How to overcome NO: negotiations in difficult situations. Alternative negotiation option

William Urey. Overcoming "no", or Negotiating with difficult people.
From the author.
Ten years ago, Roger Fisher and I wrote a book, "The Path to Agreement," in which we presented a step-by-step sequence of "dance moves" that lead to achieving mutually acceptable agreements in negotiations. The book still generates considerable interest today, but almost every reader eventually asks: “Well, what if the other party hasn’t read your book? What if “dance” isn’t to their taste? What if they just say “no” "?
This book, Overcoming No, addresses precisely these difficult issues. I tried to summarize the techniques for successful negotiations into difficult situations to some universal method. It consists of five stages, all this is called “breakthrough negotiations”. "The Path to Agreement" describes, so to speak, a series of steps - "Overcoming No" shows how to involve a stubborn partner in the dance. Although the books complement each other, they are completely independent. You don't have to read the first one to understand and appreciate the second one.
While working on the manuscript, difficulties arose related to the precise expression of thoughts. What to call difficult person? “Other” sounds too soft, but “opponent” is too strong an expression, since we are not talking about a duel in which one can only win or lose. Finally I settled on the term “your opponent”, which is what I mostly use. By definition, an “opponent” is not an “enemy,” but simply a person taking a position opposed to yours.
There was also the issue of pronouns. Who is the opponent: “he” or “she”? I tried to alternate between "he" and "she", but readers of the manuscript complained about the confusion. Eventually I reverted to using "he" and "him" as generic pronouns. I apologize in advance to readers who may find this offensive.
Working on successive editions, I often felt myself and the role of an operatic tenor, whose final role invariably met with a warm reaction from the audience: “Encore! Encore!” Having performed the aria for the fifth time, he, I remember, begged: “Tell me, how many more times should I sing?” The answer was: “Until it comes out properly!”
My audience was equally demanding. I am immensely grateful for comments and suggestions from everyone who reviewed the manuscript, including Linda Antone, James Wotkin, William Breslin, Nancy Buck, Steven Goldberg, Richard Haass, Deborah Kolb, Linda Lane, David Lax, Martin Lynskey, David Mitchell, Bruce Patton , John Pfeiffer, John Richardson, Carol Rinzler, Jeffrey Rubin, James Sebenius, Dale Spencer, William Spencer, Daniel Stern, Douglas Stone, Elizabeth Ury and Janice Ury.
I cannot help but mention my unpaid debt to the Program on the Art of Negotiation Faculty of Law Harvard University. For more than ten years, colleagues in the Program encouraged me to engage in intellectual research and supported me with friendly participation. The ideas presented here were formed and tested during free seminars and conversations under the hospitable roof of the Program.
Another Harvard colleague and friend, Ronald Heifetz, generously allowed me to use his apt expression, “to go up to the balcony,” a metaphor for stepping back, gaining a fresh perspective.
I would also like to thank two talented research assistants. Sarah Jefferies and Annette Sassi combed through piles of material in Harvard libraries in search of relevant books and articles, meticulously selecting examples from the practice of negotiations. In addition, Annette wrote many notes with insightful comments while working on the manuscript.
Throughout the preparation of the manuscript, my assistant Cheryl Gamble demonstrated miracles of tirelessness - working 24 hours a day, she helped me meet the deadline set by the publisher. Never despairing, she managed to find a way out of problems that arose every now and then. crisis situations, while not forgetting that someone must monitor current affairs in the department.
Without the help of my agent Rafael Sagalyan, this book might not have been possible. It was he who prompted me to take the manuscript out of the long box, gave valuable comments, and connected me with the Bantam publishing house.
Bantam's excellent team has greatly improved the book. I was lucky enough to work with Genevieve Young, an excellent editor; Sparing no time, like a good helmsman, she led me through the reefs of endless alterations. Danelle McCafferty, editorial stylist, expertly penciled the final manuscript and supported me through the final stages. Betsy Cenedella took care of the careful technical preparation of the manuscript.
Let me end on a personal note. Shortly before starting work on the book, I had the great happiness of becoming the husband of Elizabeth Sherwood. Then I didn't give special significance the fact that the profession of an editor - unyielding and devoted - is their family calling. Dorothy, Richard and Benjamin Sherwood covered the margins of each successive version of the manuscript with skillful and subtle notes. Elizabeth read the book aloud with me from the first to last page, reducing and clarifying it. I owe it to her most of all: her love and support gave me the strength to complete the difficult journey of working on the manuscript.
William Urey. January 1991 Saita Fe, New Mexico
General notes.
How to talk to difficult people.
Diplomacy is the art of allowing another person to do things your way.
Daniele Vare, Italian diplomat
Everyday life is full of negotiations that can make your head spin. Over breakfast, an argument begins with his wife over the purchase of a new car. It seems to you that now is the time, but she says: “This is a joke! You understand perfectly well that right now we can’t afford it.”
You arrive at work for a morning meeting with your boss. You present a carefully prepared proposal for a new project, but after a minute, he interrupts you with the words: “We already went through this, nothing worked out. Next question.”
During your lunch break, you try to return a faulty electric oven, but the seller refuses to return the money because you do not have the receipt: “These are the rules of our store.”
In the afternoon, you bring the contract agreed on all points to the client for signature. You have already made a triumphant statement to your colleagues and reached an agreement with production. But the client says: “Sorry. The boss refuses to give ok unless you reduce the price by fifteen percent.”
On the way home, you turn on the radio in the car and hear that terrorists have hijacked another plane and are threatening to shoot all the passengers if the government does not comply with their demands. You sympathize with the families of the hostages, but wonder out loud how anyone can negotiate with crazy people.
You need to make a few calls in the evening, but your thirteen-year-old daughter is on the phone. Frustrated, you ask her to hang up. In response, a cry: “When will you give me a separate number? All my friends already have one.” You try to reason with her, but she retreats to her room, slamming the door.
Any of us has had to explain ourselves to an irritable spouse, a hot-tempered boss, an intractable salesperson, a cunning customer, or an uncontrollable teenager. IN under stress even cute ones reasonable people sometimes turn into bilious, intractable opponents. The conversation can go in vain or be interrupted altogether, wasting our time, rewarding us with sleepless nights or ulcers.
For similar situations Normal communication skills are not enough. What to do with a person who does not want to listen to you? Or throws a tantrum to insist on his own? With a person who says: “If you don’t want it, don’t take it!”
How to deal with a person who constantly interrupts you? Or accuses him of being unreliable and incompetent? Or is he trying to play on your guilt? Or threatens with serious consequences if you do not become accommodating?
How to talk to a person who knowingly gives false, exaggerated or confusing information? Who inspires you that he completely agrees with everything - only to last minute screw in some next requirement? The one who howls endlessly? Or simply refuses to negotiate?
What you need is to involve such a person in the game, that is, to start communication in which a solution is sought. Start finding out his interests: what worries him, what he needs, what he wants. Next, explore options that would satisfy both of you. Your goal is to reach a mutually acceptable solution with minimal time, in a friendly atmosphere.
But what if such negotiations are of no interest to your opponent? You want to hear "yes", but he says "no". How to overcome "no"?
Five tasks.
To overcome “no”, you need to understand what is behind this answer. Why does the opponent have such reluctance to cooperate? The easiest way is to assume that stubbornness, aggressiveness or roguishness are properties of nature, and it is almost impossible to change the behavior of such a person. However, you can influence him if you can understand the internal motives of his behavior.
Irritation and hostility may be hidden behind the attacks. Behind a tough position is fear and mistrust. Convinced that he is right, the opponent may refuse to listen. Representing the world according to the principle “if you don’t, then you,” he will probably consider any dirty tricks acceptable - to defend himself or to take revenge.
Next. The opponent can go on the defensive or rush into attack not out of extravagance, but simply because he doesn’t know how to do otherwise. He uses the usual tactics learned as a child while playing in the sandbox. It seems to him that to do otherwise means to give in, and he doesn’t want that.
Even being aware of the possibility of negotiations in a constructive spirit, he may neglect it, since he does not see any benefit for himself in this. You can satisfy his interests, but he still will not budge from his stated position, for fear of losing face. And if you suggested the idea, he will be tempted to reject it for that reason alone.
Moreover, if he perceives negotiations as a game of winning or losing, he will be determined to achieve victory. Feeling his superiority in power, he may simply not understand why he should get involved in any negotiations. Guiding Star he is served by the aphorism: “What’s mine is mine. But what’s yours, we need to talk about it.”
Driven to despair by your opponent's obstinacy, you may be tempted to strike back. Unfortunately, this will only provoke him into further antics. Or, on the contrary, you decide to give up your position just to get rid of him. However, in this case, you will not only lose, but, quite possibly, will push him to new demands. The problem is not only your opponent's behavior, but also your own reaction, which can easily aggravate his unwanted behavior.
To get through the “no”, you need to overcome the following obstacles to cooperation: its negative emotions, his communication skills, his skepticism about the benefits of the agreement, his ideas about own strength and your reactions. Thus, you have FIVE PROBLEMS to solve.
The first step to solving them is self-control. Instead of giving free rein to emotions, it is necessary to restore peace of mind and not be distracted from your goal. So, the first thing is not to react.
Next, you should help your opponent restore his peace of mind. You must dispel his negative emotions - wariness, fear, suspicion and hostility. You need to overcome resistance and force the person to listen. So the second thing is to Disarm your opponent.
Having created favorable atmosphere for negotiations, distract your opponent from haggling over stated positions and begin discussing ways to satisfy the interests of both sides. You will have to break through stone walls, deflect attacks and neutralize tricks. The third thing to do is Change the game.
As soon as you have managed to establish contact with your opponent, you need to take advantage of this to overcome his skepticism and include him in the development of a mutually acceptable agreement. Build bridges between his interests and yours. It is necessary to help him save face, to make the outcome of the negotiations seem like a victory to him. So, fourth - Make it easy for him to say yes.
With all this, your opponent can still expect to win superior force. Accordingly, it is necessary to put into motion more powerful arguments, using them in order to bring him to the negotiating table. However, you should appeal to your own strength in such a way as not to turn him into an enemy, forced to resist with even greater zeal. Fifth - Make it difficult for him to say no.
Breakthrough strategy.
This book outlines a five-step strategy for solving these problems, a breakthrough negotiation strategy. Five “moves,” when applied sequentially, lead to a change in the game: from head-on confrontation to a joint search for a solution. Although no method guarantees success, a breakthrough strategy will allow you to achieve the desired outcome with the highest probability - even in the most difficult negotiations.
The breakthrough strategy is counterintuitive: it involves actions that are directly opposite to those that suggest themselves in difficult situations. When your opponent stands like a stone wall or rushes to attack, you are tempted to respond in kind. If he insists on his position, you want to reject it in order to assert your own. When he tries to put pressure on you, you tend to respond with counter-pressure. However, by trying to break your opponent's resistance in this way, you usually only make it worse.
The essence of a breakthrough strategy is indirect action. You are trying to bypass your opponent's resistance. Instead of implementing new idea from the outside, you help him find his way to her on his own. Instead of telling him what to do, you give him the opportunity to make his own decision. Instead of trying to break resistance, you make it easier to let go. In short, breakthrough negotiation is the art of letting the other person have it your way.
Breakthrough negotiations can be used with any opponent: a hot-tempered boss, an angsty teenager, a detracting co-worker, or an obnoxious client. This system can be used by diplomats trying to ward off the threat of war, lawyers trying to avoid expensive litigation, or spouses wanting to keep their family together. The strategy is universal, everyone can apply to it.
Step one: Don't react.
Go up to the balcony[*].
Speak in anger - and this speech will rank first among those speeches that you have ever had to regret.
Ambrose Bierce
Watch how people talk to each other and you will see countless examples of how they react thoughtlessly to words. Too often it goes like this:
HUSBAND (thinking he's focused on the problem): Honey, something needs to be done about the house. It's like living in a stable.
WIFE (taking this as a personal attack): You can’t even lift a finger! You don't even do what you promise. Last night…
HUSBAND (interrupting): I know. I know. Just…
WIFE (not listening): ...said you would take out the trash. In the morning I had to carry it out myself.
HUSBAND (trying to return to the problem): Just don’t get into a pose. I just wanted to point out that we both...
WIFE (not listening): And it was your turn to take the children to school.
HUSBAND (reacting): Come on! I warned you that I had a business breakfast.
WIFE (starting to scream): So your time is more important than mine? I work too! I'm tired of playing second violin in this orchestra!
HUSBAND (starting to scream): Well, leave it alone! Who pays almost all the bills here?
Neither the husband's interests (cleanliness in the house) nor the wife's interests (to have more help with the housework) came any closer to being realized as a result of this dialogue. However, the energetic dispute between the spouses continues. An action provokes a reaction, a reaction provokes a counter-reaction, and so the endless bickering drags on. The same pattern applies to the litigation of business partners over the office at the end of the corridor, the struggle between the trade union and the administration over the terms of a labor agreement or battles. ethnic groups around the territories.
Three natural reactions.
Human beings are responsive machines. What could be more natural than a reflex action in a difficult situation - when thought is dormant? Here are the three most common types of reactions:
Give back.
When you are attacked, instinctive reaction- immediately fight back, knock out “wedge with wedge”, “give them a taste of their own medicine.” If your opponent takes a hard, extreme position, so do you.
Sometimes this can bring your opponent to his senses, letting him know that you also master his game. However, in most cases, such a strategy will only lead to a pointless and exhausting confrontation. You will simply provide your opponent with an excuse for his unreasonable behavior. He will say to himself: “I knew that you wanted my blood. Here is the proof.” This is often followed by escalation in the form of a war of words, a corporate war, a lawsuit, or actual war.
Here, for example, is the story of a senior manager who developed a new information system for the company's production needs. To implement the system, it was necessary to coordinate it with local managers. Everyone agreed, except for the chief of the largest plant in Dallas, who said: “Don’t meddle in my affairs with your plans. I must control everything personally - otherwise there will be complete collapse here. I don’t need assistants.” Out of frustration, the systems manager reacted in the following way: he threatened to complain to the company president, but this only angered the factory manager. End result: An appeal to the company president backfired and was interpreted as the manager’s inability to maintain normal working relationships with colleagues. Worse yet, since the president did not want to interfere, the new information system And so I ended the century on the drawing board.
Retaliation rarely advances your immediate interests and tends to ruin long term relationship. Even if you win a battle, you may lose the war. Another danger of a retaliatory strike is that people who play “dice” are, for the most part, great masters of their craft. They, perhaps, even hope to provoke a counterattack in order to lure you onto their field, force you to play by their rules.
Give in.
The opposite of a counterattack is a concession. Your opponent can throw you off balance so much that you will give in just to get the matter over with. He begins to put pressure on you, portraying the matter in such a way that it is you who are slowing down the agreement. Do you really want to take responsibility for delayed negotiations, damaged relationships, and the missed golden opportunity of a lifetime? Isn't it better to just say yes?
Many of us enter into agreements only to wake up in the morning, slap ourselves on the forehead and exclaim: “Could I really be such a fool?! What did I agree to?” Many people sign a contract—say, when buying a new car—without bothering to fully read the fine print on it. Why? Because the seller is breathing in our ears, the children can’t wait to get into the new car and drive home, and we are afraid of looking like dumbasses if we start asking questions about the contract - after all, it’s impossible to fully understand it anyway.
Concession usually does not lead to a satisfactory outcome. You feel like you've been ripped off. Moreover, it rewards your opponent for bad behavior and gives you a reputation as a weakling, which he - or others - may try to exploit in the future. Just like indulgence childish whim only helps to strengthen the stereotype of behavior; giving in to an unruly person means encouraging him to have similar outbursts of anger in the future. The obnoxious temper of your boss or client may seem uncontrollable - but temper can be controlled. After all, they probably don’t make such scenes in front of their boss.
Sometimes we get lost and begin to appease the unreasonable one, enjoying the illusion that if we only give in for this last time, he will fall behind and won’t have to deal with him anymore. However, too often such a person returns for new concessions. There is a saying that to cajole is to throw steaks to a tiger and think that he will eventually become a vegetarian.
Break it up.
A third common reaction is to end the relationship with the difficult person or organization. If we are talking about marriage - divorce. About work - resignation letter. About some kind of joint venture - exit from the partnership.
It happens that such a strategy is completely justified. Sometimes it’s really better to stop personal or business relations, if their continuation is fraught with exploitation of you or endless quarrels. In addition, a breakup sometimes reminds the opponent of his own interest in the relationship and pushes him to more reasonable behavior.
However, the cost of breaking up a relationship - both financial and emotional - is often prohibitively high: a lost client, a decline in career, a broken family. Often, a breakup turns out to be a hasty reaction that you later regret. We all know people who enter into a work or personal relationship, then, having quarreled with their boss or partner, leave without waiting for a possible improvement in the situation. Quite often they misinterpret the behavior of another person, but they do not try to achieve mutual understanding. When a relationship breakup enters the system, it means that moving forward for you stops - you start all over again.
Danger of spontaneous reaction.
When we react this way, we lose sight of our own interests. Take, for example, the Pentagon's response to the American hostage crisis in Iran from 1979-1981. Shortly after the crisis began, a reporter asked a Pentagon official about assistance that the military could provide. The spokesman said little could be done without risking the lives of the hostages. However, the Pentagon, he continued, is developing tough measures that it will apply after the hostages are released. Here his logic failed him: why would Iranian students release hostages when they know that the United States will strike in response? Alas, the Pentagon fell into an all too common mistake - confusing the thirst for revenge with the thirst for results.
Very often your opponent deliberately provokes you to react. After all, the first victim of his attack is your objectivity, the most valuable quality for successful negotiations. The opponent is trying to knock you out of the saddle, to teach you to think clearly. He wants to lure you like a fish, so that he can then lead you behind the spoon. Once you react, you're hooked.
Actually, the strength of your opponent lies to a large extent in the ability to provoke your reaction. Have you ever wondered how a small group of terrorists in the Middle East manages to attract the attention of the whole world, depriving the leader of the most powerful nation on earth of sleep - just by catching any American walking by? The kidnappers themselves are unlikely to have any power; they get it from the hands of the American public.
Even if your reaction does not lead to a serious mistake, it will contribute to the continuation of a fruitless cycle of action and reaction. Ask a wife why she yells at her husband, and she will probably answer: “Because he yells at me.” Ask your husband and he will say the same thing: "Because she yells at me." By reacting to words, you only make the problem worse. It takes two to dance tango - the same number to get entangled in a meaningless showdown.
Go up to the balcony.
I have given you the not so good news about your role in the development of the vicious cycle of action and reaction; The good news is that this cycle can be interrupted - at any time, and unilaterally. How? Without reacting. From physics lessons we know that “to an action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.” However, Newton's laws apply to objects, not to human minds. Objects react. A person can hold back.
O. Henry's story "The Chief of the Redskins" in artistic form demonstrates the power of restraint. The parents, as is known, decided not to respond to the demands of their son’s kidnappers. After some time, the boy became such a burden to the bandits that they offered to pay a ransom if only his parents would take him home. The story illustrates psychological game, due to the nature of your reactions. By fundamentally refraining from reacting, the parents thwarted the plans of the kidnappers.
When negotiations get difficult, you need to take a step back, collect your thoughts, and look at the situation objectively. Imagine that you are negotiating on a theater stage and then go up to the balcony. "Balcony" is a metaphor for psychological detachment. From above, you can calmly assess the conflict, almost from the position of a third party. You can reason constructively, and for both participants in the negotiations, feeling the way to a mutually acceptable solution to the problem.
In the ancient Japanese art of swordsmanship, a young man is taught to look at his opponent as if he were looking at a distant mountain. Musachi, the greatest of the samurai, called this “looking from afar at close things.” Actually, this is the view from the balcony.
Going up to the balcony means distancing yourself from your natural impulses and emotions. Take, for example, the story of film distributor Janet Jenkins, who almost negotiated a multimillion-dollar contract with a cable television network. An hour after the start of the final round of negotiations, the head of the television company burst into the office. He attacked Janet's products, questioned her personal integrity and demanded radical changes to the terms of the contract. Jaiet, however, restrained her emotions and went up to the imaginary balcony. She realized that by defending herself or counterattacking, she would only add fuel to the fire, which would only delay the conclusion of the deal. Therefore, she calmly listened to the chairman of the board. When he finished and left the office, Janet excused herself and also left - ostensibly to make a call, but in reality to restore peace of mind. When she returned, the network executive looked up from his desk and asked, “Shall we continue the conversation where we left off?” In other words, he said, "Don't pay any attention to the chairman. He's just letting off steam. Let's get back to business." If Janet had reacted, the negotiations would have gone a long way. Deciding to "go up to the balcony" instead, she was able to smoothly complete the transaction.
You should go up to the balcony before the negotiations begin - in order to prepare for them. And visit him whenever possible along the way. Your opponent's difficult behavior will always push you to react impulsively. However, you should never forget your goal.
Don't lose sight of the end goal.
Success in negotiations is not about asserting your position, but about satisfying your interests. The difference is fundamental. Therefore, when going up to the balcony, you must first understand your own interests.
Identify your interests.
When you ask yourself what you want, the answer is usually specific: “I want the boss to sign off on a twelve percent budget increase for my department next year.” This is your position, the specific things you want - terms and conditions, dollars and cents. But there are interests behind the position. Interests are subtle motives that encourage you to take exactly one position and not another: your needs, desires, concerns and fears. When you ask for a twelve percent increase in the budget, your interest may be to purchase computers and use them to increase productivity in the department. Interests are clarified using simple question: "Why?" "Why do I want this? What problem am I trying to solve?"
Negotiation, however, is a two-way street. After all, it is usually impossible to realize one’s interests if the interests of the opponent are not satisfied. Therefore, understanding his interests is no less important than your own. The boss's cool attitude toward your request for a budget increase may be due to his desire to become president of the company; the satisfaction of this interest, he believes, depends on whether he manages to impress the Board of Directors as a prudent owner.
Although it is not always possible to defend a position, it is often possible to satisfy interests. You may not get a twelve percent increase, but you can come up with an option in which you can computerize the department without jeopardizing the boss's reputation. Is it possible to implement the plan step by step? Let's say, be satisfied with six percent this year and the promise of six more for the next year; by that time the Council will have already decided on the appointment of a new president. Perhaps, for reasons of economy, the boss will organize free technical assistance for you from the company? But won't he be able to borrow the missing funds from the main budget? In general, many options come to mind once you understand your deepest interests.
Don't think of options as rigid goals; count them concrete examples only the type of outcome that would satisfy your interests. Success is a similar agreement. After all, you cannot be sure in advance that your idea will be accepted. In addition, during the negotiations you may learn something that will allow you to offer an even better option.
Determine your NAOS.
Winning a negotiation is not simply an agreement that minimally satisfies your interests; the agreement must satisfy interests greater than your NEA.
NAOS is the Best Alternative to the Discussed Agreement. "javascript:openWindow("nkozov.ru/s_hep.php?decode=1&content="%20+%20escape("The term%20NAOS%20taken%20from%20book%20Roger%20Fisher%20and%20William%20Yury%20" [† ] This best way satisfying your interests in the absence of an agreement. When you're trying to negotiate a pay raise with your boss, your NAOS may be to move to another company. If you've entered into negotiations with your child about cleaning his or her room, your NEED might be to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. It is clear that the alternatives involve certain costs for you, as well as damage to the relationship with your partner, which is why you are trying to negotiate something better. Your NAOS should serve as a yardstick for evaluating any potential agreement.
To determine the NEOS, three types of alternatives must be considered. First: what can you do to achieve your interests? Your “last alternative”—the “exit alternative”—might be changing suppliers if you are a buyer, or changing clients if you are a seller. Secondly: what can you do directly with your opponent to force him to respect your interests? Your "direct alternative" could be a strike or war. Thirdly: how can you involve a third party in protecting your interests? The “third party alternative” may be to pursue legal action or arbitration. Having outlined a number of possibilities, choose the best one.
A good NAOS usually does not exist in finished form; it needs to be worked out. If the NAOS is not very strong, steps should be taken to improve it. Let's say, having defined your NEA as looking for another job in the same industry, don't stop there. Bring the matter to a real offer from another company. If you're selling a home, don't stop looking for a buyer just because someone has already expressed interest; try to identify one more potential client.
NAOS is the key to strong position at negotiations. The strength of a position is determined less by which of the two opponents is larger, more powerful, senior in rank, or wealthier than by the quality of their NAOS. The more enviable the position offered to you by someone else, the more likely it is that you will get a good raise in your old position, especially if the boss has not yet identified a replacement. If you have a viable alternative and your opponent does not, you gain an advantage in negotiations. The better the NAOS, the stronger you are.
Keep HAOS in your back pocket. When you are under a hurricane attack and are about to panic, it’s good to pat yourself on the pocket and mentally say: “Even if this doesn’t work out, I’m in perfect order".
Decide whether to negotiate.
Now that you have identified your interests and thought through the NAOS, you need to ask the question: “Is it worth negotiating at all?” Have you ever wondered why people sometimes try to negotiate with a rude boss when they should just leave? Habit, guilt, and fear may play a role, but very often the employee does not even bother to identify or has lost sight of his best alternative.
Perhaps your NAOS really is better than any agreement you could make with your opponent. Do not forget also that the negotiation process itself is associated with certain costs. It may take a lot of time and effort, and during the negotiations your alternatives may disappear like fog. It follows that the decision to initiate negotiations must be carefully weighed.
Keep in mind: NAOS is very easy to overestimate. Many business leaders, having listened to the advice of overly self-confident lawyers, refused to negotiate and filed a lawsuit - this was the beginning of their financial collapse. In any lawsuit, strike or war, one of the rivals - often both - discover that their NAOS is not as good as it previously seemed. By recognizing in advance that the alternative is not so attractive, you will take more action. serious efforts to reach an agreement.
Focus on the goal.
Success, therefore, will be an agreement that satisfies your interests unconditionally more fully than the NEA. The agreement must also take into account the interests of the opponent. Once you have figured out what outcome you will consider successful, you should focus entirely on achieving it. It's not easy at all. When you are angry and feel your opponent's hostility, you want to slam your fist on the table. When you are depressed and confused, you want to give up everything. How can you curb your natural reaction?
Name the game.
Often you are too absorbed in the situation to be aware of the fact of the reaction. Therefore, the first task is to understand your opponent's tactics. Ancient mythology claims that as soon as the evil spirit was called by name, its spell crumbled to dust. It’s the same with dishonest methods - it’s enough to recognize them “by sight” to neutralize them.
Three types of techniques.
There are dozens of techniques, but they can be grouped into three general categories according to the principle of action: restraining, aggressive and deceptive:
Stone wall. The stone wall tactic is a refusal to make any concessions. The opponent is trying to convince you that you can’t move him from his place, and, therefore, the only way out is to accept his position. Rigidity can take the form of fait accompi, a fait accompli: "What's done is done. Nothing can be changed here." Or appeals to the company’s rules: “I can’t help it. These are our rules.” Or references to a previous commitment: “I stated that I would rather resign as a union representative than accept an increase of less than eight percent.” The opponent may resort to endless delays: “We will contact you later.” Or, on the contrary, cut it off: “It’s your business - if you don’t want it, don’t take it.” He meets any other proposal with hostility.
Attacks. Attacks are pressure tactics designed to intimidate, confuse you, and ultimately force you to accept your opponent's demands. Probably the most common form is the threat of grave consequences: “Agree, or else...!” The opponent may also attack your proposal (“Your numbers are dancing”), your competence (“You seem to be new to work?”), your status and authority (“We want to talk to the real decision maker.”) The aggressor will insult you , tease and bully until he gets his way.
Tricks. Subterfuge is a tactic for extracting concessions through deception. The presumption of truthfulness and good faith is exploited. One type is data manipulation, the use of false, inflated or contradictory figures. Another is the “lack of authority” trick, where the opponent gives the impression that he has the authority to decide the issue, and then, having exhausted your resource of flexibility, declares that someone else should decide. The third trick is the “add-on,” a new demand made at the last minute when you think an agreement has already been reached.
Recognize the tactics.
The key to neutralizing the tactical effect is recognition. If you recognize the “stone wall” tactic in time, then it is less likely that you will seriously believe in his “inflexibility.” By recognizing an attack, you are less likely to be overwhelmed by fear and confusion. By recognizing the trick, you will not fall for the deception.
Here's an example. Mr. and Mrs. Albin had just sold their house, or so they thought as they packed their things and prepared to move. However, the buyer, Mr. Maloney, requested a four-month delay in completing the deed because he had not yet been able to sell his house. He refused to compensate the Albins for the delay. They said they would then have to look for another buyer. To this, Mr. Maloney replied: “You know, you are lucky that you fell for someone like me. Anyone else would have sued you to prevent you from selling to anyone else. The proceedings could drag on for years, and all this time you will be sitting on suitcases.” ! But we’ve almost become friends, so we’ll probably be able to avoid all this mess.”
After seeing Mr. Maloney out, Mr. Albin sighed with relief and said, “Thank God he won’t sue. Otherwise, we’d be stuck here for years. Maybe we should give him a little price.” To this Mrs. Albin replied: “Darling, they are just gently threatening you, but you don’t understand it. He is a troublemaker, and you need to treat him accordingly.” Mr. Albin responded to Mr. Maloney's tactics with fear, which was exactly the reaction Mr. Maloney hoped to evoke. However, Mrs. Albin recognized the game and managed to maintain her presence of mind.
Many tricks are based on your lack of understanding of the situation. Suppose the buyer says that he is delighted with the terms of the deal, but that his partner will require significant changes to the contract. If you don't understand that in this case your partner is no more than a beech tree that is used to scare you, then you can innocently agree to the changes. However, once you understand the tactics, you will be on your guard.
The hardest thing to recognize is a lie. The opponent goes out of his way to convince you of his truthfulness, but he himself lies. It is necessary to look for discrepancies between his words and previous remarks, actions, facial expressions, gestures, and tone. Even if a liar knows how to manipulate words, it is difficult for him to contain the excitement that raises the timbre of his voice. It is equally difficult to control facial expressions; a smile, for example, may slide to the side. However, keep in mind that other reasons can cause anxiety, so one sign is not enough. Multiple signs should be looked for. "javascript:openWindow("nkozov.ru/s_hep.php?decode=1&content="%20+%20escape("Good%20recommendations%20on%20recognizing%20lies%20are contained in%20%20book:%20Ekman,%20Pau.% 20" [‡]
Keeping an eye on your opponent's tactics means being alert, but not being overly suspicious. The behavior of another person can sometimes be misinterpreted. Perhaps one of the most famous political figures of modern times is Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev. At one time, his escapades were perceived as a tactic to intimidate the West; a person who hits the table with a shoe today can press the nuclear button tomorrow! Thirty years later, Khrushchev's son Sergei explained that his father's action was caused by completely different motives. Khrushchev, who rarely traveled outside the Soviet Union, heard that the West was very fond of heated political debates. So he gave the public what they should have liked - he began to knock his shoe on the table to emphasize his thesis. When the scandal broke, no one was more shocked than Khrushchev himself. He was just trying to play his boyfriend. What later became an image of the incomprehensibility of the Russian person was in fact a common misunderstanding at the intersection of two cultures. "javascript:openWindow("nkozov.ru/s_hep.php?decode=1&content="%20+%20escape("Sergei%20Khrushchev,%20personal%20correspondence%20with%20author."),%20"inscr_4",%20300 ,%20150);%20void(0);" [§]
Therefore, turn on the radar, but do not rush to lower the armor. Make a mental note of a possible ploy or veiled attack. Neutralize it by calling it by name, and keep it in view as a possibility - not as something known for certain. Look for additional signs, remembering that difficult opponents rarely limit themselves to one technique.
Know your weak points.
To neutralize your opponent's tactics, you need to recognize not only what he is doing, but also how you are feeling.
The first signal of your reaction usually comes from your body. Stomach cramps. My heart starts beating wildly. Blood rushes to the cheeks. Palms sweat. These are internal reactions that indicate some kind of problem, that you are losing your composure, which is so necessary during negotiations. In other words, a signal that it’s time to “go up to the balcony.”
Each of us has our own emotional weaknesses or “vulnerable points”. Some people react very strongly to even mild criticism or become furious at the slightest hint of ridicule. Others cannot stand it when their ideas are rejected. Others give in out of guilt, or because they are afraid that people will not like them, or because they don't want to make a scene.
When you know your "vulnerable points", it is easier for you to recognize your opponent's attempts to influence them. In turn, awareness of your own weaknesses allows you to control natural reactions. If you hate being blamed for being disorganized and you know it, you can prepare for the situation accordingly. When someone calls you scatterbrained, you can simply brush it off.
We live and work in a competitive environment. Therefore, be prepared for verbal attacks and do not take them to heart. Remember that the accuser is trying to play on your irritation, fear and guilt. Perhaps he wants to rob you of your composure in order to prevent you from negotiating effectively. As children we were taught how to react to offensive words discordant friend: “Stones and stakes will hurt, but words don’t matter.” This simple lesson does not prevent adults from remembering it either.
When you are attacked, it is useful to look at your opponent as a person who does not know what he is doing. Here, for example, is the approach invented by one woman who was regularly bullied by her boss in the presence of her colleagues: “He was always sitting in my head, driving not only me, but my whole family crazy... But then I decided to throw him out of my life I began to move away from him, saying to myself: “Poor guy, he apparently doesn’t even realize that he can behave differently.” and his nagging immediately subsided." "javascript:openWindow("nkozov.ru/s_hep.php?decode=1&content="%20+%20escape("" [**]
Buy time to think.
Having managed to recognize the game and restrain the first reaction, you need to get time with your next move to collect your thoughts, in other words, “go up to the balcony.”
Pause and don't say anything.
The easiest way to gain time in tense negotiations is to pause and remain silent. After all, your answer will be of little use if it is dictated by anger or annoyance. In this state, the ability for sound reasoning is lost. This is not just a fact of psychology; anger and stress cause very real biochemical changes in the body. By waiting at least a few seconds, you allow these changes to return to normal, restoring a more objective view of things. This is the wisdom of delaying an answer. As Thomas Jefferson once noted, "When you are angry, count to ten before you answer; when you are very angry, count to one hundred."
A pause not only gives you the opportunity to go up to the balcony for at least a few seconds, but can cool down your opponent’s ardor. When you don't say words, he has nothing to fight with. Silence may confuse him. The burden of continuing the conversation falls on him. By being at a loss as to what is on your mind, he may behave more intelligently. In general, silence often turns out to be the most effective tool in negotiations.
. Let's assume, however, that your opponent continues to go on a rampage. One film producer had a boss who would explode at the slightest provocation. The producer complained to a friend that he could barely restrain himself from punching his boss in the nose. A friend advised: “Look at it this way. He’s not yelling at you, he’s yelling for himself. Next time, do this. Sit back in your chair, fold your arms across your chest and let it all pass by. At the same time, tell yourself that yelling is very good for him nervous system". After some time, the producer reported that the plan worked the most miraculously. "javascript:openWindow("nkozov.ru/s_hep.php?decode=1&content="%20+%20escape("Example%20taken%20from%20a story by%20writer%20and%20humorist%20Larry%20Gelbart,%20who%20is cited by%20in %20interesting%20book%20Carol%20Tavris%20(Caro%20Tarvis)%20" [††]
The same approach is used to prevent verbal battles, especially often observed during negotiations between unions and management. In one case, the parties adopted a rule according to which “it is allowed to get excited, but only one at a time.” The other side didn't have to react; otherwise, it was perceived as a sign of weakness, an inability to keep emotions in check. The rule prevented the inevitable expansion of the cycle of action and reaction.
Of course, you cannot neglect your feelings, and there is no need for this. It is only necessary to break the automatic connection between emotion and action. Be angry, annoyed, afraid - mentally imagine, if you like, how you attack your opponent - but do not translate your feelings and impulses into direct action. Restrain your impulse; don't change your behavior. A minute may seem like an eternity, but by the sixtieth second the severity will subside. Of course, this is not easy, especially if your opponent yells at you or resists you like a stone wall, but it is absolutely necessary for successful negotiations. Follow the biblical saying: “Be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to do.”
Rewind the film.
You can't pause forever. To win extra time, try "rewinding the film." Slow down the pace of the conversation by “playing” it again. Tell your opponent: “Let’s see if I understood everything correctly.” Briefly summarize the discussion.
Let's say you've just closed a deal and you and the buyer are reviewing the contract again. “I think the terms are excellent,” he says. “And I’ll be happy to sign if you add service obligations as a courtesy. What do you say? Hands down?” The client extends his hand.
If you fall for the trick and immediately say “yes” or “no,” you are likely to make a mistake. To buy time and go up to the balcony, rewind the film. Look the client in the eye and say, "Wait a minute, Larry. I don't think I understand something. Let's step back for a second and see where we were coming from. We started discussing the deal three months ago, in March, right?
“I guess so,” says Larry.
- If I’m not mistaken, from the very beginning you suggested considering the service contract separately from the main one.
- Yes, but I changed my mind.
“Larry, correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I understand, the day before yesterday we came to an agreement on all points, right?”
Now, no matter what Larry answers, you are on the balcony, you no longer respond with an immediate reaction to his unexpected demand. In other words, you didn't fall for his trick. Moreover, you essentially managed to move Larry from an offensive to a defensive position.
Tactics like Larry's are like a magic trick; everything happens so quickly that the twitching may not be noticed. By rewinding the film - breaking the rhythm, slowing down the action - you are able to recognize and neutralize the trick accordingly.
If your opponent overloads you with information, hoping you'll miss a hidden flaw in his argument, don't hesitate to say, "You've given too much information to digest right away. Let's go back to the beginning." Or: “Can you explain once again how the parts of your plan fit together? I didn’t catch the connection of a number of points.” When presented in detail, it will be easier for you to note the logical gaps.
It's easy to slow down the pace of negotiations if you keep careful notes. Raising your head from your notes, you can always say to your opponent: “Sorry, I didn’t have time to write it down. Could you repeat it?” Taking notes will give you time to think while demonstrating that you take the person seriously.
Some people are afraid of looking stupid if they say: “Sorry, I don’t think I understood you completely.” The irony is that they, more often than others, end up in the fool because they were embarrassed to ask necessary questions. On the contrary, master negotiators know that appearing slow-witted can be very beneficial: it allows you to slow down the pace of the discussion. Of course, you don't have to play dumb. You just need to ask for clarification: “I don’t quite understand why the question about the discount arose now.”
If during the negotiations nothing better comes to mind, you can always use the stock phrase: “Let’s clarify whether I understood you correctly.”
Take a time out.
If you need more time to think, take a break. Too often, negotiations drag on endlessly as the parties do nothing but react to each other's provocations. A time-out will give them the opportunity to cool down and go up to the balcony. Than cha

This book began with the questions: “How do we turn confrontation into cooperation? How do we transform conflicts that need to be fought into problems that need to be solved?”

The urgent need for cooperation is felt everywhere. In the world of business, corporations enter into strategic agreements with their most bitter competitors. They pool resources for research and development, share production capabilities and adopt all the best from each other. Companies are developing long-term cooperation with suppliers with whom they previously had no mutual interests. The character and management come to the realization that if they don't work together, they could lose their jobs altogether.

Ability to cooperate with former opponents becomes the key to survival.

And this is true not only at work, but also in the family. It is the ability to constructively approach interpersonal conflicts that determines future fate family: will it survive or will it fall apart? In society as a whole, both people and organizations realize that going to court is always expensive and often futile, and therefore are increasingly resorting to other methods of resolving disputes.

On a global scale, cooperation is becoming the key to human survival. To such serious tasks as security environment and building a prosperous economy can only begin with the cooperation of rival states. War is becoming an increasingly expensive means of resolving acute conflicts and often does not bring the desired result. In an era of destructive weapons, even the worst enemies must learn to cooperate to survive.

However, cooperation does not mean the elimination of competition. We're not going to give up on differences—and we don't need to—but we can be more constructive about them. The path from confrontation to cooperation is through negotiation.

More than ten years ago, Roger Fisher and I wrote a short book called Negotiating Without Losing, which proposed a method of negotiation that allows us to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement. This book continues to be popular, but almost every reader has a question: “Of course, I want to achieve agreement, but what should I do if the other party refuses? What if they don't want to cooperate?" Readers want to know how to gain cooperation and how to maintain it when faced with the seemingly insurmountable obstacles we face every day. These include attacks and counterattacks, anger and suspicion, ingrained bargaining habits, seemingly irreconcilable interests, and attempts to win by humiliating an opponent or using force.

My approach to negotiation has been shaped by my experiences with these obstacles to cooperation. Over the years I have studied own experience negotiator and mediator in solving various problems - business, political and personal. In addition, I constantly studied examples of successful negotiations in these areas.

This book captures the essence of everything I have learned over the years. It offers many useful techniques, but not everyone manages to remember them in the midst of tense negotiations. Therefore, I tried to present these techniques in the form of a universal strategy consisting of five stages, called “Strategy for a breakthrough in negotiations.” This is my answer to the question of how to achieve cooperation in a world where differences are so strong.

Those familiar with the previous edition will notice that I have made some changes to the book. This was necessary because some readers felt misconception that this book is only about how to negotiate with difficult people. In fact, in tense negotiations, each side considers the enemy difficult. Therefore, the book is about negotiations not only with difficult people, and in difficult situations. Regardless of who is considered the difficult person, the challenge is to turn confrontation into collaborative problem solving.

I rewrote the overview section and changed the conceptual structure of the book. In addition, the formulation of the five main steps of the breakthrough strategy has been simplified, and new emphases have been placed in the text of the book. I've also included an introduction on how to prepare for negotiations.

And lastly - two important changes touched on terminology. I found that the use of the term "adversary" reinforces the concept of "win-lose" that the book is aimed at. Therefore, in most cases I choose the neutral term “opposing party.” Another important change concerns pronouns. In the previous edition I used the pronouns “he” and “him”, but now it has become clear to me that most readers do not perceive masculine as neutral. So, at the risk of breaking the strict rules of grammar, I turned to pronouns plural"they" and "them".

Diplomacy is the art of allowing another person to do things your way.

Daniel Vare, Italian diplomat

We all engage in negotiations every day. We spend most of our time trying to reach agreement with other people. No matter how hard we try to negotiate in a cooperative manner, in most cases we will be disappointed. We passionately want to achieve agreement, but very often we hear “NO” in response.

Imagine an ordinary day. Over breakfast, you and your spouse are arguing about buying a new car. It seems to you that it’s time to change the car, but your spouse replies: “This is ridiculous! You know very well that we cannot afford this now.” Then you arrive at work, where you have a meeting with your manager. You talk about a carefully prepared new project, but after a minute the boss interrupts you with the phrase: “We already tried this, but it didn’t work out. Next question!

During your lunch break, you try to return a defective toaster to the store, but the seller refuses to return the money, citing the fact that you do not have a receipt: “These are the rules in our store.”

After lunch, you bring the pre-agreed contract to the client for signature. You have already told your colleagues about it and agreed on it at production. But the client suddenly says: “I’m really sorry. The boss refuses to approve the deal unless you give us a fifteen percent discount.”

In the evening you need to answer several calls, but the phone is busy with your thirteen-year-old daughter. You get angry and ask to free the phone, and your daughter shouts to you from the corridor: “Why don’t I have a separate line? All my friends have it!”

Each of us enters into difficult negotiations with an irritable spouse, an oppressive boss, an unyielding salesperson, an unreliable client, or an uncontrollable teenager. Under stress, even nice and reasonable people can turn into irritable and stubborn opponents. Negotiations can drag on or break down, taking up time, depriving you of sleep and causing stomach ulcers.

IN in a broad sense Negotiation is a process of two-way communication aimed at reaching an agreement with other people when your interests coincide in some ways and diverge in others. The concept of “negotiation” is not limited to formal events where parties sit around a table and discuss an agenda; it's also informal communication, which you enter into trying to get what you need from another person.

Think about how you make important decisions that affect your future—decisions that define your career and personal life. Which part of these problems can you solve on your own, and which part do you have to solve together with other people through negotiations? Almost everyone to whom I asked this question admitted that it is necessary to negotiate in almost all cases. Negotiation is the main method of decision making in both professional activity, and in my personal life.

William Urey is co-founder and associate director of the Program on Negotiation Theory and Practice at Harvard University. Together with Roger Fisher, he published the book “The Path to Agreement,” which became a bestseller, which sold two million copies and was translated into twenty-two foreign languages. W. Urey is also the author of Dispute Resolution: Developing Systems to Reduce the Cost of Conflict (with Jean M. Brett and Steven Goldberg), which received a Public Resource Center Book Award for excellence and innovation in its approach to dispute resolution.
An expert in negotiation and conflict resolution who taught at Harvard Business School, Yuri teaches seminars for corporate executives, union leaders, diplomats and military personnel. His clients range from A&T and American Express to the State Department and the Pentagon. He has repeatedly mediated in business, labor and international disputes.
As director of the Project on Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations at Harvard Law School, Urey published " Hotline- what's next? How to Prevent Nuclear War through Crisis Management." He was a White House consultant on the creation of nuclear risk reduction centers in Washington and Moscow. For five years, Urey was deputy director of the Prevention Project. nuclear war Harvard School of Management John F. Kennedy.
A graduate of Yale College, Yuri received his M.A. and Ph.D. Harvard University.

Dten years ago, together with Roger Fisher, we wrote a book "The Path to Agreement", which presented a step-by-step sequence of “dance moves” leading to the achievement of mutually acceptable agreements in negotiations. The book still generates considerable interest today, but almost every reader eventually asks: “Well, what if the other party hasn’t read your book? What if “dance” isn’t to their taste? What if they just say “no” "?
Psuggested book "Overcoming "No"" is dedicated to these difficult issues. I tried to reduce the technique of successful negotiations in difficult situations to a kind of universal method. It consists of five stages, all this is called “breakthrough negotiations”. "The Path to Agreement" describes, so to speak, a series of steps - "Overcoming No" shows how to involve a stubborn partner in the dance. Although the books complement each other, they are completely independent. You don't have to read the first one to understand and appreciate the second one.
PWhile working on the manuscript, difficulties arose related to the precise expression of thoughts. What do you call a difficult person? “Other” sounds too soft, but “opponent” is too strong an expression, since we are not talking about a duel in which one can only win or lose. Finally I settled on the term “your opponent”, which is what I mostly use. By definition, an “opponent” is not an “enemy,” but simply a person taking a position opposed to yours.
INOznik is also a question of pronouns. Who is the opponent: “he” or “she”? I tried to alternate between "he" and "she", but readers of the manuscript complained about the confusion. Eventually I reverted to using "he" and "him" as generic pronouns. I apologize in advance to readers who may find this offensive.
R While working on successive editions, I often felt myself and the role of an operatic tenor, whose final role invariably met with a warm reaction from the audience: “Encore! Encore!” Having performed the aria for the fifth time, he, I remember, begged: “Tell me, how many more times should I sing?” The answer was: “Until it comes out properly!”
WITHMy audience was just as demanding. I am immensely grateful for comments and suggestions from everyone who reviewed the manuscript, including Linda Antone, James Wotkin, William Breslin, Nancy Buck, Steven Goldberg, Richard Haass, Deborah Kolb, Linda Lane, David Lax, Martin Lynskey, David Mitchell, Bruce Patton , John Pfeiffer, John Richardson, Carol Rinzler, Jeffrey Rubin, James Sebenius, Dale Spencer, William Spencer, Daniel Stern, Douglas Stone, Elizabeth Ury and Janice Ury.
NI can’t help but mention my enormous debt to the Program on the Arts of Negotiation at Harvard Law School. For more than ten years, colleagues in the Program encouraged me to engage in intellectual research and supported me with friendly participation. The ideas presented here were formed and tested during free seminars and conversations under the hospitable roof of the Program.
DAnother Harvard colleague and friend, Ronald Heifetz, generously allowed me to use his apt expression, “to go up to the balcony,” a metaphor for stepping back, gaining a fresh perspective.
I I would also like to thank two talented research assistants. Sarah Jefferies and Annette Sassi combed through piles of material in Harvard libraries in search of relevant books and articles, meticulously selecting examples from the practice of negotiations. In addition, Annette wrote many notes with insightful comments while working on the manuscript.
Nand throughout the preparation of the manuscript, my assistant Cheryl Gamble demonstrated miracles of tirelessness - working 24 hours a day, she helped me meet the deadline set by the publisher. Never despairing, she managed to find a way out of crisis situations that arose every now and then, while not forgetting that someone needs to keep an eye on the day-to-day affairs of the department.
BWithout the help of my agent Rafael Sagalyan, this book might not have existed. It was he who prompted me to take the manuscript out of the long box, gave valuable comments, and connected me with the Bantam publishing house.
ABOUTBantam's excellent team has greatly improved the book. I was lucky enough to work with Genevieve Young, an excellent editor; Sparing no time, like a good helmsman, she led me through the reefs of endless alterations. Danelle McCafferty, editorial stylist, expertly penciled the final manuscript and supported me through the final stages. Betsy Cenedella took care of the careful technical preparation of the manuscript.
PLet me end on a personal note. Shortly before starting work on the book, I had the great happiness of becoming the husband of Elizabeth Sherwood. Then I did not attach much importance to the fact that the profession of an editor - unyielding and devoted - was their family calling. Dorothy, Richard and Benjamin Sherwood covered the margins of each successive version of the manuscript with skillful and subtle notes. Elizabeth read the book aloud with me from the first to the last page, condensing and clarifying it. I owe it to her most of all: her love and support gave me the strength to complete the difficult journey of working on the manuscript.

*****
William Urey. January 1991 Saita Fe, New Mexico

*********************************************

The need to negotiate with other people and reach agreements arises in various aspects life: business, politics, everyday communication. The success of negotiations primarily depends on the level of preparedness of its participants. The main components of the process are strategy and behavior model.

One of the founders of the Harvard School of Negotiation, international expert William Ury, published the book “How to Overcome NO: Negotiating in Difficult Situations” in 2012, which is a step-by-step strategy for negotiating in any situation in order to achieve mutually acceptable agreements.

The negotiation system presented in William Ury's book includes information that allows you to successfully resolve various conflicts: from international to domestic.

• express yourself in negotiations without dirty tricks and according to your own rules;
• find solutions that will suit both parties;
• concentrate not on the positions of the negotiators, but on their interests;
• separate problems and people.

The author of the book graduated from college at Yale and has a doctorate and master's degrees in social anthropology from Harvard University. William Ury currently conducts workshops for politicians, military and businessmen. Among his clients are the Pentagon, State. US Department, US Treasury, Ford and IBM.

William Urey is the author of several books and director of a program that teaches the rules of global negotiations. His works are written on the basis of a wealth of experience gained during consultations and work as a mediator during ethnic wars, strikes, international conflicts.

In the 80s of the twentieth century, William Urey helped the governments of the USSR and the USA create centers for reducing nuclear dangers. The author's books have been published in millions of copies.

Cooperation is the key to survival

The ability to cooperate with other people is one of the the most important conditions systematic development of society and productive activities in various fields. Great importance in this process is attached to the ability to find common ground with former opponents.

This aspect plays vital role in business and personal spheres. Globally, the ability to collaborate productively is fundamental to human survival. Solving serious international problems (economic development, environmental protection) depends on how willing rival states are to cooperate.

The military method of settling disputes does not bring results and is too expensive, so the ability to find solutions that suit both sides is of great importance. At the same time, we should not forget that healthy competition is one of the essential conditions for development. Negotiations allow you to find shortest path from confrontation to cooperation.

Alternative negotiation option

From the point of view of many people, the negotiation process is a complex and unpleasant activity. People perceive it as a choice between losing and winning (if relations with opponents worsen or even break). If there is a desire to avoid a problem associated with a conflict of interests, it is worth solving it together. This will be the key to success.

Joint decision problems involves the use of hard and soft strategies. When negotiating in this way, participants must use both seemingly mutually exclusive methods: being tough on the issue and being soft on people.

In essence, this means that the main target of attacks on both sides of the negotiations becomes the problem that caused the conflict. The basis for its decision is not the views of rivals, but their interests.

It is important to understand that negotiations should begin with preparation. In this case, the following points are taken into account: preferences, existing concerns, needs, doubts. All these aspects base the enemy's position and are his motivation.

The next stage of negotiations is to analyze various options for satisfying interests in order to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation in an effective and peaceful way.

Barriers to cooperation

In most cases, during negotiation processes, its participants have to face the following most common obstacles:

• The personal reaction of negotiators, which directly depends on individual condition person. Feelings of fear, anticipation of threats or refusal often become the cause aggressive behavior. As a result: in best case scenario the negotiation process will be interrupted, in the worst case, the communication will end without obtaining the expected result. Under no circumstances should negotiations and cooperation be stopped to avoid conflict situations. The fact is that then the yielding side will show its weakness and lose, giving it the opportunity to exploit itself in the future. When a relationship breaks down, both parties lose. To solve the problem, both participants must control their behavior and reactions.
• Emotional barrier. If at least one of the parties doubts the advisability of cooperation, negotiations will practically lead to nothing good. Opponents who are convinced that they are right will simply refuse to listen to each other, convincing each other that they are right.
• Opponents' position. The opposing side is often determined solely to capitulate the opponent and strengthen its position. Such opponents simply do not see an alternative to conducting the negotiation process.
• Opponents' dissatisfaction. If one of the participants in the negotiations is not interested in a mutually beneficial agreement, their conduct becomes possible only if the other party changes tactics. Often, aggressive negotiators will reject an idea simply because it is not theirs.
• Show of strength. If one of the negotiating parties is initially determined exclusively to win, cooperation is almost impossible.

Ways to solve problems

Each of these obstacles can be dealt with using a specific strategy:

• To suppress a personal reaction, it is necessary to maintain mental balance. The main direction of application of forces should be to achieve the goal of the negotiations. This strategy involves looking at the problem as a whole and is called “climbing onto the balcony.”
• To eliminate negativity, it is necessary to change the line of behavior, unexpectedly demonstrate the ability to perceive her interpretation of events, emotions and feelings. You must show respect to your opponent.
• You can change the position of rivals who only want the opponent’s capitulation if you show a deeper interest in their opinion and try to find out the motives for their behavior. This step is called “framing change.”
• If the negotiating partners are dissatisfied, pressure on them is excluded, since it will only lead to increased resistance. The negotiator's task is to bridge the gap between the interests of the parties. The strategy is called “build a golden bridge.”
• The ability to negotiate with an adversary who is confident in his own strength depends on the ability to use the other side's strength to learn.

Stages of the path to a mutually beneficial agreement

In order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, opponents need to consider the following factors:

• interests;
• ways to satisfy interests;
• standards for overcoming contradictions;
• negotiation alternatives;
• offers.

On the way to mutually beneficial cooperation, negotiators have to use various methods, methods and tactics (obstruction, attack, trick).

William Ury in his book provides invaluable information that allows you to learn how to communicate when different conditions with maximum benefit and achieve mutually beneficial cooperation.

You can find other electronic business books on the page.

How to overcome NO: negotiations in difficult situations William Urey

(No ratings yet)

Title: How to overcome NO: negotiations in difficult situations
Author: William Urey
Year: 2012
Genre: Foreign business literature, Foreign psychology, Personal growth, Job search, career

About the book “How to Overcome NO: Negotiating in Difficult Situations” by William Urey

Do you want to learn how to avoid conflicts and achieve success in the most difficult negotiations, convince the most difficult interlocutors, turn opponents into partners, conclude profitable contracts and deals?

The author of this book, one of the founders of the famous Harvard Negotiation Project, proposes a revolutionary “breakthrough strategy” consisting of five stages. Five “moves”, applied consistently, will help turn even a head-on confrontation into a joint search for a solution.

The strategy can be used with any opponent - a hot-tempered boss, an eccentric teenager, an ill-wisher colleague or an obnoxious client. It can be used by diplomats, lawyers, businessmen and even spouses who want to save their family. A breakthrough strategy allows you to achieve the desired result even in the most difficult negotiations.

On our website about books you can download the site for free without registration or read online book“How to Overcome NO: Negotiating in Difficult Situations” by William Ury in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot pleasant moments And true pleasure from reading. Buy full version you can from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For beginning writers there is a separate section with useful tips and recommendations, interesting articles, thanks to which you yourself can try your hand at literary crafts.

Quotes from the book “How to Overcome NO: Negotiating in Difficult Situations” by William Urey

Instead of offering the other party the correct answer, try asking correct question. Don't try to teach them - let the problem itself become the teacher.

“Why not do it this way?” or “What’s wrong with this approach?”

“I'm not sure I understand why you want this,” “Help me understand why this is so important to you,” or “You seem sure about this—I'm interested in understanding why.” It can also be helpful to preface your question with an acknowledgment: “I understand what you mean. I’m sure that the company’s policy is justified - could you explain exactly how?”

“If I understand you correctly, you are interested in reducing costs, improving quality and providing reliable service. Right?" Few people can resist the temptation to correct someone who has misinterpreted their interests. The manufacturer may answer: “Not really. You forgot about...” - and then he will reveal his interests.

“What if we push back the project completion date so that the additional costs fall within the budget? next year?”, or “What if we cut the project down to fit within the budget?”, or “What if we help you demonstrate to your boss that the benefits the company will receive are worth increasing the budget?”

Turn the conversation into a kind of brainstorming session.

If the other party begins to criticize your proposals, you can respond with something like, “I'm happy to hear your comments, but wouldn't it be better to put them on hold until we've looked at all the options? Then it will become clear which one is better.” Analysis kills creativity, which is why you need to invent first and then analyze.