     - analyse the consequences of decisions on interests

 

   - Talking about interests

     - chance of serving interests improves when communicate them (be specific)

     - acknowledge their interests & frame as part of the problem your trying to solve

     - put the problem before your answer: interests & reasoning before concl & proposal

     - look forward not back: talk about where want to go not what's happened in past

     - be concrete but flexibly: hv specific options that meet your criteria but be flexble

     - be hard on the problem, soft on the ppl: 

        - commit to be aggressive about your interests

        - create cognitive dissonance by attacking problem but supporting person - humans don't like inconsistency therefore will support you

 

4. Invent options for mutual growth

   - creative options can make the difference btwn deadlock & agreement

 

   - Obstacles to inventing abundance of options

     1. premature criticism of options -resolution-> separate inventing from judging (suggests ATK brainstorming process) 

     2. searching does the single answer -resolution-> broaden options

     3. assumption of a fixed pie -resolution-> search mutual gains

     4. thinking that solving their problem is their problem -resolution-> make their decision easy

 

   - Broaden options

     - multiply # by shuttling btwn specific & general (see Circle chart in book)

        i. think of problem you dislike

        ii. diagnose causes of problem

        iii. what ought to be done

        iv. specific & actionable suggestions to resolve

     - look through eyes of different experts e.g. educator to psychiatrist

     - invest agreements of different strength e.g. no permanent contract, what about provisional?

     - change scope of proposed agreement e.g. smaller parts or larger

 

   - Look for mutual gain

     - id shared interests & make use of them

     - dovetail differing interests: think in terms of time, forecast, risk

     - look for items that are low cost to you & high benefit to them

     - provide options: 200k for 5 yrs vs. 75k for 4 yrs

   

   - Make their decisions easy

     - whose shoes? pick one person to reach agreement w/

     - what decision? draft agreements, search of precedent, shape legitimate sol for legal

        -> write out what their strongest critic would say

     - don't make threats, offers are more attractive

 

5. Insist on using objective criteria

   - deciding on basis of will is costly, use objective criteria

   - case for objective criteria: principled negotiation produce wise agreements amicably & efficiently: less relationship threat, quicker sol

   - developing objective criteria

     - fair standards: need to be independent of each side's will, legitimate & practice. Must apply to both sides

     - fair procedures: e.g. cake cutting - one cuts & other chooses (biz e.g. mining companies vs. Enterprise), agree visiting rights pre custody battle

   - negotiating w/ objective criteria

     i. frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria

        - ask what's your rationale e.g. for house price

        - agree first on principles: easier for others to agree if they proposed the criteria 

     ii. reason & be open to reason: if in doubt go for the middle (2 objective prices come up) or ask a 3rd party to decide

     iii. never yield to pressure: bribes, threats, trust (it's a separate matter)

        - ask to state reasoning

        - suggest objective criteria you think applies

        - don't budge on pressure

   Example in book: insurance negotiation - broke off, question by question took apart their argument, prepared for court (independent arb.) if no agreement

 

III. YES BUT

6. What if they are more powerful? BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement)

   - Benefits: a) protects you vs. making agreement you shouldn't b) help you make the most of assets you do hv

   a) Protecting yourself

     - don't be too accommodating because you want to end negotiation

     - cost of using a bottom line (e.g. highest price would pay/sell)

        - limit benefit from learnings during negotiation

        - not flexible

        - inhibits imagination

        - often set unobjectively

     - know your BATNA: what do you do if no agreement, rent house, tear it down...

     - if don't know then may be too optimistic: ppl often sum total of options rather than choose one

     - include trap wire: don't sell for less than £150k w/out talking to others

   b) Making the most of your assets

     - better BATNA => greater power e.g. salary negotiations w/ a job offer

     - develop your BATNA

        i. invent list of actions if no agreement

        ii. improve more promising ideas & turn into practical alternatives

        iii. select tentatively best

     - consider other sides BATNA

 

7. What if they won't play? Negotiation jujitsu

   Options if they won't play

     a) what you can do? principled negotiation -> contagious

     b) what they may do? counter with negotiation jujitsu

     c) 3rd party intro

   

   b) Negotiation jujitsu

     - do not push back if criticise/reject principled negotiation

     - attacks normally manifest in 3 ways

        i. asserting position forcefully

        ii. attack your ideas

        iii. attacking you

     - to resolve

        a) don't attack their position, look behind it

             - treat their position as a possible option: don't reject or accept it

             - look for interests & principles behind it & ways to improve it

             - ask how it addresses problem @ hand

        b) don't defend your ideas, invite criticism & advice

             - criticism: use to find their underlying interests

             - advice: ask for it & what they'd do in your position

        c) recast any attack on you as an attack on problem

        d) ask questions & pause

          - statements generate resistance, questions generate answers

          - ppl free uncomfortable w/ silence partic if they gave insufficient answer

 

   One text procedure

     - 3rd party mediator can use this to resolve differing positions (example of architect w/ couple designing home)

     - instead of what you want? why you want? e.g. not bay window but bay window for light and sun

     - method

        - list interests & needs of ppl and ask them to criticise the list

        - iterate

        - final yes or no

 

   Example of negotiating in book: Jane vs. Turnball

     1. "Fact, please correct me if I'm wrong": establishes dialogue based on reason

     2. give person support

     3. make stand based on principle

     4. Q not statements

     5. ask what's the principle behind their position

     6. don't make decision on spot, utilise time & distance i.e. call back tomorrow

     7. one fair solution

 

8. What if they use dirty tricks? Taming the Hard Bargainer

   - Dirty tricks = one side proposals about procedure of negotiating

        - Standard response: a) put up w/ it b) respond in kind

   - How to negotiate about rules of the game

     i. recognise tactic

     ii. raise issue explicitly

     iii. question tactics legitimacy & desirability

        i.e. negotiate on procedure using 4 step process explained in earlier chapters

 

   - Common dirty tricks

     a. Deliberate deception: 

        i. phony facts: unless you hv gd reason to trust someone, don't

        ii. ambiguous authority: not decision marker therefore find decision maker @ start, if they ask to renegotiate 'agreement' also do so yourself

        iii. dubious intentions: get contingent agreement (e.g. equity in house if don't pay child maintenance)

     b. less than full disclosure/deceit

     c. psych warfare

        i. stressful situation: physical (heat/cold/seat) say if don't like & offer to swap tomorrow

        ii. personal attacks: recognise & bring it up

        iii. gd/bad cop: ask same question to both - why is your offer reasonable? what's the principle?

        iv. threats: warnings are more effective

     d. positional pressure tactics

        - refusal to negotiate: find out why they won't negotiate, discuss principles, offer other channels (3rd party)

        - extreme demands: aim to lower your expectations (£75k offer for £200k house), ask for justification

        - escalating demands: call to attention & take break

        - lock-in tactics (e.g. make statement in press/to union): deemphasise it

        - hardhearted partner: spk directly, get soft partner's agreement in writing

        - calculated delay: create options

        - take it or leave it:

 

IV. IN CONCLUSION

   - you knew it all the time

   - learn from doing

   - winning = achieve a better process for dealing with your differences

 

Reading to consider for writing

Ch 1

Conflict happens it is part and parcel of all our interactions at work with romantic partners with friends and with our families. Why would you want to study conflict? This study will help you to learn new responses to situations that inevitably arise. conflict management approaches help in love relationships, family interactions and at work. Complex are defined as skills that can be learned, based on principles to contemplate. Principal skills create authentic conflict resolution approaches emotional intelligence remains a prerequisite for one's ability to engage in Conflict effectively. Conflict is defined as an expression struggle between at least two parties who perceived incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals. Destructive conflict damages the parties and their relationships. Images for example the four horse men of the Apocalypse (criticizing, defensiveness stonewalling and contempt) other negative patterns and individual bad habits are discussed in detail. We provide specific suggestions on alternatives to each one of these destructive responses. In addition to these destructive patterns it is helpful to understand exploratory Spirals and avoidance spirals. The Runaway spirals take on a life of their own and cannot be described by simply describing individual behaviors. After describing these, we suggest that you have opportunities for productive conflict management, and that these opportunities will enrich your life greatly.

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

Ch 2

Call Fletcher an important area of study because we all face it as we move through our interpersonal, family and work lives. Your personal history, such as your family of origin and other influences, make a difference in how you respond to conflict perceptions about conflict whether it is an activity to be avoided or salt out and whether it is negative or positive activity, develop over one's time. The way one tell stories or narrates conflicts gives much important information about the conflict itself. And this process, refine images or metaphors develop in one's imagination and language that gives shape and meaning to conflict episodes. Metaphors generally present conflict as either dangerous or a situation presenting opportunity. The Lens model of conflict provides a framework for viewing how both gender and cultural shape behaviors and influence perceptions of others communicative Behavior. Gender often plays a key role in the behaviors one chooses in conflict (individualist or collectivistic) affects one's behavior in one's perception of others in a conflict.

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

Ch 3

As a conflict unfolds, topic, relational, identity, and process goals emerge also known as TRIP. Topicals are the objective verifiable issues that people talk about. Relationship goals are those pertaining to the parties influence on each other. Who gets to decide how they treat one another, and other aspects of their communication our relationship goals. I didn't see or they saving goals have to do with the needs of of people to present themselves positively and interactions and to be treated with approval and respect. Process goes refer to parties interest in how the interaction is conducted. Although most complex parties center their discussions on content and process goals, the relationship and identity components fuel the feeling in a given conflict. 

Goals change in the course of a conflict. perspective goals are those identified before interacting with the other parties. Transactive goals emerge during the communication exchanges. Transactive goals often shift; a destructive conflict is characterized by a shift from original goals to a desire to harm the other party. Retro perspective goals are identified after the conflict episodes habe occurred. Unregulated, unplanned, fast-paced complex keep many people from understanding their goals until they later have time to reflect on the transactions. Clarifying your goals, better estimating the others goals, and working to build collaborative goals enhance is productive Conflict Management. Working against more without consulting the other party often sets destructive forces in motion that preclude integrative management of the conflict.

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

Ch 4

In this chapter we discuss what power is in note that people usually have negative connotations of power. We compare and contrast three different views of power does it need a power, distributive power, and integrative power. Also many times people deny power in various ways. Power is president as a relational concept rather than an attribute of individual. Our power currencies are described as spendable items that can be used in conflictual relationships. Power and balances often impede conflict management; the various ways to deal with too much or too little power are described, with specific suggestions on how to balance power and positive ways. Specific communication suggestions for people in low-power in the chapter.

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

Ch 5

Complete participants face the basic choice of avoiding or engaging in a conflict. This Choice leads to the five individual styles of conflict management: avoiding, dominating, compromising, obliging and integrating. And adapted Rahim assessment instrument was included to measure your and others conflict styles. Then, the specific advantage and disadvantages of each style were discussed. Looking at your conflict styles can be a good first step in learning how to manage your complex. Caution is, however in order when looking at styles. While it is easy to assume your "styles"cancel​ be precisely measured, they still are "self-reported"bias by wanting to look good. Measures are also affected by culture, the relational contents, and the time of measurement (one point in time). The entire history with the other party is usually not factored in either. And Reporting Styles, avoidance is often underreported, the effects of interaction ignored, and we need to be cautious about assuming that some Styles are "destructive" and others are "constructive."finally group studies are not able to give you precise suggestions about what to do in your own conflict situation. We discussed some more extreme forms of acting in a conflict-verbal aggression, bullying, and physical violence. There are more than "styles"of conflict. They are choices that damage others. We discuss the interaction Dynamics in some detail and concluded by noting that flexibility and style choice in hats as your chance for productive conflict.

 

Terms to consider when writing

 Ch1

Mental Health, family of origin, destructive marital conflict, complex at work, unresolved conflict, emotional intelligence, prevention, perception, interpersonal conflict, intrapersonal conflict, intrapersonal perceptions, Express struggles, conflict parties, interdependent, strategic conflict, mutual interest, Mutual interdependence, gridlock conflict, perceived incompatible goals, proceed scarce resource, power, self-esteem, perceived interference, destructive conflict, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (criticizing, defensiveness, stonewalling, contempt), critical startup, defensive climate, supportive climate, exploratory spiral, avoiding spiral, dance of intimacy

----------------_---

Ch2

Attachment Styles, personal and workplace history, avoidance Style, collaborative system, aggressive/coercive comma World Views, negative views of conflict, positive approaches to conflict, metaphors, conflict metaphors, danger metaphors, conflict narratives, Lens model of conflict, intent vs. impact, attributions, social learning theory, connection with others, autonomy and interdependence, self in relationship, gender filters Karma Culture filters, individualistic cultures, collectivism cultures, ethnocentric,

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

Ch 3

Types of goals, topicals, relational goals, Identity or space saving goals, process goals, perspective goals, transactive goals, retrospective goals, gold Clarity, reactive Behavior, estimating the others goals, collaborative goals

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

Ch 4

Power, designated power, either / or power , both / and Power, ineffective communication strategies, power denial, relational theory of power, power currencies, resource control, interpersonal linkages, communication skills, expertise, perception of power, power and balance, high power, low power, power-dependence relations, call persistence, empowerment, metacommunication

---_------------------

Ch 5

Style preferences, conflict styles, avoidance, engagement, avoidance/criticize Loop, postponement, assertive, dominating, threats, warnings, promises, compromise, obliging, co-dependents, integrating, collaborating, verbal aggressiveness, verbal abuse, high verbal aggressiveness, abusive talk, nonabusive talk comma harassment, bullying, unmanaged incivility, violence, discrepancies in accounts of violence, stuck in a style, rhetorical sensitivity 

 

Actual Question Based upon the reading above, make a journal entry responding to the questions below.

 

1. What are you learning about how to positively resolve conflicts?

2. What's on Concepts in the reading?

3. How you might apply the concepts from the reading to your everyday conflict?

4. Examples of applications?

5. Note any questions raised by what you read?

6. Description of conflicts that occurred during the week and how you handled it.

7. Description how you could use one or more of the concepts or skills from the reading to improve the outcome (or how you did use one of the concepts/skills that led to a positive outcome)