Getting to Yes Book Resume
3 criteria for judging anu methos:
Should produce a wise agreement: one which meets the legitimate interest of each side, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durabñe and takes community interests into account
It should be efficient
Improve or at least not damage relationship
3 stages: analysis, planning and discussion.
SEPARATE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM
Peoples problems: perception emotion communication
Perception
Put yourself in their shoes: reduce area of conflict
Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears, no asumir
Don’t blame them from your problem, even if justified
Discuss each other perceptions
Look for opportunities to act inconsistemly with their perceptions
Give them a stake in the outcome bye making sure they participate in the process (also share credit)
Face-saving: Make your proposal consistent with their values (allow someone to go without feeling badly){explain how decision is consistent with principle: justify, fundament}
Emotion
First, recognize and undersand emotions,theirs & yours: write how you/he feel & how would like to feel
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
Allow the other side to let off steam(listen without responding to attacks, and ask to continue until his last word)
Dot react to emotional outbursts(selfcontrol)
Use symbolic gestures (produce constructive emotional impact){apology even when no personal responsibility}
Communication
3 problems: negotiators not talking to each others (third parties, own constituency, spectators), even if talking directly they DON’T LISTEN to you, misunderstanding
Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said (interrupt occasionally and ask if you understood, phrase you questions POSITIVELY)
Speak to be understood(also stablish private means of communication to avoid distractors, limit size of the groups meetings)
Spea about yourself not abour them (I feel let down instead of you broke your word, avoid risk of making false
Should produce a wise agreement: one which meets the legitimate interest of each side, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durabñe and takes community interests into account
It should be efficient
Improve or at least not damage relationship
3 stages: analysis, planning and discussion.
SEPARATE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM
Peoples problems: perception emotion communication
Perception
Put yourself in their shoes: reduce area of conflict
Don’t deduce their intentions from your fears, no asumir
Don’t blame them from your problem, even if justified
Discuss each other perceptions
Look for opportunities to act inconsistemly with their perceptions
Give them a stake in the outcome bye making sure they participate in the process (also share credit)
Face-saving: Make your proposal consistent with their values (allow someone to go without feeling badly){explain how decision is consistent with principle: justify, fundament}
Emotion
First, recognize and undersand emotions,theirs & yours: write how you/he feel & how would like to feel
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
Allow the other side to let off steam(listen without responding to attacks, and ask to continue until his last word)
Dot react to emotional outbursts(selfcontrol)
Use symbolic gestures (produce constructive emotional impact){apology even when no personal responsibility}
Communication
3 problems: negotiators not talking to each others (third parties, own constituency, spectators), even if talking directly they DON’T LISTEN to you, misunderstanding
Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said (interrupt occasionally and ask if you understood, phrase you questions POSITIVELY)
Speak to be understood(also stablish private means of communication to avoid distractors, limit size of the groups meetings)
Spea about yourself not abour them (I feel let down instead of you broke your word, avoid risk of making false