Summarize the main points Fisher is making in each of these three chapters.
In these chapters, Fisher sets forth the Principled Negotiation concept. This section summarizes the main points Fisher is making in each of these three chapters. Fisher's recommends that an aggressive negotiator adopt principles in the most appropriate way to the opponent. The principled negotiator should inquire about the opponent's concerns, display he or she is aware of these issues, and asks the opponent to identify all issues. After discovering all interests, Fisher suggests inducing the aggressive negotiator to discuss options and to think from the angle of objective criteria in making decisions.
In the chapters, Fisher provides that another way of propelling a principled or integrative negotiating is to think from the perspective of pacing, matching, modeling, and leading. To convince the competitors to change orientations, they must feel as completely understood regarding material, emotion, and intensity. While pacing and matching with a negotiator, he/she will open up to the lead and modeling of effective ways of negotiating (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 86).
In case the negotiation party has benefits attached to the talks, Fisher believes that the competitors should enhance the quality of his/her "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" (BATNA). Since it is an employment negotiation and want to make the situation for a greater salary, individuals may enhance their power of negotiation by having another employment offer available, or at least as a probability.
The chapters reveal that parties in a negotiation usually enter the negotiation room with appropriately rehearsed positional claims regarding the facts of the scenario. Sensible negotiators must help all negotiators to get below their stances to accomplish a complete understanding of their particular passions. When parties in a negotiation are viewed as survivors seeking to enhance their circumstances, one may help negotiation parties identify that even the most challenging passions, like vengeance and rage, can be recognized concerning beneficial objectives, such as a wish for respect and acknowledgment. It is an indication that the negotiation attempt can become a combined search for mutually appropriate solutions to the recognized beneficial objectives of the parties. While rephrasing the mediation efforts in this manner, the chapters show that there can be a shift in the overall negotiation atmosphere (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 98).
Then identify some specifics within the chapters that you found especially useful.
Separate the Individuals from the Problem: Fisher indicates that purposeful and relational issues exist in mediation and negotiation processes with humans as participants. The author explains ways of handling relational issues, like considering each person's opinion (for instance by reversing roles); looking to create negotiation proposals consistent with the other person's interests; making feelings precise and legitimate, and through sufficient hearing.
Concentrate on interests, Not Positions: Positions may be believed as a one-dimensional point in the area of unlimited possible alternatives. Positions are representative of a participant's actual interest. In order to discover interests, it is important to ask questions like "What is encouraging you here?" "What are you trying to fulfill" or "What do you expect to achieve?" And "what interests do you want it to satisfy?" By understanding each other's interests, negotiators are better positioned to resolve emerging conflicts through positional bargaining. Such a concept is achieved by discussing what they are willing and unwilling to accept. As discussed in the chapters provided, attempting to reconcile differences on based on will is likely to have serious costs. A negotiation cannot be efficient when individuals expected to do so are put against each other. If reaching an agreement by negotiating based on the will is costly, the remedy is to negotiate based on objective criteria (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 93).
Negotiations have multiple compatible, shared, and inconsistent interests. Determining compatibility and common interests as "common ground" or "points of agreement" is especially beneficial in developing a base for extra negotiation conversations. Concepts can often be extrapolated from "points of agreement" to take care of other issues. In addition, concentrating on interests tends to shift the conversation to the existing and upcoming, and away from the complications of previous times. If we have discovered something previously, "we cannot modify it." However, it will help us in recognizing issues that require remedy, but does not usually generate the best alternatives eventually.
Give an example of a time when you used objective criteria in a Negotiation. What was the result? Did it make a difference in coming to a fair and mutually beneficial agreement?
Objective criteria are defined as the factual elements of information, separate from the negotiation parties, but appropriate to what should or should not be agreed to in that discussion. As an example, in negotiating to buy a particular car, I wanted to look at the price of that car offers at other dealerships. What do identical vehicles sell for? What does the red book say the cost should be? All of those items of factual information were appropriate to what I paid for that car, some more appropriate than others do. In this case, objective criteria offered significant amounts of support and confidence in the negotiation. Knowledge of the appropriate objective criteria defended me from being misused by the other negotiating side in the purchase of the car. It allowed me more successfully to justify the choices that I made during the negotiation (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 97).
Give an example from your life of a time when you effectively developed a BATNA for a negotiation. Be specific. Did it make a difference?
My BATNA is often used to denote "best alternative to a negotiated agreement." I will always opt for the best alternative when all my options fail me. As discussed in the chapters provide, the more alternatives I have, the more advantage I will have in my current negotiation. This is my biggest energy resource in a discussion. In my case, my employer pressed me to expose other offers. I never wanted to lie in a pay negotiation, but I did not want to look undesirable of desperate. To show a bad BATNA, I said I was still talking with other potential employers (which I was still doing). I was pushed to expose the name of those organizations, and I declined on the ground that I did not feel comfortable revealing those prospects because I was still waiting for an offer. During salary negotiation, I was also cautious with how I expose my powerful BATNA so that it does not sound like a threat. For example, I exposed my BATNA by saying "I am very enthusiastic about working for your organization since it seems like a mutually excellent fit. However, I am having difficulties reconciling the $15,000 distinction between your offer and another offer I have. What can we do about this?" It was helpful in identifying the point of quitting the negotiation (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 102).
If there was one thing you wanted to remember to take for this course thus far, what would it be? Why is that so important?
One thing I wanted to take from this course is the ADR (alternative dispute resolution) concept. On the spectrum between contracts achieved by the parties by immediate negotiation, there are many other methods of dealing with disputes. These choices and opportunities make "a menu" of ADR that negotiators may select to use, with the purpose of eliminating a prospective source of conflict, avoiding its escalation into an argument, and discovering the way back to a beneficial supportive and a possible working relationship in the future. The search for effective and better means to take care of disputes and the art of handling disputes are as old as humankind itself. However, it has only existed within the last three decades and ADR has started to be accepted happily by the judicial system. ADR is so important to me because it is part of many court systems and justice systems across the world (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 116).
The single fundamental principle behind Getting to Yes
The principle of influence; influencing other people is not magic or luck it is science. The article indicates that there are proven methods to make a successful negotiator, office politician or marketer.
The principle against the chapters in Getting to Yes and see if the behaviors described in those chapters flow naturally from the principle you choose
The behaviors in the chapters are tightly knit to this principle. As the chapters point out, to exert more influence, be more persuasive. This implies that when you want the opposing side to agree to something, do not be ambiguous. For instance, the capability of America to exert influence over Saddam Hussein was jeopardized by ambiguity about what would satisfy the Americans. At first, the destruction of Iraq nuclear facilities, withdrawal of Iraq military from Kuwait and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein all appeared to be possible goals. To gain most during a…