The Storm 4. Claws of the Tigress --at Roy Glashan's Library 6. Kildare The Secret of Dr. Kildare's Girl Dr. Kildare's Search Dr. Kildare Goes Home Dr. Kildare Takes Charge Dr. Kildare's Crisis The People vs. Kildare Dr. Kildare's Trial Dr. Kildare's Hardest Case Dr. Many titles at Roy Glashan's Library.
The Ring and the Book-- Text Samuel Johnson appears as one of the main characters. Musgrave -- HTML. Available at Roy Glashan's Library. The Way of all Flesh-- Text. Our Boys-- Text Translated by W. Mcdevitte and W. Works at Roy Glashan's Library. Kennedy -- Text Poliopolis and Polioland--at Roy Glashan's Library. The Riddle of the Sands-- Text. Austin C. Burdick, Dr. Works available at Roy Glashan's Library. Scarface-- at Roy Glashan's Library. Psyche Illustrated --at Roy Glashan's Library.
Felicitas A. Bissula A. Gelimer A. The Scarlet Banner Gelimer A. Titles available from Roy Glashan's Library. Night - No. Proof of the Pudding 2. The Wedding Cake 3. Wiles of a Heathen Chinee 4. Beautiful Girl Victimised 5. The Elusive Mr. Issued to celebrate the fiftieth birthday, in , of the Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company. The Adventures of Louis de Rougemont-- Text.
For comments and suggestions for improvements, please contact Ian Johnston]. Songs and Sonnets-- Text Stories at Roy Glashan's Library. Titles available at Roy Glashan's Library. Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, etc. Sorrow in Sunlight, alternatively entitled "Prancing Nigger" -- Text A Voyage to Terra Australis Vol.
Edited by Colin Choat]. However, all people will share certain basic interests or needs, such as the need for security and economic well-being. Once the parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together. If a party wants the other side to take their interests into account, that party must explain their interests clearly.
The other side will be more motivated to take those interests into account if the first party shows that they are paying attention to the other side's interests. Discussions should look forward to the desired solution, rather than focusing on past events. Parties should keep a clear focus on their interests, but remain open to different proposals and positions.
Parties may decide prematurely on an option and so fail to consider alternatives. The parties may be intent on narrowing their options to find the single answer. The parties may define the problem in win-lose terms, assuming that the only options are for one side to win and the other to lose.
Or a party may decide that it is up to the other side to come up with a solution to the problem. The authors also suggest four techniques for overcoming these obstacles and generating creative options. First it is important to separate the invention process from the evaluation stage. The parties should come together in an informal atmosphere and brainstorm for all possible solutions to the problem.
Wild and creative proposals are encouraged. Brainstorming sessions can be made more creative and productive by encouraging the parties to shift between four types of thinking: stating the problem, analyzing the problem, considering general approaches, and considering specific actions. Parties may suggest partial solutions to the problem. Only after a variety of proposals have been made should the group turn to evaluating the ideas.
Evaluation should start with the most promising proposals. The parties may also refine and improve proposals at this point. Participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on shared interests. When the parties' interests differ, they should seek options in which those differences can be made compatible or even complementary.
The key to reconciling different interests is to "look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa. To do this it is important to identify the decision makers and target proposals directly toward them.
Proposals are easier to agree to when they seem legitimate, or when they are supported by precedent. Threats are usually less effective at motivating agreement than are beneficial offers. Allowing such differences to spark a battle of wills will destroy relationships, is inefficient, and is not likely to produce wise agreements. Decisions based on reasonable standards makes it easier for the parties to agree and preserve their good relationship.
The first step is to develop objective criteria. Usually there are a number of different criteria which could be used. The parties must agree which criteria is best for their situation. Criteria should be both legitimate and practical. Scientific findings, professional standards, or legal precedent are possible sources of objective criteria. One way to test for objectivity is to ask if both sides would agree to be bound by those standards.
Rather than agreeing in substantive criteria, the parties may create a fair procedure for resolving their dispute. For example, children may fairly divide a piece of cake by having one child cut it, and the other choose their piece. There are three points to keep in mind when using objective criteria. First each issue should be approached as a shared search for objective criteria.
Ask for the reasoning behind the other party's suggestions. Using the other parties' reasoning to support your own position can be a powerful way to negotiate.
Second, each party must keep an open mind. They must be reasonable, and be willing to reconsider their positions when there is reason to. Third, while they should be reasonable, negotiators must never give in to pressure, threats, or bribes. When the other party stubbornly refuses to be reasonable, the first party may shift the discussion from a search for substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria.
However, Fisher and Ury suggest ways to protect the weaker party against a poor agreement, and to help the weaker party make the most of their assets. Often negotiators will establish a "bottom line" in an attempt to protect themselves against a poor agreement. Negotiators decide in advance of actual negotiations to reject any proposal below that line. Fisher and Ury argue against using bottom lines.
Because the bottom line figure is decided upon in advance of discussions, the figure may be arbitrary or unrealistic. Having already committed oneself to a rigid bottom line also inhibits inventiveness in generating options.
Instead the weaker party should concentrate on assessing their best alternative to a negotiated agreement BATNA. The authors note that "the reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating.
Power in a negotiation comes from the ability to walk away from negotiations. Generally, the weaker party can take unilateral steps to improve their alternatives to negotiation. They must identify potential opportunities and take steps to further develop those opportunities.
The weaker party will have a better understanding of the negotiation context if they also try to estimate the other side's BATNA. Fisher and Ury conclude that "developing your BATNA thus not only enables you to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement, it will probably raise that minimum.
Fisher and Ury describe three approaches for dealing with opponents who are stuck in positional bargaining. First, one side may simply continue to use the principled approach. The authors point out that this approach is often contagious. Second, the principled party may use "negotiation jujitsu" to bring the other party in line. The key is to refuse to respond in kind to their positional bargaining.
Positional bargainers usually attack either by asserting their position, or by attacking the other side's ideas or people. When they assert their position, respond by asking for the reasons behind that position. When they attack the other side's ideas, the principle party should take it as constructive criticism and invite further feedback and advice. Personal attacks should be recast as attacks on the problem.
Generally the principled party should use questions and strategic silences to draw the other party out. When the other party remains stuck in positional bargaining, the one- text approach may be used. In this approach a third party is brought in. The third party should interview each side separately to determine what their underlying interests are. The third party then assembles a list of their interests and asks each side for their comments and criticisms of the list.
She then takes those comments and draws up a proposal. The proposal is given to the parties for comments, redrafted, and returned again for more comments. This process continues until the third party feels that no further improvements can be made.
At that point, the parties must decide whether to accept the refined proposal or to abandon negotiations. The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation.
Fisher and Ury identify the general types of tricky tactics. Parties may engage in deliberate deception about the facts, their authority, or their intentions. The best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other side's claims. It may help to ask them for further clarification of a claim, or to put the claim in writing. However, in doing this it is very important not to bee seen as calling the other party a liar; that is, as making a personal attack.
Another common type of tactic is psychological warfare. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective simply be recognizing them for what they are. Explicitly identifying them to the offending party will often put an end to suck attacks. Threats are a way to apply psychological pressure. The principled negotiator should ignore them where possible, or undertake principled negotiations on the use of threats in the proceedings.
The last class of trick tactics are positional pressure tactics which attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions.
The tricky side may refuse to negotiate, hoping to use their entry into negotiations as a bargaining chip, or they may open with extreme demands. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a bargaining tactic, and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate.
They may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants, and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable commitments to certain positions, or to make-take-it-or-leave-it offers. The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests.
Insist that any proposals be evaluated on their merits, and don't hesitate to point out dirty tricks. Mankiw, N. Gregory, Principles of Economics, McRae, Dr. Jossey-Bass, London, Mnookin, Robert H. Nierenberg, Gerard I. The Art of Negotiating. New York: Coernerstone Library, Pruitt, Dean. Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, Schelling, Thomas C. New York: Bantam Books, The 4 Fundamentals of Principled Negotiations Principled negotiations focus on merits, not positions.
They are built on 4 key foundations—people, interests, options, and criteria. Do get the full details from the book or our full page summary.
To focus on the issues, you must first tackle the people issues separately. Get a copy of the book for the full tips and examples! Rather than depend on a battle of wills or subjective opinions, insist on using fair, objective criteria to jointly assess options.
Instead, use principled negotiations to negotiate the rules of the game. Learn to identify the 3 common types of dirty tricks, so you can address them.
Integrative bargaining also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining" is a negotiation strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants.
Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become involved in a conflict.
This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome. Why is Integrative Bargaining Important? Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved than does positional bargaining. Positional bargaining is based on fixed, opposing viewpoints positions and tends to result in compromise or no agreement at all.
Oftentimes, compromises do not efficiently satisfy the true interests of the disputants. Instead, compromises simply split the difference between the two positions, giving each side half of what they want. Creative, integrative solutions, on the other hand, can potentially give everyone all of what they want.
There are often many interests behind any one position. If parties focus on identifying those interests, they will increase their ability to develop win-win solutions. The classic example of interest-based bargaining and creating joint value is that of a dispute between two little girls over an orange.
Both girls take the position that they want the whole orange. Their mother serves as the moderator of the dispute and based on their positions, cuts the orange in half and gives each girl one half. This outcome represents a compromise.
However, if the mother had asked each of the girls why she wanted the orange -- what her interests were -- there could have been a different, win-win outcome. This is because one girl wanted to eat the meat of the orange, but the other just wanted the peel to use in baking some cookies. If their mother had known their interests, they could have both gotten all of what they wanted, rather than just half.
Integrative solutions are generally more gratifying for all involved in negotiation, as the true needs and concerns of both sides will be met to some degree. It is a collaborative process and therefore the parties actually end up helping each other. This prevents ongoing ill will after the negotiation concludes. Instead, interest-based bargaining facilitates constructive, positive relationships between previous adversaries.
This will take some work by the negotiating parties, as interests are often less tangible than positions and are often not publicly revealed. A key approach to determining interests is asking "Why? Why do you need that? What are your concerns? If you cannot ask these questions directly, get an intermediary to ask them. The bottom line is you need to figure out why people feel the way they do, why they are demanding what they are demanding.
Be sure to make it clear that you are asking these questions so you can understand their interests needs, hopes, fears, or desires better, not because you are challenging them or trying to figure out how to beat them. Next you might ask yourself how the other side perceives your demands. What is standing in the way of them agreeing with you?
Do they know your underlying interests? Do you know what your own underlying interests are? If you can figure out their interests as well as your own, you will be much more likely to find a solution that benefits both sides. You must also analyze the potential consequences of an agreement you are advocating, as the other side would see them. This is essentially the process of weighing pros and cons, but you attempt to do it from the perspective of the other side. Then you will be better equipped to negotiate an agreement that will be acceptable to both of you.
There are a few other points to remember about identifying interests. First, you must realize that each side will probably have multiple interests it is trying to satisfy. Not only will a single person have multiple interests, but if you are negotiating with a group, you must remember that each individual in the group may have differing interests. Also important is the fact that the most powerful interests are basic human needs - security, economic well being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one's life.
If you can take care of the basic needs of both sides, then agreement will be easier. You should make a list of each side's interests as they become apparent. This way you will be able to remember them and also to evaluate their relative importance.
After interests are identified, the parties need to work together cooperatively to try to figure out the best ways to meet those interests. Often by "brainstorming" -- listing all the options anyone can think of without criticizing or dismissing anything initially, parties can come up with creative new ideas for meeting interests and needs that had not occurred to anyone before. The goal is a win-win outcome, giving each side as much of their interests as possible, and enough, at a minimum that they see the outcome as a win, rather than a loss.
Using Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Together Although distributive bargaining is frequently seen as the opposite of integrative bargaining, the two are not mutually exclusive. Distributive bargaining plays a role in integrative bargaining, because ultimately "the pie" has to be split up. Integrative bargaining is a good way to make the pie joint value as large as it possibly can be, but ultimately the parties must distribute the value that was created through negotiation.
They must agree on who gets what. The idea behind integrative bargaining is that this last step will not be difficult once the parties reach that stage. This is because the interest-based approach is supposed to help create a cooperative working relationship.
Theoretically, the parties should know who wants what by the time they split the pie. New York: Penguin Books, Use the following to cite this article: Spangler, Brad.
Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Next I will share 5 conflict experiences where the story lends itself to a negotiation lesson of general application. Two conflicts failed and three succeeded. The purpose of the negotiation was to persuade NKK to invest , build and operate a steel mill in the province. The local negotiators were the City of Seattle and the BC province. I was on the negotiating team and after more than 80 years of failure we made a deal that became an International Treaty between the US and Canada.
For the first time in Canada the law removed labour injunctions from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Also a new administrative body with very broad powers like a labour court given the power to regulate strikes, picketing and collective bargaining.
Matkin "Tis the set of the sails and not the gales that determines the way we go. I want to explore some fresh ideas that will help us to manage better the conflict that exists in our industrial relations environment.
Conflict arising from competing interests has been with us from the beginning of civilization. The problem is how we respond to conflict. How do we negotiate? As the poet said, "Tis the set of the sails and not the gales that determines the way we go. In British Columbia, for example, we have gone through strife in our collective bargaining and have weathered far too many storms. But from this very turbulent history there is now emerging a new opportunity for success.
After years of confrontation we are on the road to reconciliation. There is a better attitude developing in the province that bodes well for the success of principled bargaining.
The concept of principled bargaining is an approach to negotiations that is based primarily on the work of Dr. Roger Fisherr of Harvard Law School. I have seen its value in my experiences with many difficult disputes over the years. Principled bargaining is different from positional or adversarial bargaining, the traditional method of negotiating that causes many problems. Principled bargaining is different because it reduces the importance of haggling by creating a more constructive dynamic where objective criteria are debated.
This is not an Utopian idea because it is drawn from practical with experience. Principled bargaining is based on five key practices: bargaining from principle rather than Position; treating your opponents with respect; responding to opposition with integration; finding an agreement based upon the justice of the situation; making tirnely and positive commitments.
The importance of using principle, respect, integration' justice and timeliness in bargaining is that these ingredients will create a more constructive negotiation experience. I have struggled with many difficult conflicts in my career as a government trouble shooter. I was the Deputy Minister of Labour in British Columbia during some very serious confrontations between labour and management.
I worked with the west coast longshore unions 15 years ago and helped the special mediator Chief Justice Nemetz appointed by an Act of the Canadian Parliament to find a successful resolution to a dispute over manning that threatened the economy of the nation. I was green, but I watched closely and learned from experience about the art of negotiating. I had first-hand experience with corrosive positional bargaining and the terrible tol1 it takes on relationships and the ability of contestants to generate options.
More recently I participated as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in the major federal-provincial negotiations that produced the entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. Why did these constitutional negotiations succeed in reaching agreement after 50 years of failure? Principled bargaining meant in the Canadian constitutional negotiations that the governments were prepared to look behind their positions to their interests and resolve the conflict of interests with principle.
The basic conflict was between two fixed positions representing different values. In this case' the competing principles were parliamentary supremacy and judicial review. And they arrived at their successful agreement for a new charter by negotiating the override clause into their agreement.
On the other hand, we have suffered from strikes and lockouts in Canada where the parties have been caught in the vice of positional bargaining. We saw the public sector unions in British Colunbia, in , take issue with the provincial government over its nethod of imposing restraint Bill 3, for example, before amendment allowed the government to fire public servants without cause.
The result of this conflict was adversarial bargaining that brought us to the edge of a general strike. Soon after this conflagration we suffered negative impact to our economy from a dispute in the pulp and paper industry that closed down all the pulp mills for 20 weeks and eost us millions of dollars. Again the value of principled bargaining was ignored by both parties as they held tenaciously to fixed positions out clarifying their interests.
The pulp lockout was only ended by government legislation. Five days later a major bus dispute cornrnenced in the city of Vancouver that lasted 90 days. This bus dispute was a paradigm of adversarial bargaining, with a major issue being the introduction of part-tirne drivers.
There was a failure to look behind the positions taken on this issue and identify the principles or interests that were at stake in the demand for part-time drivers. Because the parties were locked into fixed positions, the dispute became a struggle of willpower rather than a constructive search for the right answer to a problem. There is a better way to negotiate and f have labelled this better way - principled bargaining.
The concept of principled bargaining works because it meets our basic needs as human beings. First of all, principled bargaining allows the parties to restructure the problem in such a way that it is easier to generate options and this is the key to reaching agreements. When options are easy to generate then conflict is easy to resolve. The value of restructuring is that it aIIows for an "imaginative reintegration of all the different items into a new pattern".
Principled bargaining places value on the person. Principled bargaining creates a win-vin solution, by meeting opposition or resistance with integration. Integration also means the creation of an inner unity as a centre of strength so that a negotiator "ceases to be a mere object acted upon by outside forces. An agreement is not concluded until the parties are satisfied with the merits of the deal.
Principled bargaining succeeds where adversarial bargaining fails because it helps with the timing of commitments. There is a time to invent and a time to decide. It is important to separate inventing from deciding, or the parties will be out of phase with each other. It is also important how negotiators make commitments because this will influence whether they can reach agreement with their opponents. Principled bargaining takes a positive approach to commitments. Bargaining from Principle Rather Than Position In traditional bargaining the negotiators focus on their demands or positions and try to get the other side to capitulate.
One side loses in order for the other side to win. This is positional. In the principled approach, bargaining becomes an experience in clarifying interests and generating options. You focus on the interests or principles behind the demands and try to find the best position to satisiy the principle. For example, in the demand for part-time bus drivers there are at least two distinct principles or interests that may justify this position.
First there is the interest of financial restraint. A part-time driver may be less costly to the system. The other possibility is the interest of increased service.
This objective also could be accomplished with part-time bus drivers. This does not mean that positions are unimportant. It does mean that principles are more important in negotiations. Yet most people bargain as though positions were all that mattered. They are firm on position and soft on principle when it is better if you are hard on principle and soft on position. Your interests must be satisfied, but there is usually more than one position that will do the job.
The reasons against positional bargaining are given in the bestselling text co-authored by Dr. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in ttsaving facet' - in reconciling future action with past positions - making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the partiesr original interests.
I believe that this 'locked in" effect occurred in the Canadian constitutional negotiations. It was therefore necessary to help the parties break free from fixed positions by inventing some new options.
Another major negotiation where the parties had been deadlocked for 40 years was a hydro dispute over the flooding of the sceenic Skagit Va11ey in the province of BC by the city of Seattle, Washington. The city and the province had become addicted to positional bargaining where the negotiations had become a debating contest with each side scoring public bargaining points instead of listening and negotiating by principle.
I joined the provincial bargaining team in and we tried a different approach. British Columbia proposed that instead of trading positional missiles in a contest of public relations we would adopt the technique of the single text bargaining. Seattle agreed. Therefore, we stopped making offers and counter offers and started working from one text that framed our common positions as general principles. Six months later an agreement was reached between seattle and BC that was turned into an International treaty between Canada and the United States in Principled bargaining helped in this success.
Likewise, I also believe that the locked-in effect of positional bargaining occurred in the vancouver bus strike. The parties were unable after 90 days of striking to break free from their fixed positions and invent another solution. The government had to intervene to break the deadlock. In prineipled bargaining the idea is to negotiate from the interest or principle which is more objective rather than from the position or demand which is more subjective. Treating Your Opponents with Respect Many negotiators think they are expected to be unprincipled and wily about the way they treat their opponents.
For some, being a shyster is slmonomous with being a negotiator. Deceit and taking unfair advantage are considered part of the game. Yet every highly successful negotiator takes the opposite view and believes that integrity in your personal conduct and respect for your opponent is absolutely imperative.
Even in the sharpest negotiations the most experienced say "integrity is so obvious that no one is prepared to question itt'. The result is less conflict wi. Effective communication between opposing sides happens when people talk and listen to each other.
By contrast communication becomes very much more effective when you develop rapport with your opponent. How do you build relationships in the competitive environment of negotiation. The answer lies in the concept of respect through mutual aeceptance and pacing.
Mutual acceptance means that despite fundamental differences each side accepts the other as a legitimate negotiating partner with genuine interests. Pacing means that you identify with the point of view of your opponent by building on your common interests.
But how is this done? The golden rule makes a lot of sense for negotiations. Therefore, treat your opponent with the same affirrnation, dignity and respect that you would like to have. How does this work when you meet hostility from your opponent? This is so because the other person can only resist something youtre doing or saying. The tougher the confliet, the more important it is to build effective relationships by pacing with your opponents and giving them respect and dignity.
An example of the dramatic effect that introducing more dignity and respect into negotiations can have is given by Wayne Alderson in his biography. An ugly strike occurred in the coal mines of Pittsburgh involving 2, miners and lasting for days.
Eventually it became the longest coal strike in the nationrs history. It had a positive effect. To value people is not a religious movement.
Rather it is based on the fact that treating people right will be its own reward. Another advantage occurs when you bargain from interests rather than position, because both parties are able to be much more honest with each other. One reason is that you donrt know exactly how firm your position really is. Being honest is also important in treating people right. Honesty is difficult in negotiations because there is always an element of poker or bluff.
The parties are t'creating" an agreement. If they knew where the final outcome was they wouldn't be at the bargaining tab1e, but they do know more precisely what principle they are working towards. Honesty is a virtue that has positive effeets on the success of bargaining. Honesty will disarm some of the natural hostility of your opponent to your bargaining position. When you succeed in improving the relationship between the parties you will also succeed in improving cormunication in negotiations.
Responding to Opposition with fntegration In traditi'onal bargaining the approach is basically an eye for an eye. If your opponent inflicts damage on you because you will not 7accept his position then you escalate the conflict by inflicting damage on him. In many negotiations both parties become blind from the retribution of the eonflict. Under the alternative of principled bargaining the approach is different.
When faced with opposition, you turn this problem into an opportunity to integrate, that is, by bargaining over interests or principles you frustrate the struggle of will that leads to so much damage. Bargaining becomes a more rational process. Ours is the age of integration. Integrated bargaining means matching or co-ordination of the parties progress. It is achieved by timing the different phases in the process of bargaining so everyone is on the same step or phase.
Prenegotiation, 2. Formula 3. Crisis and settlement, 4. Detail and execution If you get all parties into the same phase at the same time this is integrated bargaining. For example if one side has no will to negotiate they are in phase one and the other side starts offering options for a formula they are in phase two.
This means the parties are not participating in integrated bargaining and as a result the negotiation often ends badly.
By looking for a solution that provides higher benefits to each side you disarm your opponent positional push. When you counter his opposition with support for a solution that meets his interests you take the negotiations to a higher level.
The tough side of integrated bargaining comes from the strategy of matching, to be employed once you have primed the pump with some co-ordinative behaviour. Before integration is possible, the parties must clarify their interests.
For example, in the Vancouver bus strike it was not possible to integrate the opposing positions of part-time drivers versus no part-time drivers because the parties did not clarify what interests or principle they were trying to achieve. Also, integration is a concept that helps a negotiator with the "inner game" of bargaining. There is an inner game of negotiations just there is an inner game of tennis. This means that you believe what you say and what you believe.
The strength of inner unity is best illustrated by perhaps the most successful negotiator of all time - Mohandas K. Gandhi, who won the independence of India from England by practising some very simple virtues. Self-control was key to the power of his personality. Gandhi was a man without guiIe. Finding an Agreement Based Upon the Justice of the Situation Traditional adversarial bargaining is viewed as a power struggle between the parties with the most spoils going to the most powerful.
The notion of legitimacy or justice is often absent from positional bargaining. There is no judge of what is right or wrong and therefore anything goes. What the parties believe to be "fair" is the test of the justice of the situation. Pensei que ele gostasse de assumir a responsabilidade. E a senhora quer dizer que cometi um erro?
Tenha um bom dia, Sra. O que acontece nesses casos? Por outro lado, as pessoas ficam zangadas, deprimidas, amedrontadas, hostis, frustradas e ofendidas.
Geralmente, existem outras coisas em risco. O relacionamento tende a se embaralhar com o problema. Coloque-se no lugar deles. As pessoas tendem a enxergar apenas aquilo que desejam. O apartamento precisa de uma pintura.
Jamais me pergunta como Sou uma pessoa que respeita a privacidade dos meus inquilinos. Dizendo que conhecia um atalho, entrou em um bairro onde percorreu ruas escuras e desconhecidas. Presumimos coisas com base em nossos medos. Procurar culpados faz com que as pessoas se embaralhem com o problema. Na primeira, ficou parado por uma semana inteira. Em vez de agir como inimigo, Sadat agiu como parceiro. Divida com eles o resultado, assegurando-se de que participem do processo. Escute-os e tente captar o estado emocional deles.
Suas carreiras podem estar em risco. Permita que o outro lado desabafe. Eu tenho certeza de que o seu dia foi ruim. Vamos mudar de assunto. A perda de controle pode provocar uma briga violenta.
Quebrar a regra significa perder o controle emocional e, portanto, se desmoralizar. Qualquer amante sabe que, para terminar uma briga, o simples gesto de oferecer uma rosa resolve muita coisa.
Atos que possam produzir um impacto emocional construtivo no outro lado geralmente envolvem pouco ou nenhum custo. Casais que vivem juntos por trinta anos ainda se desentendem cotidianamente.
Passam a se falar apenas para impressionar terceiros ou seus pares. Quando as partes falam idiomas diferentes, a probabilidade de mal- entendidos se multiplica. Portanto, demonstre que entendeu. Fale para ser compreendido. Converse com o outro lado. E muito menos julgamento. Descubra como encontrar-se com elas de maneira informal. O mesmo ocorre com dois negociadores. Vamos resolver este problema juntos e descobrir como atender a ambas as partes.
Um deles quer a janela aberta e o outro a quer fechada. Pergunta a um por que deseja que a janela fique aberta. Os interesses definem o problema. Ambos desejam estabilidade. Ambos gostariam de manter o apartamento bem-conservado. Por exemplo: 1. Tanto interesses comuns quanto interesses diferentes, mas complementares, podem servir de alicerce para um acordo sensato. Como identificar interesses? E as de longo prazo? Isso quase nunca acontece. Entender os interesses de um negociador significa entender uma variedade de interesses ligeiramente distintos que eles precisam levar em conta.
Certamente existe um interesse no bem-estar financeiro, mas em que mais? Possivelmente, ela quer o dinheiro para se sentir psicologicamente segura. Ou talvez os lados nem estejam ouvindo um ao outro. Um autor que deseje distribuir gratuitamente uma grande quantidade de seus livros deve discutir o assunto com a editora.
Evidencie seus interesses. Em vez disso, comprometa-se com seus interesses. Ataque o problema sem culpar as pessoas. Apoiar os seres humanos do outro lado tende a melhorar o seu relacionamento e aumentar as chances de se chegar a um entendimento.
Ele aumenta o bolo antes de dividi-lo. Depois de finalmente chegar a um acordo e dividir a fruta meio a meio, o primeiro pegou a sua metade, comeu a fruta e jogou a casca fora, enquanto o outro jogou a fruta fora e usou a casca para fazer um doce.
Primeiro, invente, depois, decida. Selecione poucos participantes. Mude de ambiente. Crie uma atmosfera informal.
Escolha um facilitador. Durante o brainstorming: 1. Destaque as ideias mais promissoras. Destaque as ideias que os membros do grupo elegerem como melhores. Vamos tentar escrever dez ideias no quadro em cinco minutos.
Tom Sindicato : Os supervisores deveriam ter o poder de resolver as queixas dos sindicalistas na hora. Facilitador: Muito bem. Facilitador: Tom, por favor. E que tal organizar algum tipo de treinamento conjunto para os sindicalistas e os supervisores sobre como resolver problemas em conjunto? Phil Sindicato : Se uma pessoa fizer um bom trabalho, demonstre reconhecimento.
John Gerente : Bem, podemos formar uma equipe conjunta de beisebol. Veja o problema pelos olhos de diferentes especialistas. Invente acordos de intensidades diferentes. Identifique interesses compartilhados. Vejamos um exemplo. Vamos lhe dar o nome de Townsend Oil. Examinemos, mais detidamente, o que o prefeito deseja. Em outras palavras, torne-o concreto e orientado para o futuro. Harmonize interesses discrepantes. Valores diferentes conforme o tempo? Por outro lado, a comunidade internacional se preocupa com receitas.
O risco pode ser trocado por receita. No lugar de quem? Tente encontrar um. Primeiro, invente; depois, decida. Isso, por sua vez, fortaleceu o relacionamento entre os negociadores e abriu caminho para um acordo de longo prazo.
Procedimentos justos. Eu quero um valor baixo. Vamos examinar qual seria um valor justo. Sua reposta seria do mesmo teor. Quanto outras construtoras cobram por esse tipo de trabalho? Quanto o senhor quer receber? Estou aqui com um Ah, sim. Na sua tabela, em quanto isso valoriza o meu carro?
Examinemos cada um desses objetivos. Os custos de usar um valor final. A autoridade de advogados, corretores e outros agentes fica limitada. Ela vale, pelo menos, trezentos mil.
Existe alguma alternativa para um valor final?
0コメント