Getting to Yes -- The final stop in the journey

Finally I moved to book "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In" by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It's the first published book in Yes/No negotiation series, however, it is the final results we are seeking for. We start with saying positive No to demand, then we get past No from the other side, now it is the time to getting to Yes to our desire. It was wrote two decades ago, and the principles in the book can very much still apply to real life amazingly.

The common problem in negotiation is people always bargain over positions no matter they pick soft or hard road. Although position bargain might gain what we want, it's more destructive instead of constructive way of working for the following reasons:

1. Arguing over positions produce unwise agreement since all attentions are paid to position and may ignore the underlying concerns and interests.
2. Arguing over positions is inefficient since both sides consume long time to hold their extreme position and make small concession only to keep the process going.
3. Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship since position battles and power forces produce more negative feelings to both sides.
4. When there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse since lacking of common position makes the negotiation impossible to develop, agree, and change a position.
5. Being nice is no answer since playing soft may show vulnerable to the other side who plays hard ball and the result may not be wise.

Thus neither soft positional bargaining nor hard one or in between is a good choice during negotiation. The author proposes a new methods: principled negotiation to deal with this dilemma and change the game.

Using Principled negotiation , all participants are problem-solvers and their goals are wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably. The solution focuses four points:

1. People: Separate the people from the problem: Be soft on the people, and hard on the problem.
   
2. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Explore interests while avoid having a bottom line.
   
3. Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do and decide later.
   
4. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard independent of will. Reason and be open to reason; yield to principle, not pressure.
   

Those four propositions are relevant through whole negotiation process including three stage of analysis, planning and discussion.

The second part of book is expanded with detailed explanation of four propositions list below.

Separate the people from the problem:

1. Remember that the other sides are people first. As a human being, negotiators and ourselves have different emotions, values, egos, backgrounds, viewpoints, and unpredictability.
   
2. Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship. The relationship tends to entangled with the problem. Also positional bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict.
3. Thus we need to separate the relationship from the substance, and base the relationship on accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotions, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook so that we can deal directly with the people problem. Keep in mind that perception, communication, and emotion issues could come from ourselves as well as the other sides.
4. Perceptions: Conflict lies not only in objective reality, but also from people's different perceptions. Thus understanding the other's perceptions and the difference between ours and their helps to resolve the conflict.
   1. Put ourselves in their shoes because how we see world depends on where we sit. As authors say:"People tend to see what they want to see. Out of a mass of detailed information, they tend to pick out and focus on those facts that confirm their prior perceptions and to disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions into questions." It reminds me the surprised match for interview process. Most of case interviewers make their minds within the first 5 minutes and spend the rest of time to confirm their perceptions about the interviewees. Sticking to our own perception will limit us into less flexible scope, like the story of the blinds who touch and feel the elephants. Everyone insists what he or she feels about what the elephants look alike is correct since he or she only touch own perceptions. Although to really put us in their shoes is a challenging job since people love to judge. We have to withhold our judgment when we try on their perceptions.
      
   2. Don't deduce the other's intentions from our fears, since people tend to assume that the other side will do whatever we fear most.
   3. Don't blame the other side for our problems, even if the other side is responsible, since it is counterproductive and make the other side defensive. Always separate the problem symptoms from the person.
   4. Discuss each other's perceptions in a frank, honest manner.
      
   5. Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with the other's perceptions to change their perceptions.
   6. Give the others a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process. If we want the other side to accept a disagreeable conclusion, it is crucial that we involve them in the process of reaching that conclusion. Involves the other side early, ask for their advice, and give credit generously for ideas wherever possible.
      
   7. Face-saving: make our proposals consistent with the other's values, since face-saving reflects a person's need to reconcile the stand he takes now with his principles and past deeds. It should not be underestimated.
      


5. Emotion: Negative emotions on one side will generate negative emotions on the other side.
   
   1. First recognize and understand emotions, including the other's and ours. Sometimes writing down what we feel and how we might like to feel helps to control our emotions. Understand what causes the other's and ours emotions helps us move forward without blocking by the emotions.
   2. Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate, including discuss it frankly with the other side. As author states:" Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions, people will become more likely to work on the problem."
   3. Allow the other side to let off steam. By allowing them release negative feelings makes it easier to talk rationally later. Author suggests a strategy to adopt is to listen quietly without responding to their attacks, and occasionally to ask the speaker to continue until he has spoken his last word.
   4. Don't react to emotional outbursts. An interesting rule used before is that only one person could get angry at a time.
      
   5. Use symbolic gestures, such as a notes of sympathy, or an apology at small cost produces a constructive emotional impact.
      


6. Communication: "Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different." There are three big problems in communication. First, negotiators may not be talking to each other, or at least not in such a way as to be understood. Second, even we are talking directly and clearly to the other side, they may not be hearing us at all. Third problem is misunderstanding or misinterpretation. To address those three problems of communication, authors bring the following strategy:
   
   1. Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said, such as " Did I understand correctly that you are saying that....?" No wonder "The cheapest concession you can make to the other side is to let them know they have been heard." "Let me see whether I follow what you're telling me. From your point of view, the situation looks like this...." Don't be afraid of acknowledge, since understanding and acknowledge of hearing does not mean we have to agree. Phrase our understanding positively, then come back with the problem we found out in that understanding make it easier to be accepted.
      
   2. Speak to be understood and be have to work together on a joint opinion.
   3. Speak about ourselves, not about the other side, since a statement about ourselves id most difficult to challenge. "I feel let down" is better than "You broke your word.". "We feel discriminated against" sounds better than "you're a racist."
      
   4. Speak for a purpose. Sometimes unsaid is better than speak too much. As authors point out: "Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and know what purpose this information will serve."
      


7. Prevention works best: since the best time to handle people problems is before they become people problems.
   
   1. Build a working relationship because dealing with a stranger is totally different comparing to dealing with a friend. Thus the more quickly we can turn a stranger into someone we know, the easier a negotiation is likely to become. Find ways to meet informally, arrive early to chat and linger after to meet. Authors use Benjamin Franklin's favorite technique-- to ask an adversary if he could borrow a certain book -- as an example.
      
   2. Face the problem, not the people. A more effective way is to think both sides as partners in a side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each. It's not a one time deal. We have to keep working on it, and deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits.
      

Focus on interests, Not positions:

1. For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions:
   
   1. Interests define the problem. The basic problem in a negotiation lies in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears -- which is their interests, while position is one of possible way to satisfy the interests.
      
   2. Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting interests. It's not necessary to assume that the other side's interests are always opposed to ours due to opposite positions.
2. How can we identify interests?
   
   1. Ask "Why?" to put ourselves into the other's shoes. Ask ourselves and the other side why they take a particular position for understanding purpose instead of justification of position.
      
   2. Ask "Why not?" to think about the other's choice. Check the consequences of the decision including the impact on our interests, and the impact on the group's interests.
      
   3. Realize that each side has multiple interests, not just the one arguing for. Understand the variety of somewhat differing interests and take all into account are important.
   4. The most powerful interests are basic human needs, including security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life, etc. Do not assume that money is the only interests.
      
   5. Make a list to sort out the various interests of each side in the estimated order of importance.
      
3. Talking about interests, because communication helps each other understand better.
   
   1. Make our interests come alive since it's our responsibility to have other side understand exactly how important and legitimate our interests are, without imply the other side's interests are unimportant or illegitimate. Be specific with concrete details to make the statement credible. Give the other side chance "Correct me if I'm wrong" to show our openness and test their acceptance on the statement. Persuade them step into our shoes, and let them feel no personal attack, just problem we're facing legitimately demands attention.
      
   2. Acknowledge the other's interests as part of the problem. Asking "Have I understood you correctly? Do you have other important interests?" demonstrates we appreciate their interests, so that they listen better if they feel that we have understood them. It also acknowledges that their interests are part of the overall problem we are trying to solve.
      
   3. Put the problem before our answer. As authors said, "If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals later."
      
   4. Look forward, not back. Ask two people why they are arguing, the answer will usually identify a cause instead of a purpose, since people are more likely to respond to what the other side has said or done than to act in pursuit of their own long-term interests. We can satisfy our interests better if we talk about where we would like to go rather than about where we have come from. Instead of arguing the past, talk about what we want to have happen in the future.
      
   5. Be concrete but flexible. "Illustrative specificity" means developing specific options and still opening to fresh options.
      
   6. Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Always remember to attack the problem without blaming the people, and be personally supportive such as listen to them with respect, show them courtesy, express appreciation for their time and effort, emphasize concern with meeting their basic needs, etc. Authors bring a useful rule of thumb, which is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem. Firm and open coexist.
      

Invent Options for Mutual Gain:

1. Diagnosis: why can't we expand the pie before split it? Why are we stuck with the one-dimension positions? Authors list four major obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options:
   
   1. Premature Judgment hinders imagination, and we may fear to say anything to be used as commitment or disclosure;
   2. Searching for the single answer means premature closure, and we may fear that free-floating discussion will only delay and confuse the process.
      
   3. The assumption of a fixed pie treat the negotiation as either-or winning situation, and we may not bother to think further at our expense.
   4. Think that "solving their problem is their problem" since both sides only concerns about their own interests. Shortsighted self-concern leads only to one side solution.
      


2. Prescription: authors also list four steps to invent creative options:
   
   1. Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging and deciding them.
   2. Broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer
   3. Search for mutual gains
   4. Invent ways of making the other's decisions easy.
      


3. Separate inventing from deciding: Invent first, decide later. It consists of questions, not assertions; it is open, not closed: "One option is ...What other options have you thought of?...What if we agreed to this?...How about doing it this way?...How would this work?... What would be wrong with that?"
   A brainstorming session with ground rule of postponing all criticism and evaluation of ideas helps to produce many ideas to solve the problem. Authors also provide some guidelines for us to execute an effective brainstorming session:
   
   1. Before Brainstorming:
      1. Define the purpose clearly.
      2. Choose a few participants, such as between 5 to 8 people is a good number.
      3. Change the environment, to make it distinguishing from regular discussions.
      4. Design an informal atmosphere so that people relax and free to talk.
      5. Choose a facilitator to keep the meeting on track and on ground.
         
   2. During Brainstorming:
      1. Seat the participants side by side facing the problem, instead of facing each other into argument.
      2. Clarify the ground rules, including the no-criticism rule, and more rules such as encouraging the wild ideas, making the entire session off the record, or refraining from attributing ideas to any participant.
      3. Brainstorm and just let the imagination go.
      4. Record the ideas in full view to stimulate the new idea, reduce the tendency of repeat, and demonstrate the no-criticism rule.
         
   3. After Brainstorming:
      1. Star the most promising ideas and narrow down the ideas worth developing further by group consensus. It's not decision yet.
         
      2. Invent improvements for promising ideas to make them better and more realistic. Constructive criticism like " What I like best about that idea is... Might it be better if...?" helps.
      3. Set up a time to evaluate ideas and decide.
         
   4. Consider Brainstorming with the other side. Although it may leads to the fear of disclosing confidential information, or increased risk, joint brainstorming sessions creates more benefits to take both sides' interests into account, create a joint problem-solving, and educate each side about the concerns of the other:
      1. Distinguishing the brainstorming sessions explicitly from the negotiation sessions where people state official views and speak on the record.
         
      2. Make it a habit to advance at least two alternatives at the same time.
      3. Put on table options with which we obviously disagree to show it's just mere possibilities, not proposals.
         


4. Broaden our options, since the key to wise decision-making lies in selecting from a great number and variety of options:
   
   1. Multiple options by shuttling between the specific and the general: The circle chart below this section shows how to invent options in four types of thinking.
   
   
   2. Look through the eyes of different experts, and try to examine the problem from the perspective of different professions and disciplines. This method can be combined with the Circle Chart to produce multiple options.
      
   3. Invent agreements of different strengths, such as a weaker version of agreement in case a sought-for agreement can't be reached immediately. Authors listed the pairs of adjectives to show potential agreements level:

      Stronger	Weaker
      Substantive	Procedural
      Permanent	Provisional
      Comprehensive	Partial
      Final	In principle
      Unconditional	Contingent
      Binding	Nonbinding
      First-order	Second-order

   4. Change the scope of a proposed agreement besides the level of strengths to fractionate the problem into smaller and more manageable units.
      



The circle chart:
What is Wrong              What might be done
-------------------------------------------------------
|Step 2: Analysis        |Step 3: Approaches          |
In|Diagnose the problem:   |What are possible strategies|
Th|Sort symptoms into      | or prescriptions?          |
eo| categories             | What are some theoretical  |
ry|Suggest causes.        ==\  cures?                   |
|Observe what's lacking.==/Generate broad ideas about |
|Note barriers to        |  what might be done.       |
| resolving the problem. |                            |
-----------/\-----------------------||-----------------
-----------||-----------------------\/-----------------
In|Step 1: Problems        |   Step 4: Action ideas     |
Re|What's wrong?           |   What might be done?      |
al|What's current symptoms?/== What specific steps might|
Wo|What're disliked facts  \==   be taken to deal with  |
rl| contrasted with a      |     the problem?           |
d | preferred situation?   |                            |
-------------------------------------------------------



5. Look for mutual gain: to avoid fixed pie thinking.
   
   1. Identify shared interests, make it concrete and future-oriented, and look for solutions that will leave the other side satisfied as well.
   2. Dovetail differing interests to reach agreement through difference. The difference in belief provides the basis for a deal. Authors also listed the common variations in interest to look for in the following table:

      One party cares about:	The other party cares about:
      Form	Substance
      Economic considerations	Political considerations
      Internal considerations	External considerations
      Symbolic considerations	Practical considerations
      Immediate future	More distant future
      Ad hoc results	The relationship
      Hardware	Ideology
      Progress	Respect for tradition
      Precedent	This case
      Prestige, reputation	Results
      Political points	Group welfare

      
      
   3. Ask for the other side's preferences, invent several options all equally acceptable to us and ask the other side which one they prefer. Based on the choice, work more details, and present couple variants to ask for preference again. This circulation helps to improve a plan with joint gains.
      


6. Make their decision easy:
   1. Pick up one identity in the other side, and think about Whose shoes?
   2. What decision? Draft a few possible agreements to aid clear thinking, adapted from some precedents, present them in a legitimate way starting from the simplest one.
      
   3. Making threats is not enough. Concentrate both on making them aware of the consequences they can expect based and improved upon offer, to evaluate an options from both sides' point of view.

Insist on using objective criteria:

1. Deciding on the basis of will is costly, and trying to reconcile differences on the basis of will is unlikely to reach a wise agreement. The solution is to negotiate on some basis independent of the will of either side, which is on the basis of objective criteria.
   


2. Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently. The standards of fairness, efficiency, scientific merit, precedent or community practice helps to settle the problem instead of trying to force each other to back down. In this way, no weak signal for both sides, since standards is reasonable.


3. How to Develop objective criteria to carry on a principled negotiation? Prepare in advance, develop some alternative standards beforehand and think through their application to the case.
   
   1. Fair standards: objective criteria need to be independent of each side's will, and legitimate and practical. It should apply, at least in theory, to both sides. Some example can be market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, what a court would decide, moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, reciprocity, etc.
      
   2. Fair procedures: we can use fair standards for the substantive questions, and fair procedures for resolving the conflicting interests. One sample can be to share the pie, one cuts, the other chooses. A variation on this procedure is for the parties to negotiate what they think is a fair arrangement before they go on to decide their respective roles in it. There are quite some basic means of settling differences such as taking turns, drawing lots, flipping a coin, letting someone else decide, etc
4. How to negotiate using objective criteria? Focus on it firmly but flexibly.
   
   1. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Ask the other side "What's your theory?" for their proposals or positions. Agree first on principles or standards to apply.
      
   2. Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied, because insisting that an agreement be based on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based solely on the criteria one side advance.
      
   3. Never yield to pressure, only to principle. Pressure can be a bribe, a threat, a manipulative appeal to trust, or a simple refusal to budge. The principled response is to invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria we think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis.
      

Negotiating From Confrontation to Cooperation

After I finished reading the book "The Power of a Positive No" from William Ury and learned how to root from ourselves, it's quite nature I would like to revisit his book "Getting Past No" to review how to negotiate our way from confrontation to cooperation.

After we stay in our shoes and give our proposals, we want a Yes back. In the real life, it's rarely happen in a smooth way, moreover, the answer back is No. How can we pass through this No constructively? William Ury's book tells about that almost two decades ago and it is still valid in today's world. I love his statement, especially "soft on the people, hard on the problem" tells the smart way to maintain the relationship while solving the problem.

Thinking about negotiation, immediately we may have a picture of two group of people sitting on the two sides of long table, face to face confronting each other. That's not the case. A better picture could be two group of people sitting together, side by side solving the problem jointly. Identifying the problem to be solved -- the interests from both side --instead of the position of each side --then we can start to explore the options to satisfy both sides' interests. Does that sound too simple to be true? Certainly easier said than done. To solve it, Ury listed some real world barriers preventing us from cooperation or tract us back confrontation situation:

• Our Reaction: we, as human being, can react differently to the No response, which could direct the renegotiation to an undesired emotional way.
• The other's Emotion: Even if we controlled our reaction, the others may not, which can lead to further distrust relationship.
• The other's position: Not everyone understand the benefit of looking at interests instead of position. The other side may stick to their position and want us to give in.
• The other's dissatisfaction: A mutually satisfactory agreement may not be all the interests from the other side. The deeper interests, such as fear losing face may lead to dissatisfaction.
• The other's power: Even we are treating negotiation as win-win situation, the other side may only want to win it by beating us up. The power play could prevent the other from any cooperation.

After we understand what kind of barriers we could face, Ury describes a five-step strategy to break through those barriers. Using indirect action, we can create an environment and help the other side learn how to break through their resistance by themselves. The five steps describes below:

0. Prepare:
   

Prepare is not a formal step, but it's crucial before any step. The more preparation we put down before the negotiation, the more likely we can achieve what we want. Ury listed five important parts in the preparation process:



1. Interests:
   
   1. Find out our own interests, and prioritize the list.
   
   
   2. Find out the other's interests, Instead of just facts, try to understand their perceptions of the facts
   
   
2. Options: After we know the interests of both sides, we can start to brainstorming the possible options without judgment, then evaluate those options to see if they satisfy the interests of both sides. Put "That won't work" criticism aside while we let the thinking go wild.
   
3. Standards: To avoid give-in from either side, we could use some standards to resolve the conflict fairly. The useful example of standards could be market value, equal treatment, the law, or the historic cases, etc.
   


4. Alternatives:
   
   1. BATNA(Best Alternative to a Negotiaed Agreement) can be executed without the other side. It's the base of evaluation of our negotiation, and the power during the negotiation. The weak our BATNA to our interests, the less power we can leverage during negotiation.
      
   
   
   2. There are three simple questions to explore our BATNA: What we can do to achieve our interests without the other side? What we can do to the other side so that they start to respect our interests? What we can do to the negotiation, such as bring in the third party, to extend our interests? The answer which satisfy our interests best is our BATNA.
      
   3. After we find the possible BATNA, we can think and develop the way to strength our BATNA to make it better and more powerful.
   4. If our BATNA is better than any other agreements we could reach with the others, why should we keep negotiating with the other? If we have correct idea about how powerful our BATNA is, BATNA is a great tool to help us decide if we should negotiate in advanced.
      
   5. Identify the other's BATNA. The old saying from Sun Tzu said:
      "Know thyself and thy enemy, victorious (work required to put knowledge to good use).
      Know thyself and not thy enemy; 50:50 chance.
      Knot not thyself and not thy enemy; defeat."
      (知己知彼，百战不贻；不知彼而知己，一胜一负；不知彼不知己，每战必败。)
      Knowing the other's BATNA can help us develop the agreement to beat their BATNA, also, it gives us the idea how to count their BATNA.
      
   
   
5. Proposals:
   
   1. Proposal is not only an option. It should be a possible agreement we can say Yes to. We can prepare multiple proposals in our mind before the negotiation.
      
   2. The good proposal should meet our interest and the other's interests, better than our BATNA, and beat the other's BATNA.
   3. Start with proposal " What do you aspire to?" as the best case scenario which satisfy both sides' interests easily and still be realistic.
   4. Consider with proposal " What would you be content with?" as the possible result which still satisfy both sides' interests but far from perfect.
   5. Stop at proposal "What could you live with?" as the last choice which just marginally beat our BATNA. If this proposal cannot be accepted, it's time to take our BATNA.
      
   
   
After all those preparation work, we gain enough knowledge in our mind. Now it's time to rehearse our mind in real before the real play. Keep playing until we make everything right. It's no doubt to caught some mistakes during the rehearsal instead of the real one.


1. Go to the Balcony -- Don't react:
   

To break our reaction, we have to stay focused on what we want to achieve. Go to Balcony can help us regain the mental balance and keep focus on the problem.

When we react to the confrontation, there are three common reaction without thinking:
we either strike back with our negative emotion; or we just give in our interests we will regret for; or we even break off the relationship with the other side.

None of those natural reaction helps to solve the confrontation effectively. If we lose our control, it's easy to lose our insights and objectives, thus lose our interests eventually. Even worse, it gives the other side best excuse and power to continue what they are doing. Ury explains it in a humorous way: "By reacting, you become part of the problem. Just as it takes two to tango, it takes two to tangle."

Thus, at any time during the negotiation that we want to react impulsively, we should go to our mental balcony to cool us down. Keep the prize in mind when we control ourselves. But how can we be aware of the situation? Identify the other's tactics and name the game. There are three common type of tactics we need to be prepared:

1. Stone walls: It is an obstructive tactic showing the other side refuse to budge. Some cautious statements list below:
   
   1. "What's done is done! IT can't be changed."
   2. "I can't do anything about it. It's company policy."
   3. "We'll get back to you later."
   4. "Take it or leave it!"
   
   
2. Attack: It is an offensive tactic trying to intimidate the other side and make the other side uncomfortable. Some samples to insult, badger, or bully the other list below:
   
   1. Threaten: "Do it or ....!"
   2. Attack the proposal: "It's way out of line!"
   3. Attack the person and credibility: " You haven't been in this job long, have you?"
   4. Attack the person status and authority: "I only talk to the real decision maker!"
      
   
   
3. Tricks: It is a deceptive tactic to trick the other side. Some common tricks list below:
   
   1. Manipulate the data by using false, phony, or confusing figures.
   2. "No authority" play: misleading by fake authority
      
   3. "Add-on" play: Throw last minute request into the request.
      
   
   
If we understand how those tactics play, we could react to it in a neutral way instead of nature reaction being played by those tactics. Of course, understand ourselves, and know what is our emotional susceptibilities, or "Hot Buttons", can prepare us without losing temper after we figure out the tactics the other side use.

Then we need buy us some time to go to balcony -- think. Ury lists some methods to get us more time:

1. Simply pause and say nothing, which helps us go to balcony, and may help the other side cool down. A useful way Thomas Jefferson describe: "When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, a hundred."
   
2. Rewind the tape can buy us more time, which gives us chance to clarify with the other side and slow down the process. It also shows we are active listening to the other side:
   
   1. "Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying."
   2. "Hold on. Let's back up for a minute and review..."
   3. Take careful notes: "I'm sorry, I missed that. Could you please repeat it?"
   4. "I am not sure I'm following you. Correct me if I'm wrong..."
      
   
   
3. Take a time-out if we need more time to consider. Find a good excuse to take a break:
   
   1. Excuse to take a break: "We've been talking for some time now. Before continuing, let me suggest a quick coffee break."
   2. "That's a good question. Let me find our and get back to you right away."
      
   3. Set up a separate caucus with own team.
   4. Temporarily change the topic to other stories.
   5. Bring along a partner to watch out each other, and get time out when the partner talks.
      

There are many ways to get ourselves move to balcony in our mind. The Rule of thumb is always: Never make an important decision on the spot. It's much better if we can sleep on a decision if all possible, or at least step outside before the conclusion. Test deadline and relax it if possible is another way to buy us more time.

I love to use the statement from Ury:

"Remember that agreement required your assent. Your worst enemy is your own quick reaction; only you can make the concession you will later regret."

"Don't get mad. Don't get even. Get what you want."



2. Step to their side -- Don't argue:
   

To defuse the other's negative emotion, we can step to their side, listen to them, acknowledge their points and feelings, and show them respect by agreeing wherever we can.


1. Active listening to the other side, give them chance to talk first, then reflect back and ask for the corrections:
   1. Don't interrupt even if we disagree or feel negatively.
      
   2. Let the other side know we are listening by maintaining eye contact, nodding, responding with "uh-huh" or "I see".
      
   3. Give the other side chance to finish by asking: "Is there anything more you would like to add?"
   4. Encourage the other side express all their thoughts by asking: "Yes, Please go on." or "Then what happened?"
   5. Paraphrase the other's talk and ask for any possible corrections. It ensures that we understand the other, and makes the other feel understood and satisfied.
      


2. Acknowledge with confidence the other's points even disagree to create the climate for agreement.
   
   1. Acknowledge is not an agreement, it only means that we accept it as a valid point of view among others.
      
   2. Recognize the other by saying: "I can see how you see things." or "You have a point there." or "I understand exactly what you mean."
      
   3. Preempt the other by saying: "If I were in your shoes, that's the way I'd see it."
   4. Acknowledge the other's emotion such as angry or fear, show that we understand why they feel as they do by saying:"I appreciate how you feel." or "You think...I can understand that. I'd probably feel angry too." and expressed in body language and tones sincerely.
   5. Apology for our share even the other side is the main cause:"I'm sorry you've had this problem. You're one of my favorite customers and the last person I'd want to see unhappy. What can we do to make it up to you?"
      


3. Agree to the other side wherever we can. Look for any opportunity to agree.
   
   1. Agree without conceding. Focusing on the agreed part which is the common ground for both sides, although it's natural for people to focus on the differences which cause the problem.
      
   2. Look for any opportunity to say Yes, such as "yes, you have a point there." or "Yes, I agree with you." At the same time, try to get as many Yes as possible from the other side. Turn even the controversial questions into a possible Yes answer instead of letting the other side say No.
      
   3. Observe the other side's communicative manner, and try to tune in their wavelength. Adapt to their communication tone, volume, and posture. Find out the sensory focus from the other, such as visual, auditory, or feeling, then connect with them by the similar language. An example could be: "Can't you see what I'm saying?" or "Let's focus on that." v.s. "I do see your point" or "I can picture what you're saying." is a visual pair. "Listen to this" v.s. "I hear you." is an auditory pair. "That doesn't feel right to me." v.s. "I'm not comfortable either." is a feeling pair.
      


4. Acknowledge not only the other's points, but also themselves personally.
   1. Remember that we have to treat person and behavior separately. As Ury said in his book: "Reaffirming the person does not mean reaffirming the behavior."
   2. Based on fact instead of purely flattery, acknowledge the other's authority or competence. Some examples are saying "You're the boss.", or "I respect your authority.", or "I've been told that you are the most knowledgeable person on this policy.", or "Your presentation was succinct, persuasive, and to the point. I don't think I've ever seen it done better."
   3. Build the positive working relationship with the other, so that they will more incline to our benefits.
      


5. Express our views without provoking: After we've done all listening and acknowledging work, we now start to get our voice heard.
   1. Use "Both...and..." instead of "Either...or..." minds. The differences can coexist after the reconciliation. Present our views in a cooperative situation instead of defeating each other.
      
   2. Use "Yes...and..." instead of "But,...". "But" is often interpreted as "I think you are wrong for the following reasons." "Yes...and..." let the other side feel more inclusive and agreeable. Present our views in an addition to rather than a direct contradiction to the other's view. Some good examples are "I can see why you feel strongly about this, and I respect that. Let me tell you, however, how it looks from my angle...", or " I am in total agreement with what you're tryint to accomplish. What you may not have considered it...".
      
   3. Use I-statement instead of You-statement. I-statement shows the other our experience and feeling impacting by their behavior or request. I-statement offers the other another angle to see the topic instead of challenging their views. It is our feelings, views, needs, concerns, and desires, instead of the other's issue. Some useful phrases are: "I feel...", or "I get upset when...", or "I'm not comfortable with...", or "The way I see it is...".
   4. Acknowledge the other's view, but stand firmly up for ourselves. Don't just give in to fall into the accommodate trap.
   5. Acknowledge the differences, and express optimism that the differences will be resolved. Affirm our interest to reach the agreement, and assert our belief that a satisfactory solution is feasible.
      

All in all, what we are trying to do in this step is to create a favorable climate for negotiation.


3. Reframe -- Don't reject:
   

To disarm the other's position, we can take their position and explore the interests behind it by active listening. Instead of stick to the inflexibility of the other's game, try to pull them into our game by not rejecting the other's saying and reframe it as a start to resolve the issue.



1. To change the game, change the frame by redirecting the other's attention from position to interests identification, available options or standards of faireness. A good example to shift the conversation can be: "That's interesting. Why do you want that? Help me understand the problem you are trying to solve." It is the power of positive perception.
   
2. By asking problem-solving questions, we can redirect the other's attention to the problem. Thus questions will be answered by their opinions instead of ours, which is more acceptable by the other.
   
   1. Ask "Why?" indirectly until we find out what kind of motivation behind the request. Invite the other to tell us more by asking: "Help me to see Why is it that you want that?" "I am not sure I understand What is the problem?" or "I'd be interested in understanding What are your concerns?"
      
   2. Ask "Why not?" if the other side does not reveal their interests and Why question doesn't work because people love to criticize. "Why not do it in this way?" or "What would be wrong with this approach?" gives the other chance to criticize our proposal and reveal their interests. Asking "If I understand what you're saying, your interests are ... Is that right?" People will be love to correct our misunderstanding of their interests by responding :"That's not exactly right. You've forgotten about..." and on and on.
      
   3. Build the trust between us and the other side can help the other more willing to reveal their points to us. Show them our interests and ask for theirs little by little, we can build the trust incrementally.
      
   4. Ask "What if?" to engage the other side in discussing options without challenging their position.
      
   5. Ask for the other's advice to engage them in discussing options. Ask "What would you suggest that I do?" "What would you d if you were me?" or "What would you say to my boss if I...?"People are flattered by asking for the advice and hard to resist the temptation to teach others. It also give us opportunity to educate the other side our problems.
   6. Ask "What makes that fair?" to protect us from unreasonable request. "You must have good reasons for thinking that's a fair solution. I'd like to hear them." We may need to propose the standard before asking for the fairness. Even if the other side rejects our proposed standard, we can still ask them to come up with a better one, so that the whole topic is around the fair outcomes instead of the positions.
   7. Make our questions open-ended and eye-opening. We do not want to ask questions build in with No as answer. So avoid the questions prefaced by "is", "Isn't", "can", "can't", instead prefaced our questions by "how", "what", "why", "why not", or "who".
   8. Tap the power of silence. Do not push for the answer immediately after our problem-solving questions. Give the other side time to engage themselves into problem-solving minds. Persistently Ask countless questions until we reach the answer.
      
   
   
3. Reframe tactics to be used:
   
   1. Go around Stone Walls: How can we deal if the other side draw a firm line: "take it or leave it"? Ury listed three ways to go around to reframe:
      
      1. Ignore the stone wall and continue on the problem. If the other side are serious about it instead of just bluffing, they will repeat.
         
      2. Reinterpret the stone wall as an aspiration or target, and redirect attention back to the problem.
      3. Take the stone wall seriously, but find reasons to test it. Try to turn the other's stone wall into our advantage.
         
      
      
   2. Deflect Attacks: How can we deal with the other's threats, insults, or blame? Here are some useful ways to deflect attacks:
      
      1. Ignore the attack and still focus on the problem. If the other side see their abusive tactics do not work, they will often stop.
         
      2. Reinterpret an attack on person as an attack on the problem, and ignore the attack on person part.
      3. Misinterpret an personal attack as friendly show of concern. Humorous interpretation helps bring the trust back.
      4. Reframe from past wrongs to future remedies, from who was wrong to what can be done to make it right and solve the problem. Admit the error and ask "How can we make sure it never happens again?"
      5. Use "We" instead of "you" and "me" create a shared atmosphere for the common goal.
         
   3. Expose Tricks by playing alone with it. We can response as if the other side is in good faith and not playing tricks with us, but we need to act slow and ask probing questions to test if that's trick. If there's no trick, no harm to probe. If there's trick, no confrontation directly and they can pretend it's mistake or misunderstanding.
      
      1. Ask clarifying questions to check and clarify the other side's assertions, and watch for ambiguities and outright evasions in their answers. However, we should pretend confused and ask for explanation even if we spot some contradiction. Try to ask some questions we've known the answer, and observe the behavior. For fake authority trick, ask "Am I correct in assuming you have the authority to settle this matter?" and make sure we get the specific answer. If the other don't have full authority, ask who else have to agree and how long it takes to get the answer. For last minute throwing demand trick, ask "Are you suggesting that we reopen the negotiation?" If the answer is no, then "well then, I think we should just stick with the agreement we've already reached." If the answer is no, then "All right. We'll treat it as a joint draft to which neither side is committed. Let's meet tomorrow to discuss possible changes after we both check with our boss." to buy more time.
         
      2. Make a reasonable request that the other side should agree if they are in good faith as the other side pretend to be cooperative, then decide the next step based on their response to the request. For another stakeholder trick, we can request to meet including that stakeholder and follow up from there.
      3. Turn the trick into our advantage since the more pretending the trick plays, the harder they can reject what they just pretend.
         


4. If all above efforts can not turn the game, we have to negotiation the rule of the game explicitly, which is the negotiation about the negotiation.
   
   1. Bring it up so that the other side can stop the tactics since we've known what they are doing. Be careful to present it as an interesting contribution instead of an underhanded trick to avoid attack feeling. Ury gives some examples to politely bring the tactics up: "It sounds like you're having a rough day." to rude response; "You are not intending to threaten me, are you?" to threats, or "You guys are terrific! That's the best good guy-bad guy routine I've seen in years. Did you plan it, or was it just a coincidence? Seriously now, let's see if we can establish a fair price for the books." to tricks.
      
   2. If bringing it up doesn't work, then we have to negotiate about negotiation first. Negotiate the process by identify interests, generate options for how best to negotiate, and discuss standards of fair behavior so that we can get back to the negotiate about substance constructively and productively.
      

Reframe helps to turn the game from positional bargaining into joint problem-solving.


4. Build them a Golden Bridge -- Don't push:
   

To satisfy the other's dissatisfaction, we can build a connection from their position to a mutually satisfactory agreement, build the bridge to fill the gap between their interests and ours.


1. There are some common reasons behind the stalled agreement. Ury lists four common reasons below:
   
   1. Not their idea
      
   2. Unmet Interests
   3. Fear of losing face
      
   4. Too much too fast -- overwhelming
      


2. Instead of pushing the other side who may resist further, we could build the golden bridge across the chasm of dissatisfaction, uncertainty, and fear so that the other side can easily step across towards to our preferred direction. The following are steps to disarm common resistances.
   


3. Involve the other side -- to avoid the feeling "not my idea". The process of negotiation is as important as the result, so we have to work together with the other side.
   
   1. Ask for and build on the other's ideas. We need to resist the temptation to tell the other side what to do, instead, we should ask for their ideas before we tell so that we get the other side involved and understand better their interests. Then we can build on their ideas by selecting most constructive part, starting with them, heading to the direction we want to go. "Building on your idea, what if we...?" or "As a follow-up to our discussion, it occurred to me that..." can show the other side how those proposals origin from their ideas so that they will buy in easily.
      
   2. Ask for constructive criticism. Encourage constructive feedback by asking problem-solving questions such as "which interests of yours does this approach fail to satisfy?" "In what respect is it not fair?" "How would you improve on it?" or "is there any way we can make it better for your side without making it worse for mine?" The asking--revising process can be repeated multiple times until all parties are mutually agreed and see the draft as their own.
      
   3. Offer them a choice. If the other side does not tell, we can start to ask small decisions with option provided such as "if this option better for you than that option?", "Which approach would you prefer?" or "Would you prefer to meet at your office or mine?". Offer list of alternatives so that the other side can choose from and turn the proposal into the other's idea.
      


4. Probe deeper, and Satisfy unmet interests:
   
   1. Don't assume the other side is irrational and never satisfied. So don't give up and complaint about inflexible. Try to step into the other's shoes and probe the deeper unmet interests.
      
   2. Don't overlook basic human needs, and always assume the other side only want money. There are a lot of other intangible motivations behind such as security, recognition, feel important, control, etc.
      
   3. Don't assume a fixed pie. It is not necessary to assume the more the other side, the less on our side, to satisfy the other's needs by frustrating ours. Be creative to look for low-cost, high-benefit trade by identify what's low cost for us, but high benefit to the other side, then trade it for items low cost for them, but high benefit to us. Or use "if...then" formula to avoid fighting the other side's skepticism: " what you want is the base, but if ...change, then you agree to ...change?" Take advantage over expanding the size of pie instead of fight for a fixed pie.
      


5. Help the other side save face so that they or their constituents do not feel giving in or look like losing the deal.
   
   1. Help them back away without backing down. Saving-face is not a cosmetic effort. It is the combination of people's self-worth, dignity, desire to look good, and ego.
      
      1. Explain how circumstances have changed although they may have been right originally.
         
      2. Ask for a third party recommendation
      3. Point to a standard of fairness if third party is not available.
         
      
      
   2. Help the other side write their victory speech to present to their constituents, to whom they care. Try to give them credit even that's purely ours.
      


6. Go slow in order to go fast -- to avoid the overwhelming feeling that too much needs to be decided in too short time. Break the process into small stages, pace them and stop if necessary, and look back periodically at how far we have come together.
   
   1. Guide them step by step, and break agreement into small steps, can make things impossible into possible. By moving progressively from the easier to the more difficult issues, we can get the other side into the habit of agreeing. Start with experiment or pilot before the final move on. Pause at each step to sum up progress and look at the rest of task shrinking.
      
   2. Don't ask for a final commitment until the end. If the other side is reluctant about step-by-step approach worrying that if they give an inch, we'll take a mile, don't press for an immediate concession. We can affirm them nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and they need not make a final commitment until they can see exactly what they will get in return at the very end.
      
   3. Don't rush to the finish if the process comes to the end. Take a moment to sum up:" let's make sure we both have the same understanding of what we have agreed on." Then go over each issue carefully. Put it in writing if possible. Encourage the other side consult with their constituents.
      
Building a golden bridge for the other side cross the chasm make it easy for them to say yes.



5. Use Power to Educate -- Don't escalate:

To dissolve the other's power, we can show our power to educate them the winner in the power game can not be them alone. The win-win situation is the only solution for both sides. If we use power to escalate and force, we could easily end up with lose-lose situation.

The power paradox tells that "The harder you make it for them to say no, the harder you make it for them to say yes." To overcome this power paradox, we could make it easy for them to say yes by providing golden bridge, and still make it hard for them to say no by exercising power. As Ury says: " Use power to bring them to their senses, not to their knees." Ury also lists many ways to bring the other side back to the table.


1. Let the other side know the consequences:
   
   1. Ask Reality-Testing questions such as:
      1. Ask "What do you think will happen if we don't agree?": "Are you aware how serious the consequences will be for both of us if we don't settle this issue?" If the other side might have misunderstood or ignored the consequences.
      2. "What do you think I will do?": "What will you advise me to do if you were in my position?" or "what do you expect me to do to satisfy my interests?" If the other side may underestimate the strength of our BATNA, use questions to show them we are not as vulnerable as they thought.
         
      3. "What will you do?": "What are you likely to do in the absence of agreement? How will that satisfy your interests? How much will that cost you?" If the other side may overestimate their BATNA, use questions to probe its negative parts.
         
      
      
   2. Warn but not threaten. Let the other know directly what will happen before we adopt our BATNA and give them last chance to reconsider. Be objective and respectful instead of subject and confrontational to avoid backfire.
      
   3. Demonstrate our BATNA to educate the other side. Walk out the table peacefully and leave the door open for them to change the mind by saying:"I'm sorry, but the way in which we have been negotiating is not likely to lead to a constructive outcome. I'm ready to negotiate anytime you are. Here's my contact. Please give me a call when you're ready. Until then, I guess I'll have to pursue my alternatives." Prepare the BATNA is another way to demonstrate our BATNA.
      


2. Use our BATNA to defuse the other's reaction. The more power we use, the more we need to defuse the other's resistance.
   
   1. Deploy our BATNA without provoking the other side, keep in mind the goal is to bring them to negotiation table. Use the minimum power necessary to deploy, or use legitimate means so that less negative reaction arise.
      
   2. Neutralize the other's attacks instead of striking back and keep in mind the goal is to show them that they can satisfy their interests only by negotiation, not punish them.
      
   3. Tap the third force to leverage:
      
      1. Build a coalition, identify potential allies who most likely to sympathize with and lend support to our cause, or the other side's constituency, or the neutral people in the middle.
         
      2. Use third parties to stop attacks.
      3. Use third parties to promote negotiation. They could induce the other side return to negotiation, or settle dispute by mediating.
         
      
      
3. Keep sharpening the contrast between consequences of no agreement and the golden bridge. Keep sharpening the other's choice, still leave our generous offer on the table in full view and provide them an attractive way out.
   
   1. Let them know they still have a way out. It reminds me the old stories of "背水一战": while the people are forced to die, they will fight for their lives with largest power.
      
   2. Let them choose between the contrast and make their decisions.
      
   3. Even if we can win, we still try to negotiate. Not only will the other side resist more, but also they may try to undermine or reverse the outcome as much as they can.
      


4. Forge a lasting agreement:
   
   1. Keep implementation in mind to induce the other side to keep their words and protect us if they don't, since the other side may failed to carry out the terms even if we reach the agreement. Act independently of trust.
      
      1. Design the deal to minimize our risks. Make sure we don't need to carry out our side until the other fulfill theirs, and build guarantees into the agreement.
         
      2. Build in a dispute resolution procedure.
         
      
      
   2. Reaffirm the relationship. Be generous at the very end. Resist the natural temptation to claim the victory. Gracious words and symbolic gestures can help, or a signing celebration for both sides.
      



Overall, we need to keep in mind that we're aiming for mutual satisfaction, not victory on our own. We use power to educate instead of fighting.

That's all for five-step breakthrough. As Ury says: " The goal is not to win over them, but to win them over. "The five-step breakthrough strategy plus patience and persistence will lead us to the successful cooperation and agreement more likely. Thus we can turn face-to-face confrontation into side-by-side joint problem-solving by turning negotiating adversaries into partners.

Actually a lot of points are repeated in Ury's newest book "positive No". Does that sound repeating and wasting of reading time? Absolutely Not. In my point of view, reaffirming those points is a great practice to make it our natural response.

So, what will be the next? Buy the book for all the others to save the trouble of renegotiation? Probably a good idea. LOL.

What's the real world project management?

Finally I got time to read the new book "Scrappy project management" from Kimberly Wiefling. I knew it will be a great book and I wanted to read it immediately after I knew her new book will be published. Why? Kimberly is a very energetic lady who motivates people around her. I love her style and admire her rubber chicken. Oh, did I tell you the story about rubber chicken? I had one cute rubber chicken at my desk. I still remembered the time Kimberly dropped the rubber chicken to the ground and asked us why the chicken dropped. So many answers presented. Earth gravity for sure. The most powerful answer I even got is:" I let it go!" The rubber chicken won't drop if we would not let it go! The impossible task won't be accomplished if we would not try!

I was reassured that point after I finished the preface. PMBOK is a good start to learn what should happen for a project from start to finish. It is neat and ideal in a sanitized world. "Real projects are messy!" How can we achieve most and take advantage of PM knowledge while we are dealing with the real world case? Kimberly showed us a scrappy world where we lived in.

Here's the scrappy project management checklist Kimberly presents:

1. Be completely and unrepentantly obsessed with the "Customer".

Do not assume anything. Find out who is the customer, what is the needs of customer, and how can we delight the desire of customer. We should never be busy with other matters instead of meeting with customer. The reason comes from the fact: "More than 50% of all new products fail to meet their goals because they don't meet the needs of their target customers and because they are released with unacceptable quality issues. Even when the quality is acceptable, between 60% and 90% of all new products fail to meet customer expectations."

Surprised? You should not. While whole project team members are working hard to meet the schedule deadlines, the assumed requirement may not meets customer expectations at all. No matter how sophistic your product can be, the REAL CUSTOMER may feel "you never listen to me" simply because it is not what customer needs. Does this sound so simple? Many projects failed because of the customer ignorance.

Customers may not know what will be the ideal solution before the solution is invented. However, they are the truly firsthand source to share their issues to overcome, their headache to kill, and their dissatisfactions to delight, with you, if you are carefully and actively listening.

So, before the project starts, the first thing we need to do is to pay a visit to our customer. The cost of trip will be rewarded by the customer satisfaction certainly.



2. Provide shared, measurable, challenging and achievable goals as clear as sunlight.


The number one reason project failed is the lack of goals. Thus team can not achieve the goal and project failed. Ask all stakeholders what their project goal is, they may give you different view of goals. If those different view of goals are towards different direction, the team will be stretched apart.

"You can Do it!" Only if you know what "IT" means. "All road leads to Rome." Only if Rome is the eternal destination.

A traditional way: SMART goal which defines the success exit criteria for a project is essential to project success.


• Specific: who, what, when, which, why, where
  
• Measurable: how do we know it is finished?
  
• Achievable: the project to make people live forever is born to fail, at least, in my point of view.
  
• Relevant: A car company may not want to build a spaceship.
  
• Timely: someday will never work.
  


The famous project Triple Constraint defines three important factors: Schedule, Scope, and Cost. However, they are not the only factors in the play. Finishing a project on time, with the right requirement, and within budget does not mean the project is success. There are a lot of other aspects to consider: quality, usability, profitability are just some examples to ensure the successful project.

Moreover, most people only look at the simple SMART goal in their success scorecard. The results are the only focus without considering the impact of the process on people themselves. We, as a project leader, have to have our own success scorecard while contains both results and relationship. As always, the relationship last longer than the companies.

I love the scorecard Kimberly give in her book. She mentioned the key attributes of a useful scorecard as follows although the format varies:


• A complete list of success criteria
• A clear description of each of these criteria
• SMART target for each criterion
• The minimum acceptance limit for each criterion
• Prioritization of these criteria, at least the top three most important one
• Updated at each major checkpoint with status and action required to make it move
• Clear ownership to get accountability


Since not everyone in the team will read long requirement documents, a one-page scorecard keeps the team members aware of the goals clearly and posted with the progress. It's also a useful technique to communicate with stakeholders who are busy with many other matters.


3. Engage in effective, vociferous and unrelenting communication with all stakeholder.
   

text

4. Ensure that roles and responsibilities are unmistakably understood and agreed upon by all

text

5. Create viable plans and schedules that enjoy the team's hearty commitment.
   

text

6. Mitigate big, hairy, abominable risks and implement innovative accelerators.
   

text

7. Prioritize ruthlessly, choosing between heart, lungs and kidneys if necessary.
   

text

8. Anticipate and accommodate necessary and inevitable change.
   

text

9. Challenge assumptions and beliefs, especially insidious self-imposed limitations.
   

text

10. Manage the expectations of all stakeholders: under-promise and over-deliver
    

text

11. Learn from experience. Make new and more exciting mistakes each time!
    

text

12. Attitude of gratitude: celebrate project success and some failures, too!
    

text

text

[Edit: to be continued.]

No is today's biggest challenge

William Ury's new book "The power of a positive No" describe a big challenge in today's society. He provides great advice on negotiation on his book series. Firstly, you need to understand yourself and be able to say no to defend your interests, which is the focus of "The power of a positive No"; secondly, you need to know how what is the interests of the other side, which is the focus of "Getting past No"; and finally, you need the both side working together to reach the agreement, which is the focus of "Getting to Yes".

Saying No means the possible stretch on relationship, while saying Yes means the possible stretch on yourself. The book starts with Three-A Trap description:

• Accommodate: do you ever have time to say Yes to your boss while you actually want to say No? That's the time you sacrifice yourself fearing to lose relationship;
• Attack: do you ever have time to say No to your partner angrily with a lot of hurting words you will be regret saying while you recover your sanity? That's the time you focus only on yourself and behave destructively on relationship without calm;
• Avoid: do you ever have time just keep silent while you really should speak out your opinions no matter it's Yes or No? William Ury quoted a great statement from Martin Luther King Jr., " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Do we always need to trade off between our interests and our relationships? Is there any way we can adopt to affirm what we want without comprise the relationship? William Ury's answer is a positive No, which he illustrated as a "Yes! No. Yes?" paradoxical tree below:

• Yes!: The root of tree comes from a Yes to your deeper interests which sustain the tree; This is a Yes to your own interests and to explain the reason you are saying No.
  
• No.: The trunk of tree comes from a No to assure your limit and power; This is a No expressing where you are standing.
  
• Yes?: The next Yes is the branches, foliage, and the fruits grown based on root and reach towards outside on top of the trunk of No. That is the positive balance between relationship and interests, which is the win-win situation we wanted for negotiation. This is a Yes to question a new proposal or an alternative to solve the result of No.
  

One good lesson we learned while we're searching for the deepest needs is Never response on angry or fear or any negative feeling. As Ury stated: " Anger can blind, fear can paralyze, and guilt can weaken." Thus it's easy to get into Three-A trap since anger leads to attack, fear leads to accommodate, and guilt leads to avoid. No wonder people always say the biggest obstacle to get over is yourself. To avoid react on negative emotion, we can take some time out, just wait a minute, listen and control our emotions.

Sometimes, the internal interests are not obvious reason to say No. There is a useful way to find out the deepest interests by digging deeper to Five Whys. Ury listed the five most common basic human needs are:

• Safety or survival
• Food, drink, and other life necessities
• Belonging and love
• Respect and meaning
• Freedom and control over one's fate

Similarly, there are certain values are common for individuals, such as honesty, integrity, respect, tolerance, kindness, solidarity, fairness, courage, and peace, which could provide motivation for your Yes. What really matters to you is the root of Yes.

On the way achieving a positive Yes, there are a lot of rule of thumbs to follow, such as:

• To transform negative emotion into positive intentions, we need to observe and accept the negative emotions, conserve the energy, then release it constructively towards positive actions.
• Our No is for our needs, not against the other.
• Prepare a Plan B, BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement), if Plan A -- Acceptance is not possible. Plan B is not an option for agreement, but rather an alternative to agreement. Thus Plan B can be executed without the cooperation from the other, while an option need acceptance from the other and depends on the other. Alternative plan B can be do it yourself, or exit the scenario, or look for the third side instead of the other. Also, it's not direct jump from agreement nonacceptance to Plan B. We need some smaller intermediate plans before we arrived at the ultimate plan.
• Seek likely allies and build a winning coalition are great way to empower the positive No.
• Before express the positive, reassess our decision by checking if we have the interest in saying No; if we have the power in saying No; and if we have the right in saying No. If all answers are yes, consider the worst case scenario and prepare the alternative plan. Sometimes, plan B is not necessary to attack the others. It's more effective to remove the ability of the others to attach us.
• Start with self respect, we can respect the others because of who we are. Respect is an expression of ourselves and our values. Act with respect, we are able to observe the others and their interests.
• Active listen and ask questions to clarify the needs and problem of the other, which helps to show our respect to the other. We only say No to the request itself, and we should never say No to the person no matter we like the person or not. Acknowledging the request and needs of the other is the best way to show the respect and recognition of the other.

• When we construct our Yes, we can use three kinds of statement to empower our Yes.
• The-statement is the fact based statement focusing on problematic behavior without confronting people: Stick to the fact; do not tell the other should or should not do something; do not use judgmental or subjective words; be careful of using "always, never, nothing, or everything" to categorize a person negatively.
• I-statement tells your interests and needs rather other's problem. Describe the fact and express the feeling, then describe the interests.
• We-statement shows a common ground for the shared interests

• It is challenging to say No in a clear, honest, and respectful way. The No needs to be assertive but not being too aggressive. Polite with calm tone is a good choice to say No. There are couple useful way to say No, such as:
• Direct saying firmly with "No" or "No, Thanks";
• Showing No is not a special against to the other: "I have a policy";
• Showing No honestly: " I have other commitment or other plan";
• Soften the focus when you are in doubt: "Not now";
• Acknowledge the limits clearly:"I prefer to decline rather than do a poor job"
• To express your rights and power by saying No firmly, clearly, and politely to wrong behavior: "Please stop/No";
• Interrupt the wrong behavior to call for a pause:"Hold on/Whoa/Wait a minute";
• Clarify the policy in a neutral announcement:"That's not OK/That's not appropriate/That's not allowed";
• Frame not OK as I-statement without hurting the relationship:"It's not OK for me/This doesn't work for me";
• Setting up the limit clearly. It's time to stop:"That's enough";
  
• A good strategy in saying No is to reframe the No into a Yes with implied No. Using a positive statement with a clear boundary defined by saying what is possible under what kind of condition.

• Do not stop at saying No. Step further by proposing other options to get Yes. "I do not want this" or "I will not do this" is no better than "Although No, I want that" or "Although No, I can do that". A win-win situation should address the interests of both sides. Here are couple technique we can use:
• Invent an option for mutual interests
• What about later?
• We can agree if you satisfied the following conditions, etc
• Suggest a problem solving process to figure out the common point.
• Positive proposal or constructive request has to be clear, precise, be specific, positive, respectful, and doable.
  
• People tend to choose from one of the choices when they were asked. Given an example: "Do you want to buy a pie?" may leads to answer No or Yes, while "Which one you want: an apple pie, a peach pie, or a pumpkin pie?" will likely leads to one of kind pie purchase instead of no purchase.
• Curve of acceptance derived from Kubler-Ross's research shows the general stages when people are facing No: starting from avoidance to No, to the denial of No, then anxiety or even anger feeling towards No, next bargaining started if threat doesn't work, then the sadness feeling leads to final acceptance. We can adopt the following techniques to lead the confrontation of No passing the curve and leading to the acceptance as soon and smooth as possible.
  
• Stay calm without attack or avoidance.
• "Save as draft" instead of "Send" to let the emotional response elapse, and regain the self-control.
• Figure out the tactic the other used to defend or attack, and name it in mind before response.
• Physically pinch the palm to stay clam and focus on the right thing.
• Sometimes not reacting and letting the other express their feeling and waiting for the chance to response is powerful.
• Be an active and respective listener but not an insider. Be empathized while listening to show your understanding instead of sympathized to feel the pain with the other side.
  
• Slowing down the discussion by repeating or paraphrasing what others said of your understanding could fast track the process of understanding and negotiation.
  
• "Let me make sure I understand what you are saying."
  
• "If I hear you right, you are saying that."
  
• "Help me understand. If I hear you correctly."
  
• Acknowledge the point but not give in. Let the other express their feeling and respect it without conceding ours: " I understand your point. It is a valid point. I happen to see the situation differently."
• Use "Both...and..." mind-set instead of "Either...or..." choice. "Yes,...and..." is easier to gain the agreement instead of the contradicting feeling of "but...".
• For people who used to be accommodate to the demands, "Oh?So?No." response is a great way to avoid the accommodating mistake:
• Oh? to acknowledge the other's words in a neutral voice;
• So? to let the other explain their needs and feeling and play all the tactics;
• No. to stay firm with our core interests.

• If others do not respect our No, do not react with the rage. Try to repeat our No to the other many times so that people can hear that your No means No. If that does not work, then educate the other the consequences of not respecting our No to show the power. If none of the positive methods are working, deploying the plan B as the last resort. Ury used a word from Sun Tzu: "The best general is the one who never fights." (不战而屈人之兵）
• Repeat No consistent and persistent.
  
• Find some Anchor phrases to use often, such as:
• "This doesn't work for me."
• "No thanks."
• "I am not comfortable doing that."
• "I am sorry, but I'm not interested."
• "We have already chosen a few charities where we want to focus our giving."
• "I am sorry, but I don't feel comfortable discussing that right now."
• "I would prefer not to."
• Use intentional repetition to let the other understand that your No really means No.
• Ask reality -testing questions so that the other can figure out the logical consequence of rejecting your No instead of just telling the other the result. Use warning if necessary instead of threating.
  
• "What will happen if..."
• "Have you thought about how this will affect... if..."

• What we really want in the end is a Yes of positive outcome. Thinking more about "Both...and..." or win-win situation to satisfy interests of both sides. To get to the final Yes, we need a Yes to the agreement from the other, we also need a Yes to approval from the other side, and eventually we need a Yes to maintain great relationship between us and the other.
  
• To get the agreement, stay firm to our essential interests without giving in, while we can try our best to understand and satisfy the unmet interests from the other.
• Our job is not done after we get the agreement from the other. We have to step into the other's shoe and think how the other gain the approval and support from their constituency, such as their boss, family, or even themselves. Use an "Acceptance Speech Test" to address who's their constituency, what are the key themes or arguments of their acceptance speech, what is the most likely criticisms to speech, such as "Why did you give up?", "What did you give up?""What about our needs?", etc, and what are the best responses we can help to prepare to criticisms. The help to get approval should be presented to the other in a respective way. Saving Face is important to achieve the approval and maintain the relationship.
• Saying No might comprise the relationship between us and the other. It is important to acknowledge the other, express the apology or regret sincerely to reach to the other and rebuild the trust and confidence. Looking for the opportunity to refill the Goodwill account after the negotiation. Acknowledge the difficulties or regrets, thank the other, and end with a positive future to show the respect. Here is a great example from Ury's book:

• "I know dealing with this issue hasn't been easy for either of us. I just want to thank you for your efforts to respect my needs in this situation. And I look forward to working with you on this issue and many others."

Reading this book was a great pleasure and enjoyable journey. I would recommend this book to whoever want to improve his or her ability to negotiate. It's not the book sitting on the shelf lonely. "Yes! No. Yes?" approach seems to resonate with real life all the time.

I would like to end this reading note with Ury's statement:
"There is no doubt that delivering a Positive No requires courage, vision, empathy, fortitude, patience, and persistence. But is is within the reach of everyone every day, and the rewards are potentially enormous."
"In closing, I wish you the kind of success that can come only from being true to yourself and respectful to others!"

Life is endless. Time is the best cure.

Time goes so fast. I didn't try to write anything down for a while. Now when I look back, I can talk to others normally about my loss, and I can think to prepare for the next one. No wonder people always say time is the best cure.

I still do not understand why. None of us has bad habits such as smoking, drinking, or drug. I didn't miss any regular check, and I ate all stuffs no matter I like them or not. The worst comes worst is I didn't feel any problem. It is not like I saw a spot, or I felt the pain. Nothing. It is gone silently. I heard the heart beat before, the next exam told me no more heart beat detected. The doctor told me that it is called "missed miscarriage" and it is nothing abnormal. Suddenly, my world was turned upside down.

Even though the modern technology develops a lot, doctor has no clue why I had it. She just gave me two choices: either medicine or D&C. I picked D&C because I don't want to flush my precious baby down to the toilet. It is unbearable to think about that. The procedure is a small, fast outpatient surgery. I lied with clear mind, my husband stayed with me all the time. There are some bleeding, and cramps afterwards. But there is not much pain, or I can not feel it physically. I just felt empty all by myself, and that drove me crazy. It took me long time to go through that kind of emptiness.

Half year past by. I thought the pain will never end. It is still with me, but not that dominant. Life continues. I was told to move on and I have to look ahead. I attended another baby shower. I can even prepare the baby shower for my friend without tears down in my face. Inside my heart, nobody will see. I can look at all baby stuff on the shelf, and try to pick the best as the presents. Although I am in deep deep jealous while I looked at happy one, I felt guilty to envy their happiness. I would guess what will that be if I didn't have that damn missed miscarriage. It is expected time if I am still happy one.

The good thing is not much people know my loss. I hate people asking me how am I doing although that is friendly concerns. I hate to answer " I'm doing better, thanks". However, that can be another devastating start. On and on and on, people ask when you will have your baby during the baby shower. I hate it too. I thought I was mentally prepared before the shower. I am not. Attending the baby shower and preparing for the baby shower are the most difficult things I have ever done after the miscarriage. Sometimes I was wondering that women may suffer much more than men. My husband didn't show much emotional responses for the shower. Or maybe I am wrong since I didn't show up in my face too. I know I am healing, but the scar in my heart will stay with me forever.

With all my hearts, I hope all expected mother will not experience the pain. But if you do, you have all my support, friendship, and wishes. You can talk all your grief, loneliness, depression, and healing with me or here. I felt silent in my grief. It is a pain nothing else can compare. You have to overcome by yourself. I, like a lot of other grievers, am always here for you.

In theory, it might be good thing for my baby because scientists said that the root cause comes from some defects of fetus. In real life, I blamed everything I can blame, including myself. I should not get cold, I should not eat this or that, I should do more exercise before the pregnancy, etc... Nothing can take the time back and return my happiness to me. The only thing I can do is to let it go and keep a secret garden for my baby in my heart forever. We do not have predestined relation. That is the fate.

At least I have the courage to share my feeling, and contribute to others. I collected a lot of websites on my way. Here is the link to those information about miscarriage:
http://del.icio.us/puzzle/miscarriage
I hope those information can help people understand more and stop blame themselves. Accept the fate and move on. I hope my precious baby will come back to me. The same wishes to all of you who suffered.

缘起缘灭，渠会永无缘。