Getting To Yes Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Review

September 21st, 2021

Where the interests are directly opposed, the parties should use objective criteria to resolve their disputes. Letting such differences trigger a will fight will destroy relationships, be ineffective, and probably won`t produce smart deals. Decisions based on reasonable standards allow the parties to reach agreement and maintain good relations. The principled method of negotiation was developed in Harvard`s program on the negotiation of Fisher, Ury and Patton. [6] Their aim is to reach an agreement without compromising trade relations. [7] The method is based on five theses:[8] Consider negotiation as a way to solve a problem and people on the other side as partners who help find a solution. Ideally, both sides come out of a negotiation that feels they have a fair deal that can benefit both sides. To protect yourself, develop and know your BATNA: the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. “The reason you`re negotiating is to produce something better than the results you can get without negotiating.” The result you can achieve without negotiations is your BATNA. “Two men are arguing in a library. One wants to open the window and the other wants it to be closed. .. Enter the librarian.

She asks you why he wants to open the window: “To look fresh.” She asks the other why he wants to close it: “To avoid a project” [his interest]. After thinking for a moment, she opens a window in the adjacent room and brings fresh air without air. The fifth principle – “Know your BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement)” – points out that no method can guarantee success if all the leverage is on the other side. [8] The authors propose two methods for negotiating from a position of power. First, each party should first protect itself. Second, each side should make the most of the power within its own assets to negotiate and win against the other side. The above exercise should aim to take a mutually beneficial approach by defining your common interests. For example, a common interest could be the future of our relationship with the other. The authors argue that it is possible to reach an agreement by disagreement. This is done by offering several options acceptable to us and asking the other party to respond in the same way.. . .

Comments are closed.