Thursday, December 18, 2008
Another year
Friday, May 16, 2008
We all can help the China Quake!
24 hour TV coverage(in Chinese narration, but picture tells a lot)
CCTV 24 hour coverage 24小时直播5·12汶川地震灾情
Sichuan Sat TV 24 hour coverage 四川卫视24小时直播5·12汶川地震灾情
Sichuan TV 24 hour coverage 四川电视台第4频道直击震中救灾现场
News Links:
Special reports in English
Special Reports in English from XinHuaNet
Rotation news in Chinese
Special Reports in Chinese
How to Help:
One of Donation channels
Another donation channel (paypal or google checkout)
(Tips: Check if your employer can provide the company match so that we can maximize the benefits to victims.)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Pray for them! Hope for the miracle!
Pray for them. I hope that miracle can happen! I wish it's just a scary dream.
Open your eyes! I was so touched by many many stories: teachers gave up their family, their children, even their own life to save the students; nurse kept saving lives while lost contact with her son. Whole nation is united no matter political positions. Shame on those people who claimed human rights all the time, but behave so cold to the disaster. I can't say how disappointed with the cold-hearted biased media: why you can only see the downsides? because that's your heart.
Life is so fragile. What can we do to help? .......
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Best wishes to those affected by China quake in Sichuan
I was terrified by the news that massive 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit Sichuan province, one of the highest population density area, on May 12, 2008. A major quake jolted Wenchuan County of Sichuan province at 2:28 pm on Monday, and most of China felt the shake, from Beijing, to Shanghai, to Guangzhou, thousands of miles away. The toll of the dead and missing soared as rescue workers dug through flattened debris in a desperate attempt to find survivors of China's worst earthquake in three decades. All my sympathy and condolence to those affected by the massive quake, and I hope more survivors can be rescued on time.
I was amazed by the fast response from Chinese government to handle this natural disaster. Premier WenJiabao rushed to the endangered area immediately to oversee rescue efforts, to rescue as much as possible at fastest speed at any cost. The officials launched a massive government relief operation following the disaster. A lot of soldiers and armed police arrived in the quake-hit areas with more on the way by planes, trains, trucks or on foot. For tremor around the country, open communication makes people stay calm. The timely delivery of domestic and international donations to disaster areas can help the quake relief.
I was much disappointed by the media bias outside China. I saw "western" news and blogs talk about the quake and death, talk about the quality of buildings, and talk about the terrors around the people. However, not much news talk about how Chinese people rescue themselves, and how Chinese soldier rescue their people. In a world, why not talk about the positive sides when a massive disaster happened? Although I was disappointed by the politics corruption in the past, the ruling party was, is and will do all it could to protect its people. Premier went to the area with hundreds of aftershocks; soldiers walked 50 miles in 20 hours on foot to reach the disconnected area under heavy rain and aftershocks; the affect counties are well ordered to save people. Comparing to the disturbance happened in New Orleans and not much immediate help from government, should people around the world start to discover the virtue of Chinese nation?
At the moment, the number of casualties is still unknown. There are still disconnected counties unreachable, and rescuers were stranded outside Wenchuan as roads were blocked by boulders and rocks following the earthquake.The old Chinese saying said: to build the road in Sichuan province is much harder than to build the road to the heaven. With the heavy storms and destroyed road, the rescue work is difficult to move into those areas. I really hope the rescue can find more survivors and less impact to those affected area. I hope more funds and supplies will be provided around the world instead of criticism gesture for politics.
As Premier Wen Jiabao said through a bullhorm to survivors still buried under debris, "We will save the people. As long as the people are there, factories can be built into even better ones, and so can the towns and counties." People is the foundation of the country. The survivors, along with the giant panda, one of the famous symptom of nation, will stay and rebuild the tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Life played me again...
Life played my again. I had my second miscarriage. I felt to be doomed. Did I do something wrong? I'm not the one who always do good things to others, but I never really hurt somebody else in all my life. So why me? why us again? I just found out that I'm pregnant, cramp started. I feel the blood lost underneath, and I knew it can't be stopped. People said that it's better to be loved than never been loved, I disagree. If I knew that'll be the end, I would rather never start it. The pain is the worst pain when you have the joy in the beginning. You never know how strong the wine is unless you're drunk; you never know how that hurts unless you loved it before. "醉过方知酒浓,爱过方知情重", I used to love that poem for the words, now I can resonant it with my heart. I know that the time will be the best cure for all the wound, but I will always lock my two little lovely girls in my heart. I can still hear they're laughing and playing each other. But the life continues.
Friday, January 18, 2008
『豆浆食谱』+ 『豆渣食谱』
『豆浆食谱』 滋补保健类: 『黄豆豆浆』 『五豆豆浆』 『制法』 1、将五种豆类浸泡6—16小时,备用 『功效』降脂降压、强筋健脾、保护心血管。 『五豆·红枣豆浆』 『枸杞豆浆』 『花生豆浆』 『黑豆芝麻浆』 『百合莲子浆』 『消暑二豆饮』 『二豆蜜浆』 『“三加一”健康豆浆』 『红枣绿豆豆浆』 健脑益智类: 『核桃杏仁露』 『花生乳』 消暑冷饮 『草莓奶昔』 『香橙苹果什饮』 『蜜桃鲜蛋液』 『消暑酸奶』 『豆渣食谱』
营养食物纤维 『小豆腐』 豆渣食谱:豆渣食谱家用全自动豆浆机打完豆浆后,留存在网罩内的豆渣,细腻糯软,浓香爽口,比起工业产豆浆后的豆渣又干净又细腻,弃之可惜,若善加利用,细心调配,亦可制成独具风味的美食。
豆渣沥干之后,色拉油烧至5成热,先用花椒、大蒜爆锅,然后将豆渣倒进去翻炒,炒熟。放多一点葱花,再翻炒片刻,盐可以放但不要放太多。配上豆浆,泡菜,烧饼馒头,再加一个鸡蛋,就是很好的早餐。
豆浆机产生的豆渣加适量面粉、面包糖、五香粉、胡椒粉、鸡精等配料;什锦配料可自己根据口味选配,如:香菇、青椒、辣椒、红椒、洋葱、大葱、火腿肉、精肉馅、莲藕、胡萝卜等;加入鸡蛋、香油、水适量和面成微软状;做成适当大小的薄饼入平锅或电饼铛煎制即可。
用料:豆渣、玉米面,一比一,加少许水调成糊状,另烧半锅开水,待开水沸腾后倒如调好的豆渣糊,煮沸片刻即得。特点:比只用玉米面作的粥香甜,更近于国内加豆面的那种玉米面烧成的粥。
用料:豆渣适量、葱、姜沫、鸡蛋2个、盐、味精、油等做法,用油、葱花爆锅后加豆渣翻炒,打入鸡蛋,继续翻炒。作用:含丰富的营养,常吃能健身补脑。
用料:鸡蛋3个、豆渣100克、葱花、盐、食油适量。做法: 1、将豆渣装入盆中,打入鸡蛋,并将盐、葱花等加入其中搅拌均匀。2、将少许食油加入饼铛中,然后将准备好的豆渣鸡蛋倒入电饼档中,摊平四五分钟后即可食用。特点:做出的豆渣蛋饼色黄味香,含有丰富的蛋白蛋。尤其适合厌食肥胖或营养不良的儿童和老人食用。
用料:豆渣100克、玉米面40克、水少许。将五豆豆渣放入盆中,加入玉米面,搅拌均匀,捏成窝头,入锅蒸十分钟即成。特点:五豆窝头有丰富的营养,具有降脂补脑降压等多种作用,经常食用对保健养生大有益处。 7.豆渣丸子: 用料:豆渣适量、瘦肉1-2两、鸡蛋2个、青菜少许、面粉适量、食盐适量。将瘦肉和表菜切碎,和豆渣、鸡蛋、面粉一块搅和,调入食盐,做成丸子,入锅煮熟即可。作用:营养丰富全面,适于补虚。 |
Here are some recipes I collected online:
豆腐渣因口感差几乎被人们遗忘,但是它含有丰富的蛋白质,而脂肪含量却很低,豆腐渣富含纤维素,纤维素可吸收糖分,从而缓解身体对多余糖分的吸收。豆腐渣可解除饥饿感抑制脂肪生成,故可减肥。
此外豆腐渣中含有大量人体所需的钙质,每100克豆腐渣中钙的含量达0.1克,同牛奶一样,所以豆腐渣也是补钙强壮骨路的保健食品。
以下介绍豆腐渣的几种吃法:
(1)葱末豆腐渣
原料:豆腐渣500克,葱花200克,精盐、味精各适量,色拉油50克。
制法: 豆腐渣放入盘中上锅蒸透,葱花撤在豆腐渣上备用。炒锅上火,注入色拉油烧至六成热时放少许葱花,炒出香味,倒入盘中豆腐渣及葱花,煸炒片刻放盐、味精颠炒出锅。
(2)豆腐渣炒蒜苗
原料:豆腐渣200克,青蒜100克,花椒水、盐、姜末、色拉油各适量。
制法:
①将青蒜切成碎末备用。
②炒锅上火,放入色拉油,加入姜末稍炸,将豆腐渣放入炒几下,倒入花椒水,加盐和青蒜翻炒几下即成。
(3)茄汁豆腐渣
原料:番茄酱50克,豆腐渣200克,笋50克,盐、味精、糖各适量,色拉油50克。
制法:
①将笋洗净,切为细丝,入沸水中焯一下备用。
②将炒锅上火,倒入色拉油炒番茄酱,酱出红油倒入豆腐渣,笋丝翻炒片刻加盐,味精拌炒即成。
(4)三色豆腐渣
原料:豆腐渣200克,青辣椒50克,胡萝卜50克,葱末、精盐、味精、色拉油各适量。
制法:
①将青椒、胡萝卜分别洗净均切小方丁,入开水中焯一下备用。
②炒锅上火,放入色拉油,油热放葱、豆腐渣、盐煸炒片刻,然后入青辣椒丁、胡萝卜丁、味精速炒即可出锅。
(5)锅榻豆腐渣
原料:豆腐渣150克,鸡蛋2个,葱10克,胡萝卜10克,精盐、味精各适量,色拉油50克。
制法:
①将豆腐渣入蒸锅蒸10分钟,取出备用。
②鸡蛋打入碗中,搅打成泡,葱切细末,胡萝卜搅汁,同入碗中加豆腐渣再次搅拌备用。
③炒锅上火,注入色拉油,油热将碗中之物倒入,炸至金黄色将味精、盐和水倒入锅中,盖上盖子焖上几分钟,汁尽出锅即成。
(6)香炸豆腐渣
原料:豆腐渣,淀粉,精面粉,白糖,牛奶,芝麻,植物油
做法:各种原料拌匀,揉成团,做成饼状,平锅里放植物油烧热,放入做好的豆腐渣饼炸制,待两面呈棕红色时捞出即可。
其他方法
油热爆葱,放入肉末,加一点点酱油,放入豆入渣炒熟就好了,也可以不放肉炒素的。
牛肉馅,罗卜丝(热水烫过)豆腐渣,葱,姜切碎,调料粉,盐,鸡精调和好,加少许面粉 炸丸子,决对美味
近年来,国外的科学家研究发现,豆腐渣中含有较多的抗癌物质“异黄酮”。经常吃点豆腐渣,可以大大降低乳腺癌、前列腺癌、胰腺癌及大肠癌的发病危险。
研究结果同时表明,豆腐渣还含有大量的钙,每100克豆腐渣中含有100毫克钙,几平与牛奶的含钙量相等。值得一提的是,豆腐渣中的钙具有极易被人吸收利用的特点,是人们补钙最价廉、易得的佳品。此外,豆腐渣中的纤维素能吸附食物中的糖分,减少小肠壁对葡萄糖的吸收,减轻胰脏的负担。因此,常吃豆腐渣能预防和辅助治疗糖尿病。
豆渣中有蛋白质、糖类,但主要是膳食纤维。膳食纤维可以防治便秘、降血脂、血糖,对肥胖症、高血压、高脂血症、经常性便秘等疾病都有预防和治疗作用。但豆渣的口感不好,一般在磨制豆浆时,第一二次取豆浆,剩下的磨细直接做成豆花或者煮豆浆稀饭或者豆腐,口感就好多了。
高血压,医生向我推荐一种饮食疗法:喝豆浆,以黄豆为主,加少量的黑豆、豌豆、花生和核桃仁。
1)豆渣粥
用料:豆渣与西人店都可以买到的玉米面,一比一左右。
加少许水调成糊状,另烧半锅开水,待开水沸腾后倒如调好的豆渣糊,煮沸片刻即得。
特点,比只用玉米面作的粥香甜,更近于国内加豆面的那种玉米面烧成的粥。
2)小豆腐
用料:豆渣适量、葱、姜沫、鸡蛋2个、盐、味精、油等
做法:把油、葱花、姜末放入豆渣中,在锅内翻炒两下,打入鸡蛋,继续翻炒3~5分钟,加入盐、味精等调味品即可。
作用:含丰富的营养,常吃能健身补脑。
3)豆渣蛋饼
用料:鸡蛋3个、豆渣100克、葱花、盐、食油适量
做法:1、将豆渣装入盆中,打入鸡蛋,并将盐葱花等加入其中搅拌均匀。
2、将少许食油加入饼铛中,然后将准备好的豆渣鸡蛋倒入电饼档中,摊平四五分钟后即可食用。
特点:做出的豆渣蛋饼色黄味香,含有丰富的蛋白蛋。尤其适合厌食肥胖或营养不良的儿童和老人食用。
4)五豆窝头
用料:一豆豆渣100克、玉米面40克、水少许
做法:将五豆豆渣放入盆中,加入玉米面,搅拌均匀,捏成窝头,入锅蒸十分钟即成。
特点:五豆窝头有丰富的营养,具有降脂补脑降压等多种作用,经常食用对保健养生大有益处。
5)豆渣发糕
将豆渣倒入一只碗中,加入适量面粉和少许发面粉,静止几分钟后,放进平盘,放入蒸锅蒸熟,一盘又松又软的豆渣发糕就做好了。揭锅后,将平盘中的豆渣发糕切成适当的方块或长条就可食用了。这种豆渣发糕不仅营养丰富,而且其中的粗纤维对人体的消化系统、防治糖尿病等大有好处。
6)炒豆渣。用葱花、调料炒,是一道味道颇佳的主食兼副食
7)鸡蛋豆渣饼。用豆渣和鸡蛋烙制薄饼,作为早餐面食营养不错
8)豆渣糕:豆渣加水、加面种(没有的话用酵母、泡打粉也行),发一个晚上,第二天做时加牛奶、鸡蛋、糖,微波炉里转上几分钟,就成豆渣糕了,发得好大,象发糕一样。
9)用豆渣炸丸子。
原料: 新鲜豆渣、面粉、胡萝卜丝、香菜末、花椒粉、盐。
制法: 将以上原料搅拌均匀(不要加水)制成丸子,炸时火不要太旺,炸好后,外焦里嫩,口感很好且极富营养。
10)豆渣也有个简单的吃法,放上油,葱花,姜末,把豆渣炒一下,放清水适量开后放上青菜(也可以先把青菜用水绰一下),打上一个鸡蛋,盛盘滴上香油,味道也是不错的。
11、什锦豆渣煎饼http://www.ecpay.cn/mumu/douzha.htm 图片介绍制作过程。
12、营养早餐:豆渣沥干之后,色拉油烧至5成热,先用花椒、大蒜爆锅,然后将豆渣倒进去翻炒,炒熟。放多一点葱花,再翻炒片刻,盐可以放但不要放太多。配上豆浆,泡菜,烧饼馒头,再加一个鸡蛋,就是很好的早餐。
13、豆渣丸子:豆渣适量、瘦肉1-2两、鸡蛋2个、青菜少许、面粉适量、食盐适量。将瘦肉和表菜切碎,和豆渣、鸡蛋、面粉一块搅和,调入食盐,做成丸子,入锅煮熟即可。作用:营养丰富全面,适于补虚。
14.豆渣饼的制作面饼基本配方:
精白粉150g、马铃薯粉46g、砂糖21g、食盐1.2g、花生油18g、鸡蛋6g。 以一定比例的豆渣取代部分面粉,经和面、成型、烘烤(或油炸)制成一系列食品。
15.白豆沙馅的制作
新鲜豆渣加适量水,用高速组织捣碎机搅拌破碎,用纱布滤至半干。蒸煮约18min,加入豆渣量70%的白砂糖,煮至稠糊状、用烘箱烘至表面无水,即得成品。
用上述方法制得的白豆沙馅风味较好,口感比纯豆沙粗糙,粘稠性也较低,但完全可以取代豆沙制作各种包点。
16 豆渣牛肉丸的制作
原料配方(%):豆渣糊34.0、碎牛肉7.8、人造奶油0.8、鲜奶油7.6、面粉7.6、洋葱15.1、调味料0.8、食盐0.45、面粉 18.25、水7.6。用豆渣代替原牛肉丸子配料中的马铃薯泥,成品口感滑润,无豆渣味。豆渣牛肉丸子中,蛋白质、膳食纤维含量高,是一种很理想的食品。
17.白菜炖豆渣: 油烧热,把豆渣和白菜丝放入炒一炒,豆渣炒出香味儿,然后放水煮直到豆渣熟了.不要炖得太干.当然要适当放盐,酱油,也可以放一小瓣大料(八角),花椒什么的.很好吃的啊.
现代的营养学研究证明,豆腐渣具有很高的营养价值。中医认为豆腐渣味甘性凉,具有清热解毒,消肿止血的作用。常适量的进点豆腐渣大有好处,可防治动脉硬化,高血压,糖尿病,便秘等,对老年人延年益寿也很有作用:
1.防治便秘:
豆腐渣中含有大量的食物纤维,是膳食纤维中最好的纤维素,被称为大豆纤维。常驻机构吃豆腐渣能增加大便体积,使粪便松软,并可促进肠蠕动,有利于排便。可防治便秘,肛裂,痔疮和肠癌。
2. 防治心脑血管疾病:
豆腐渣中的食物纤维能吸附贮留于十二指肠内胆汁中的内源性胆固醇,阻止了胆固醇的吸收,从而有效地降低血浆和肝脏的胆固醇水平,对预防血粘稠度增高、高血压,动脉粥样硬化,冠心病,中风等病的发生都非常有利。此外豆腐渣中的钙还能抵御血压的升高,心脑血管疾病的患者常吃豆腐渣,在助于疾病的康复。可减少中风、心肌梗塞发生的危险。
3. 降低血糖:
豆腐中的纤维素还可以吸附食物中的糖份,减少肠壁对葡萄糖的吸收,经常吃豆腐渣,能预防糖尿病。此外豆渣还含有粗蛋白质,不保和脂肪酸,这些物质有利于延缓肠诞辰对糖的吸收,降低餐后血糖上长的速度;纤维素还能使胰高血糖素的分泌的兴奋性降低,并影响氨基酸的代谢,从南昌可防止进食后血糖的迅速升高,对控制糖尿病的患者的血糖十分有利。
4. 减肥瘦身:
豆腐渣具有高膳食纤维、高粗蛋白,低脂肪、低热量的特点,肥胖者吃后不仅有饱腹感,而且热量比其它食物低,在减肥期间食用可解除饥饿感,抑制脂肪生成,又能为身体提供必要的营养成份,使健康瘦身效果更显着。
5. 防癌抗癌:
美、德、日及荷兰等国科学家先后发现,豆腐渣中含有较多的抗癌物质皂角苷,经常吃点豆腐渣,可大降低乳腺癌,前列腺癌,胰腺癌,及大肠癌的发病危险。
6. 预防骨质疏松:
豆腐渣中含有大量的人体所需要的钙质,每100克豆腐渣中钙的含量达0.1,同牛奶一样,所有的豆腐渣也是补钙强壮骨骼的保健食品,豆腐渣中地保健钙质,极易在消化道吸收,它对人体传导神经的功能信号,维持组织器官和运动系统的生理机能都十分必要,同时可补充骨骼和牙齿的钙质,能防治中老年人的骨质疏松症。
7. 美白养颜(MM们注意了哦…… )
豆渣中含有丰富的营养成分,以纤维素和蛋白质为主,可以吸附皮肤表层的平时不容易清洗的垃圾,所以有美白养颜的功效!具体方法:用温热的豆渣拌入少许蜂蜜,洁面,然后取一些拌好的豆渣在脸上轻轻的搓揉(手法同按摩霜或去角质霜),再将剩下的豆渣敷在脸上(薄厚自便),用棉质面膜或毛巾沾水拧干盖在上面保持水分,十五到二十分钟后揭掉面膜用清水洗净,再用冷水洗脸,这时,你就会觉得脸上有紧绷的感觉,而且肤色明显变白了许多,脸上的雀斑也淡了,最后,再搽上晚霜或保湿产品就OK了!(变得更漂亮了记得帖照片出来哦……)
The No Asshole Rule --the inevitable experience in the life (Continued)
- Don't join the Jerks, and get it right at the beginning. As Leonardo da vinci saide, "It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end." The more time and effort that people put into anything, the harder it is for them to walk away. The "too-much-invested-to-quit" syndrome is sound social psychology.
- Walk out, or stay away as much and fast as you can. If you can't or won't quit the job, do everything you can to limit the contact with the worst people.
- Warning: seeing coworkers as rivals and enemies is a dangerous game. When status differences between people at the top, middle and bottom of the pecking order are emphasized and magnified, it brings out the worst in everyone. Trivial differences in language had profound effects on how willing people were to e selfish and dishonest backstabber, such as people are primed with words like enemy, battle, inconsiderate, vicious, lawyer, and capitalist are far less likely to cooperate than when first exposed to words like helped, fair, warm, mutual, and share. Try to use ideas and language that frame life in ways that will make us focus on cooperation. First, although many situations do require a mix of competition and cooperation, try focusing on the win-win aspects. Most inspiring managers has a few things in common, including they thought and said we rather than I. Second, adopt a frame that turns our attention to ways in ways we are no better or worse than other people instead of we are superior, which provoking arrogance and negative opinions of others, or inferior, which provoking envy and hostility. We are all the same in most ways. Reminding us of our common humanity helps us see and treat other people in ways we would like to be treated. Finally, Tell ourselves that I have enough. Although common attitude "whoever dies with the most toys wins." helps the constant improvement, taken too far with constant dissatisfaction, unquenchable desires, and overbearing comparativeness can damage the mental health, and trapped us in a lifelong contest where we want "more more more for me me me" and never get enough. Feel satisfied and be at peace with ourselves help us treat others with affection and respect.
- See yourself as others do. Since nearly all human beings travel through life with distorted and often inflated beliefs about how they treat, affect, and are seen by others, we should try contrasting what we believe about ourselves with how others see us. Only after we discloses that we worked hard to change our negative behavior, we will be able to get open comments from the others and change ourselves. Testing how other people see us and making adjustments as a result constantly avoid us to be a jerk.
- Face your past. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Facing the facts about the past, even the dark past, can be a powerful way to assess the risk of acting like an a* in the future, and start changing our "a* proneness". Facing the fact that the borne personality, the culture and environment around us have measurable and strong effects to our behavior and starting to change.
In real world, we may trapped in places surrounded or inevitable encountered with mean-spirited colleagues without the luxury of escape immediately. What can we do to survive nasty people and workplaces? Dr. Sutton gives a great analytical guidance from rafting experience: if you fall out of the boat in rapids, don't try to fight it; just rely on your life vest and float with your feet out in front of you. That way, if you are thrown up against rocks, you can use your feet to push off, and you will protect your head and conserve your energy. Similarly, while we are dealing with the nasty workplace, we can use the following strategy to keep our mental and physical health intact:
- Reframing: change how you see things, include avoiding self-blame, hoping for the best but expecting the worst, developing indifference and emotional detachment. It was backed up by psychological theory: if you can't escape a source of stress, changing your mind-set about what is happening to you, or reframing, can help reduce the damage done to you. When people view difficulties as temporary and not their fault, and as something that will not pervade and ruin the rest of their lives, this frame protects their mental and physical health and enhances their resilience. There are no needs to be a victim and think irrationally like "I will never get over this," "I must have done something wrong for this to happen to me," and "everyone hates me."
- Hope for the best; expect the worst. It is supported by another psychological theory that happiness reflects the difference between what you expect versus what you actually get in life. Keep the expectation that the jerks will change their behavior low, but continue to believe that we will be fine after the ordeal is over, then we will not be surprised or upset by the nasty behaviors, and even enjoy the pleasant surprise if they do behave nice. Thus having low expectations for an a* boss, focusing on the good things, and being optimistic about how it will all end can help us endure a horrible situation.
- Develop indifference and emotional detachment. Passion, commitment, and identification with an organization is absolutely correct if we are in a good job and are treated with dignity and respect. However, when organization life takes the ugly turn, learn to feel and practice indifference and emotional detachment, caring as little as possible about the jerks around us help us survive.
- Look for small wins: Finding hundreds of tiny actions we could take each day to take a modicum of control over our lives-- the feeling that one is in control--can reduce feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. Aiming for small wins is often more effective than aiming for big wins, since the advantage of taking small actions is that they bring about noticeable and typically successful changes. Besides, most big problems can be solved only one small step at a time, progress can be made if all people are taking all small positive steps in the right direction. Another advantage is the opponent may ignore the small wins, while over time, a series of small wins may add up to a big win against the opponent. To survive a nasty workplace that we can't escape completely, start looking for small ways to seize bits of control; try to find little steps we can take to reduce our exposure to their venom; build pockets of safety and support, as the act of helping theirs alone is good for our mental health.
- Limit your exposure to face the jerks: to suffer less direct damage, and to gain even tiny bits of control. Meet them as rarely as possible, schedule meetings that will be short such as using no chairs, use information technologies such as email or tele-conference to buffer us from a* are some tactics to limit the exposure. When those tactics in use, pay special attention that conflict, such as disagreements characterized by anger and hostility is more likely and trust is lower when groups do work that is mediated by information technologies than in face-to-face meetings.
- Build pockets of safety, support and sanity: by finding escape locations or rooms, joining or forming a secret social network of victims, finding tiny moments with supportive colleagues or customers. Be careful when we use this double-edged sword that gossip sessions sometimes do more harm than good if it focus on creating arenas that produce and spread feelings of despair instead of on ways to reframe events that reduce stress and on means for gaining small wins.
- Fight and win the right small battles: constantly looking out for small but sweet victories that we CAN win, such as gently teach the angry people to calm down rather than escalate their anger, don't play their game, etc. De-escalation, gentle reeducation relentlessly responding to irate people with calmness and respect are relatively low risk strategies; confronting an a* head-on, exacting revenge, putting the a* in his or her place, and outing and humiliating the jerk are riskier strategies especially aggression often provokes more aggression. Call their bluff if even riskier, but may be effective if it works because bullies usually pick on those who will not stand up for themselves. Watching what happens when others get the courage to stand up before we use this strategy reduces the risk.
To show it's a book for the real world, Dr. Sutton even brings a chapter talking about if a* is a necessary evil. Given some industry examples to show it's naive to assume that a* always do more harm than good, interesting enough, there are some virtues arise from nastiness:
- Gaining personal power and stature: in a "kiss-up, slap-down world", although angry people are seen as unlikable and cold, strategic use of anger includes outbursts, snarling expressions, staring straight ahead, and strong hand gestures like pointing and jabbing created the impression that the expresser is competent. Ironically, subtle nasty moves like glaring and condescending comments, explicit moves like insults or put-downs, and even physical intimidation can be effective paths to power, and making themselves seem smarter than others.
- Intimidating and vanquishing rivals: threats and intimidation can be used for gaining and sustaining a position at the top of the heap.
- Motivating fear-driven performance and perfectionism: although reward is more effective motivator than punishment, people will work to avoid punishment. Effective a* are rarely nasty all the time; their followers are driven by both the sticks of punishment and humiliation and the carrots of hard-won warmth and recognition. "Contrast effect" taking the contrast between being good and bad makes the threating and warmth more magnified.
- Bringing unfair, clueless, and lazy people to their sense by being strategically nasty and scramble so that indifferent and clueless people start to pay attention. Know when to use this strategy and when to stop is crucial.
- Expressing anger, even nastiness, can be an effective method for grabbing and keeping power. Climb to the top of the heap by elbowing your colleagues out of the way through expressing anger rather than sadness or perfecting a general's face like George Patton.
- Nastiness and intimidation are especially effective for vanquishing competitors. Follow in the footsteps of baseball legend Ty Cobb, and succeed by snarling at, bullying, putting down, threatening, and psyching out your opponents.
- If you demean your people to motivate them, alternate it with, at least occasional, encouragement and praise. Alternate the carrot and the stick; the contrast between the two makes your wrath seem harsher and your occasional kindnesses seem even sweeter.
- Create a toxic tandem. If you are nasty, team up with someone who can calm people down, clean up your mess, and extract favors and extra work from people because they are so grateful to the good cop. If you are "too nice", you might "rent a jerk", perhaps a consultant, a manager from a temporary staffing firm, or a lawyer.
- Being all a*, all the time, won't work. Effective a* have the ability to release their venom at just the right moment and turn it off when just enough destruction or humiliation has been inflicted on their victim.
If you are reading this line, congratulations that you've start the process of self-improvement. I encourage you take a look at Robert Sutton's blog: Work matters, and take a moment to test yourself using ARSE(Asshole Rating Self Exam) to see "Am I a certified a*?" or "When and where do I behave like an a*?".
Quiz by Robert Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule:
Instructions: Indicate whether each statement is a true (T) or false (F) description of your typical feelings and interactions with the people at your workplace.
What Are Your Gut Reactions to People?
___ 1. You feel surrounded by incompetent idiots – and you can’t help letting them know the truth every now and then.
___ 2. You were a nice person until you started working with the current bunch of creeps.
___3. You don’t trust the people around you, and they don’t trust you.
___4. You see your co-workers as competitors.
___5. You believe that one of the best ways to "climb the ladder" is to push other people down or out of the way.
___6. You secretly enjoy watching other people suffer and squirm.
___7. You are often jealous of your colleagues and find it difficult to be genuinely pleased for them when they do well.
___8. You have a small list of close friends and a long list of enemies, and you are equally proud of both lists.
How Do You Treat Other People?
___9. You sometimes just can’t contain your contempt toward the losers and jerks at your workplace.
___10. You find it useful to glare at, insult, and even occasionally holler at some of the idiots at you workplace – otherwise, they never seem to shape up.
___11. You take credit for the accomplishments of your team – why not? They would be nowhere without you.
___12. You enjoy lobbing "innocent" comments into meetings that serve no purpose other than to humiliate or cause discomfort to the person on the receiving end.
___13. You are quick to point out others’ mistakes.
___14. You don’t make mistakes. When something goes wrong, you always find some idiot to blame.
___15. You constantly interrupt people because, after all, what you have to say is more important.
___16. You are constantly buttering up your boss and other powerful people, and you expect the same treatment from your underlings.
___17. Your jokes and teasing can get a bit nasty at times, but you have to admit that they are pretty funny.
___18. You love your immediate team and they love you, but you are all at constant warfare with the rest of the organization. You treat everyone else like crap because, after all, if you’re not on my team, you either don’t matter or are the enemy.
How Do People React to You?
___19. You notice that people seem to avoid eye contact when they talk to you – and they often become very nervous.
___20. You have the feeling that people are always very careful at what they say around you.
___21. People keep responding to your e-mail with hostile reactions, which often escalate into "flame wars" with these jerks.
___22. People seem hesitant to divulge personal information to you.
___23. People seem to stop having fun when you show up.
___24. People always seem to react to your arrival by announcing that they have to leave.
Scoring the test: add up the number of statements that you marked as true. This isn’t a scientifically validated test, but in my opinion:
0-5 true: You don’t sound like a certified asshole, unless you are fooling yourself.
5-15 true: You sound like a borderline certified asshole; perhaps the time has come to start changing your behavior before it gets worse.
15 or more true: You sound like a full-blown certified asshole to me; get help immediately. But please, don’t come to me for help, as I would rather not meet you.
At the moment I writing it, I was rated as 6 true, and most of points come from my gut reaction to people. I guess that my gut feeling is not that elegant, and I am trying to pretend, or just practice myself to be nice? Anyway, that is a good warning signal.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The No Asshole Rule --the inevitable experience in the life
I first learned this book:"The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't" by Robert Sutton from a lecture. In the beginning, I have to admit that I didn't pay enough attention to this book because of the weird title. I thought that it was just an exaggerate people try to do some commercial tricks, especially the person who talked about this book is quite in exaggerate style. So this gem was throw in the dark of my mind for a while until I accidentally came across it from an old volume of Harvard Business Review. If HBR is fine to publish a mild obscenity name in their respectable pages, there must be some value inside . So I thought that I will give it a try, and picked it up from the local library.
I am glad I did it. In a non-sanitized real world, it is inevitable to meet someone who is an a*, or jerk, or whatever you called it. You have to either work with, serve or struggle to lead a*, and find yourself either vulnerable to deal with the situation, or arrogant with the helplessness feeling inside. A lot of valuable books talk more about an reasonable human being, while this special book provide some ideas to deal with nasty people or limit the damage from that. It was great read.
As not being the saint, we can be a temporary a* just because of having a bad day. If that's persistent pattern, "to have a history of episodes that end with one target after another feeling belittled, put down, humiliated, disrespected, oppressed, deenergized, and generally worse about themselves", it might be branded as a certified a*. Dr. Sutton presents a simple test to spot whether a person is acting like an a*:
- Test One: After talking to the alleged a*, does the "target" feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled by the person? In particular, does the target feel worse about him or herself? In another words, identify people who persistently leave others feeling demeaned and de-energized.
- Test Two: Does the alleged a* aim his or he venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful? Look to see if their victims usually have less power and social standing than their tormentors.
- Personal insults
- Invading one's "personal territory"
- Uninvited physical contact
- Threats and intimidation, both verbal and nonverbal
- "Sarcastic jokes" and "teasing" used as insult delivery systems
- Withering email flames
- Status slaps intended to humiliate their victims
- Public shaming or "status degradation" rituals
- Rude interruptions
- Two-faced attacks
- Dirty looks
- Treating people as if they are invisible.
How to develop "a shock-proof, bullet-resistant a* detector" to build a civilized place to work? Dr. Sutton tells a fundamental lesson: "the difference between how a person treats the powerless versus the powerful is as good a measure of human character as I know." Indeed it is a good rule to test people. I had met a colleague she's very mean to our contractors and very polite to our boss, and I conclude that behavior arises from her lack of technical expertise to do her job. Although she did survive, uh, maybe much better than just survive in the office, the scene she shout at the poor contractor flashed in front of my eyes whenever she talks to me.
According to the book, "negative interactions had a fivefold stronger effect on mood than positive interactions". It takes numerous encounters with positive people to offset the energy and happiness sapped by a single episode with one a*." The negative effect does not only interfere with the firsthand victims, it also affects the secondhand witnesses or bystanders strongly. Furthermore, even a* themselves also suffer from their own behavior being "outed". If all employees are devoting their time and energy to protect themselves, then nobody will help the company with high performance. Turnover rate will be high.
An research conducted at couple nursing unit shows that "units with the best leaders reported making as many as ten times more errors than the units with the worst leaders." Why? Because when people feel safe, they are willing to admit the mistake and notice how serious the mistake could be. Instead of finger pointing, or just focusing on self protection, people are more focus on the organization improvement under the good leaders. As Dr. Sutton admitted in the book:" When I am stuck working for, or with, a bunch of a*, I don't go out of my way to help. But when I admire my superiors and colleagues, I'll go to extreme lengths."
Then, what is the Total Cost of A*(TCA) to our organization? Dr. Sutton again brought in an interesting exercise consider certain factors when we calculating TCA follows:
Damage to Victims and Witnesses
- Distraction from tasks: more effort devoted to avoiding nasty encounters, coping with them, and avoiding blame; less devoted to the task itself
- Reduced psychological safety and associated climate of fear undermines employee suggestions, risk taking, learning from own failures, learning from others' failures, and forthright discussion--honesty may not be the best policy
- Loss of motivation and energy at work
- Stress-induced psychological and physical illness
- Possible impaired mental ability
- prolonged bullying turns victims into a*
- Absenteeism
- Turnover in response to abusive supervision and peers -- plus more time spend while at work looking for new work
- Victims and witnesses hesitate to help, cooperate with them, or give them bad news
- Retaliation from victims and witnesses
- Failure to reach potential in the organization
- Humiliation when "outed"
- Job loss
- Long-term career damage
- Time spend appeasing, calming, counseling, or discipling a*
- Time spend "cooling out" employees who are victimized
- Time spend "cooling out" victimized customers, contract employees, suppliers, and other key outsiders
- Time spend reorganizing departments and teams so that a* do less damage
- Time spend interviewing, recruiting, and training replacements for departed a* and their victims
- Management burnout, leading to decreased commitment and increased distress
- Anger management and other training to reform a*
- Legal costs for inside and outside counsel
- settlement fees and successful litigation by victims
- Settlement fees and successful litigation by alleged a*(especially wrongful-termination claims)
- Compensation for internal and external consultants, executive coaches, and therapists
- Health-insurance costs
- Impaired improvement in established systems
- Reduced innovation and creativity
- Reduced cooperation ad cohesion
- Reduced discretionary effort
- Dysfunctional internal cooperation
- Costs of victims' retribution toward the organization
- Impaired cooperation from outside organizations and people
- Higher rates charged by outsiders -- combat pay for working with a*
- Impaired ability to attract the best and brightest
Fortunately, today a lot of organizations start to change: to enforce the no a* rule and build it into the culture. Of course, writing, displaying and repeating words about treating people with respect, but allowing or encouraging the opposite behavior, is worse than useless. On the other side, the only thing worse than too much confrontation is no confrontation at all. According to Karl Weick from University of Michigan: " Fight as if you are right; listen as if you are wrong."
According to the book, there are top ten steps to enforce the No A* rule:
- Say the rule, write it down, and act on it: But if you can't or won't follow the rule, it is better to say nothing at all since avoiding a false claim is the lesser of two evils. You don't want to be known as a hypocrite and the leader of an organization that is filled with a*.
- A* will hire other a*: Keep your resident jerks out of the hiring process, or if you can't, involve as many civilized people in interviews and decisions to offset this predilection of people to hire "jerks like me".
- Get rid of a* fast: Organizations usually wait too long to get rid of certified and incorrigible a*, and once they do, the reaction is usually "why did we wait so long to do that?"
- Treat certified a* as incompetent employees: Even if people do other things extraordinary well but persistently demean others, they ought to be treated as incompetent.
- Power breeds nastiness: beware that giving people--even seemingly nice and sensitive people--even a little power can turn them into big jerks.
- Embrace the power performance paradox: accept that your organization does have and should have a pecking order, but do everything you can to downplay and reduce unnecessary status differences among members. The result will be fewer a* and, according to the best studies, better performance, too.
- Manage moments, not just practices, policies, and systems: effective a* management means focusing on and changing the little things that you and your people do, and big changes will follow. Reflect on what you do, watch how others respond to you and to one another, and work on tweaking what happens as you are interacting with the person in front of you right now.
- Model and teach constructive confrontation: develop a culture where people know when to argue and when to stop fighting and instead gather more evidence, listen to other people, or stop whining and implement a decision, even if they still disagree with it. When the time is ripe to battle over ideas, follow Karl Weick's advice: fight as if you are right; listen as if you are wrong.
- Adopt the one a* rule: because people follow rules and norms better when there are rare or occasional examples or bad behavior, no a* rules might be most closely followed in organizations that permit one or two token jerks to hang around. These reverse role models remind everyone else of the wrong behavior as long as it is clearly identified as wrong.
- The bottom line: link big policies to small decencies: effective a* management happens when there is a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle between the big things that organizations do and the little things that happen when people talk to one another and work together. Having all the right business philosophies and management practices to support the no a* rule is meaningless unless you treat the person right in front of you, right now, in the right way.
(to be continued...)
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Getting to Yes -- The final stop in the journey (Continued)
Separate the people from the problem
Focus on interests, Not positions
Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Insist on using objective criteria
In the third part of the book, authors dig deeper to certain complexity in real world:
What if they are More powerful? Develop BATNA -- Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.
- Protect ourselves against making an agreement we should reject. Do not fall into the persuasive song like "Let's all agree and put an end to this."
- The cost of using a bottom line: Having a bottom line makes it easier to resist pressure and temptations of the moment. At the same time, a bottom line is a position that is not to be changed and too rigid, which may keep us from inventing and from agreeing to a solution it would be wise to accept.
- Know our BATNA: since the reason we want negotiate is to produce something better than the results we can obtain without negotiating, BATNA is the standard against any proposed agreement should be measured, and still be flexible enough.
- The insecurity of an unknown BATNA: One frequent mistake is psychologically to set our alternatives in the aggregate while the reality is we can only choose one if we failed to reach the agreement. Another mistake is that we are too committed to reaching agreement and be pessimistic about the result.
- Formulate a trip wire: identify one solution far from perfect agreement and better than BATNA, test this trip-wire package before accepting any agreement worse than the trip wire.
- The cost of using a bottom line: Having a bottom line makes it easier to resist pressure and temptations of the moment. At the same time, a bottom line is a position that is not to be changed and too rigid, which may keep us from inventing and from agreeing to a solution it would be wise to accept.
- Make the most of the assets we do have so that any agreement we reach will satisfy our interests as well as possible.
- The better BATNA, the greater our power: since the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement.
- Develop BATNA: by inventing a list of actions we might conceivably take if no agreement is reached, then improving some of the most promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives, and selecting tentatively the one alternative that seems best. The desirability of disclosing our BATNA to the other side depends upon the assessment of the other side's thinking.
- Consider the other side's BATNA: by knowing the other's alternatives, we can realistically estimate what we can expect from the negotiation.
- The better BATNA, the greater our power: since the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement.
What if they Won't play? Use principled negotiation, Negotiation Jujitsu, and one-text mediation procedure step by step.
- If the other side insists on position, not merits, there are three approaches to focus their attention on the merits.
- Focus on what we can do, change the game, concentrate on the merits rather than on positions. That is principled negotiation authors talk in whole book.
- Focus on what they may do, and counter the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. This strategy called negotiation jujitsu.
- Focus on what a third party can do: consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on interests, options, and criteria. One tool third party may use called one-text mediation procedure.
- Focus on what we can do, change the game, concentrate on the merits rather than on positions. That is principled negotiation authors talk in whole book.
- Negotiation Jujitsu: Don't push back for the attack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Step aside and channel the their force into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent standards.
- Don't attack their position, look behind it when the other side asserting their position forcefully. Treat it as one possible options instead of rejecting or accepting it. Assume every position the other side takes is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side; ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand; seek out and discuss the principles underlying the positions; treat the position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so.
- Don't defend our ideas, invite criticism and advice if the other side attack our ideas. Instead of asking the other to accept or reject the idea, ask them what's wrong with it, then examine their negative judgments to find our the underlying interests and to improve our ideas from their point of view. Channel criticism in a constructive direction by turning the situation around and ask for the other's advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in our position.
- Recast an attack on us as an attack on the problem if the other side attack us personally. Allow the other to let off steam, listen to them, show the understanding what they are saying, and convert the attack to the problem.
- Ask questions instead of statement, since statements generate resistance whereas questions generate answers. Silence is also one of the best weapons and use pause if needed. Some of the most effective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking.
- Don't attack their position, look behind it when the other side asserting their position forcefully. Treat it as one possible options instead of rejecting or accepting it. Assume every position the other side takes is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side; ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand; seek out and discuss the principles underlying the positions; treat the position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so.
- Consider the one-text procedure if above strategy does not work.
- More easily than one of those directly involved, a third party can separate the people form the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. A third party can also suggest some impartial basis for resolving differences, and separate inventing from decision-making.
- The mediator listens to both sides, prepared a draft to which no side was committed, asked for criticism instead of the concession, and improved the draft again and again until the mediators felt they could improve it no further, then present it as the recommendation. It is essential for large multilateral negotiations since the mediators do not have to get anyone's consent to start using the one-text procedure.
- More easily than one of those directly involved, a third party can separate the people form the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. A third party can also suggest some impartial basis for resolving differences, and separate inventing from decision-making.
- Authors present couple useful phrases and strategies to be used in principled negotiation.
- "Please correct me if I'm wrong" makes us open to correction and persuasion, and establishes a dialogue based on reason.
- "We appreciate what you've done for us" gives personal support to the person on the other side to separate the people from the problem.
- "Our concern is fairness" takes a basic stand on principle and announces the intention to stick to it, while it is still open to persuasion along the lines of the principle.
- "We would like to settle this on the basis of independent standards, not of who can do what to whom" shows more important thing is to be fairly treated without react on attack directly.
- "Trust is a separate issue" reaffirm the appreciation while remains firm on the principle. It is not a question of trust. "The issue is the principle" direct the conversation back to merits.
- "Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?" Ask questions instead of statements of fact which shows threatening.
- "What is the principle behind your action?" Question the other side about the reasons of their positions instead of either accept or reject their positions.
- "Let me see if I understand what you are saying", or "If I've understood you correctly", " is there something I've missed or misunderstood?" restates the other side to show the understanding and ensure no miscommunication.
- "Let me get back to you" since a good negotiator rarely makes an important decision on the spot.
- "Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning": present all reasons first before offering a proposal.
- "Given all the considerations we've discussed, one fair solution might be..." to present a proposal not as ours, but as one of fair options which deserves the joint consideration.
- "If we agree... If we disagree...We feel confident we can settle this matter fairly with you to your satisfaction and ours": the trickiest part is the alternative if no agreement is reached without upsetting the negotiations.
- "As long as we've agreed on the appropriate..., We'd be happy to see if we can leave when it's most convenient for you" shows the willingness to discuss ways of meeting the other side's interest. It also help the other side save face.
- "It has been a pleasure dealing with you. We do appreciate all that you've done for us, and I'm pleased that we've settled this problem fairly and amicably" ends the negotiations on a final conciliatory note, and maintains a working relationship for the future.
- "Please correct me if I'm wrong" makes us open to correction and persuasion, and establishes a dialogue based on reason.
What if they use dirty tricks? Taming the hard bargainer.
- There are a lot of tactics and tricks people can use during negotiations. Most people response to tricky bargaining in two ways:
- To put up with it: hope that if we give in this time, the other side will be appeased and will not ask for more, give the other side the benefit of the doubt or get angry and promise ourselves never to deal with them again. For now, just hope for the best and keep quiet.
- To respond in kind to the other side: in the end either one side yields or negotiation breaks off.
- To put up with it: hope that if we give in this time, the other side will be appeased and will not ask for more, give the other side the benefit of the doubt or get angry and promise ourselves never to deal with them again. For now, just hope for the best and keep quiet.
- There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game when the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic:
- Recognize the tactic since we have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it.
- Raise the issue explicitly, bring it up with the other side can make the tactic less effective or the other side stop using it.
- Question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability, and negotiate about the rules of the game. Focus on procedure instead of substance, while the goal remains to produce a wise agreement efficiently and amicably.
- Recognize the tactic since we have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it.
- The method to deal with tricky tactics remains the same:
- Separate the people from the problem. Don't attack people personally for using a tactic we consider illegitimate. Question the tactic, not their personal integrity.
- Focus on interest, not positions. Look for the mutual interests.
- Invent options for mutual gains. Suggest alternative games to play.
- Insist on using objective criteria, and be hard on principle. Try out the principle of reciprocity on them, and frame the principle behind each tactic as a proposed rule for the game.
- Use BATNA as the last resort, but still leave the room open for negotiation in the future.
- Separate the people from the problem. Don't attack people personally for using a tactic we consider illegitimate. Question the tactic, not their personal integrity.
- Authors listed three main categories of tricky tactic to prepare and identify:
- Deliberate deception: misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions.
- Phony facts: make some knowingly false statement. A practice of verifying factual assertions reduces the incentive for deception, and the risk of being cheated. Separate the people from the problem, do not trust the other side unless we have good reason, and make the negotiation proceed independent of trust.
- Ambiguous authority: the other side may allow us to believe that they have full authority to compromise when they don't, and announce the need to seek other approval once they've pressed the negotiation hard and we believe reached the firm agreement to give them "a second bite at the apple". So do not assume that the other side has full authority just because they are there negotiating with us. Before starting on any give-and-take, find out about the authority on the other side by asking legitimately "just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?" If the other side do announce unexpectedly that they are treating what we thought was an agreement as a basis for further negotiation, insist on reciprocity by saying "We'll treat it as a joint draft to which neither side is committed. You check with your boss and I'll sleep on it and see if I come up with any changes I want to suggest tomorrow."
- Dubious intentions: where the issue is one of possible misrepresentation of their intention to comply with the agreement, it is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement itself. Make the problem explicit and use the other side's protestations to get a guarantee, and add contingency to protect ourselves.
- Less than full disclosure is not the same as deception since good faith negotiation does not require total disclosure. An example is the answer to questions such as "what is the most you would pay if you had to?" can be:"Let's not put ourselves under such a strong temptation to mislead. If you think no agreement is possible, and that we may be wasting our time, perhaps we could disclose our thinking to some trustworthy third party, who can then tell us whether thee is a zone of potential agreement."
- Phony facts: make some knowingly false statement. A practice of verifying factual assertions reduces the incentive for deception, and the risk of being cheated. Separate the people from the problem, do not trust the other side unless we have good reason, and make the negotiation proceed independent of trust.
- Psychological warfare is designed to make us feel uncomfortable, so that we will have a subconscious desire to end the negotiation as soon as possible.
- Stressful situations: Ask ourselves if we feel under stress, and if so, why. If we find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so to suggest the change. The best strategy is to identify the problem, be willing to raise it with the other side, and then negotiate better physical circumstances in an objective and principled fashion.
- Personal attacks: use verbal or nonverbal communication to make the other side feel uncomfortable. Recognizing the tactic will help nullify its effect; bringing it up explicitly will probably prevent a recurrence.
- The good-guy/bad-guy routine: it is a form of psychological manipulation. When the good guy makes the pitch, just ask the same question we asked the bad guy:"I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, but I still want to know why think it is a fair solution. What is your principle?"
- Threats: it can lead to counter threats in an escalating spiral that can unhinge a negotiation and even destroy a relationship. Warnings are much more legitimate than threats:" should we fail to reach agreement, it seems highly probable to me that..."
- Stressful situations: Ask ourselves if we feel under stress, and if so, why. If we find the physical surroundings prejudicial, do not hesitate to say so to suggest the change. The best strategy is to identify the problem, be willing to raise it with the other side, and then negotiate better physical circumstances in an objective and principled fashion.
- Positional pressure tactics: is designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions.
- Refusal to negotiate or set preconditions for negotiations: recognize the tactic as a possible negotiating ploy; talk about their refusal to negotiate by communicate either directly or through third parties and find out their interests in not negotiating; suggest some options to discuss the issues, and insist on using principles.
- Extreme demands: use extreme initial position to lower the expectations at the risk of undermining their credibility, or kill the deal. Bring the tactic to the other side's attention, and ask for principled justification of their position until it looks ridiculous even to them.
- Escalating demands: raise one of the demands for every concession the negotiator makes on another, and reopen issues we thought had been settled, to decrease the overall concession and make the other side want to agree quickly. If we recognize this tactic, call it to the other side's attention and then perhaps take a break while we consider whether and on what basis we want to continue negotiations.
- Lock-in tactics: it is illustrated by Thomas Schelling's example of two dynamite trucks barreling toward each other on a single-land road. The question becomes which truck goes off the road to avoid an accident. Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation. In response to a commitment tactic, you can interpret the commitment as to weaken it, or crack a joke and not take the lock-in seriously. Always resist lock-in on principle.
- Hardhearted partner: One common tactic used to justify not yielding to your requests is for the other side to say that he or she personally would have no objection but his or her hardhearted partner will not allow it. Recognize the tactic, get the agreement to the principle involved in writing, then if possible speak directly with the hardhearted partner.
- A calculated delay: one side try to postpone coming to a decision until a time they think favorable. Waiting for the right time is a high-cost game. In addition to making delaying tactics explicit and negotiating about them, consider creating a fading opportunity for the other side. Look for objective conditions that can be used to establish deadlines.
- "Take it or leave it": consider ignoring it at first. Keep talking as if we didn't hear it, or change the subject by introducing other solutions. If we do bring up the tactic specifically, let the other side know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached and look for a face-saving way for them to get out of the situation.
- Refusal to negotiate or set preconditions for negotiations: recognize the tactic as a possible negotiating ploy; talk about their refusal to negotiate by communicate either directly or through third parties and find out their interests in not negotiating; suggest some options to discuss the issues, and insist on using principles.
- Deliberate deception: misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions.
Also, learn from doing so is important after we read the book.
As authors pointed out:"in most instances to ask a negotiator who's winning is as inappropriate as to ask who's winning a marriage." Remind ourselves that the first thing we are trying to win is a better way to negotiate, a way that avoids us having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what we deserve and of being decent.
In the fourth part of the book, authors answered ten real world questions how to apply the four propositions from the book.
- Questions about Fairness and Principled negotiation:
- Does positional bargaining ever make sense? In virtually every case, the outcome will be better for both sides with principled negotiation. The issue is whether it is worth the extra effort. Authors listed some questions to consider:
- How important it is to avoid an arbitrary outcome? If we are negotiating over some serious issue or high stakes, we will not want to haggle over arbitrary positions no matter how much easier it might be to reach agreement.
- How complex are the issues? The more complex the subject matter, the more unwise it is to engage in positional bargaining.
- How important is it to maintain a good working relationship? Sometimes maintaining ongoing relationship may be more important than the outcome of any one deal, negotiation on the merits helps avoid a choice between giving in or angering the other side. In single-issue negotiations among strangers where the transaction costs of exploring interests would be high and where each side is protected by competitive opportunities, simple haggling over positions may work fine.
- What are the other side's expectations, and how hard would they be to change? If both parties have a long history of hard-fought, we may want to set a realistic timetable for change that may span several complete negotiations.
- Where are you in the negotiation? Bargaining over positions does the least if it comes after you have identified each other's interests, invented options for mutual gain, and discussed relevant standards of fairness.
- How important it is to avoid an arbitrary outcome? If we are negotiating over some serious issue or high stakes, we will not want to haggle over arbitrary positions no matter how much easier it might be to reach agreement.
- What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
- In most negotiations there will be no one right or fairest answer. People will advance different standards by which to judge what is fair. Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another to the extent that it is more directly on point, more widely accepted, and more immediately relevant in terms of time, place, and circumstance.
- Agreement on the best standard is not necessary. Differences in values, culture, experience, and perceptions may well lead parties to disagree about the relative merits of different standards. Criteria are just one tool that may help the parties find an agreement better for both than no agreement.
- In most negotiations there will be no one right or fairest answer. People will advance different standards by which to judge what is fair. Usually one standard will be more persuasive than another to the extent that it is more directly on point, more widely accepted, and more immediately relevant in terms of time, place, and circumstance.
- Should I be fair if I don't have to be?
- The main purpose of principled negotiation is to get what we are entitled to while still getting along with the other side. Presented with the opportunity to get more than what we think is fair, we should not take it immediately without careful thought. In fact, we should weigh the possible benefits against the potential costs of accepting the windfall:
- How much is the difference worth to us? Weigh the benefits against the risk of incurring some of the costs, and then consider whether there might not be better options once we are certain of these potential benefits.
- Will the unfair result be durable? Since the other side may be unwilling to carry out the unfair agreement later, we also need to figure out the cost to enforce the agreement or replace it.
- What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationship? such as the reputation for fair dealing.
- Will your conscience bother you? Even the moral thinking of taking unfair advantage of the others makes us regret sometimes.
Questions about Dealing with People: - The main purpose of principled negotiation is to get what we are entitled to while still getting along with the other side. Presented with the opportunity to get more than what we think is fair, we should not take it immediately without careful thought. In fact, we should weigh the possible benefits against the potential costs of accepting the windfall:
- What do I do if the people are the problem?
- Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement. Such a relationship cannot be bought by making substantive concessions or by pretending that disagreements do not exist. Nor should we try to coerce a substantive concession by threatening the relationship. Separate people from the problem, and substantive issues need to be disentangled from relationship and process issues.
- Substantive issues such as terms, conditions, prices, dates, numbers, and liabilities should be separated from relationship issues such as balance of emotion and reason, ease of communication, degree of trust and reliability, attitude of acceptance or rejection, relative emphasis on persuasion or coercion, and degree of mutual understanding. There should not be a trade-off between pursuing a good substantive outcome and pursuing a good relationship. Sometimes we may decide to give in based on good relationship, however, we should never give in for the purpose of trying to improve a relationship.
- Negotiate the relationship in their merits if the people problems still exist despite the efforts to negotiate on the merits. Raise the concerns, discuss it without judging, explain the perceptions and propose external standards to determine how should we deal with each other. Frame the discussion as looking forward instead of back, and operate on the assumptions that the other side may not intend all the consequences and they can change their approach if they see the need. Always prepare BATNA.
- Distinguish how we treat them from how they treat us. Do not emulate nonconstructive behavior. Our behavior should be designed to model and encourage the behavior we would prefer and to avoid the reward for unwanted behavior.
- Deal rationally with apparent irrationality. Recognize the negotiators are people first and could act impulsively, and try to be rationally ourselves. Do not assume people are acting irrationally, think them as seeing the situation differently. The perception may be different or problematic, while the response to the perception is not wrong.
- Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement. Such a relationship cannot be bought by making substantive concessions or by pretending that disagreements do not exist. Nor should we try to coerce a substantive concession by threatening the relationship. Separate people from the problem, and substantive issues need to be disentangled from relationship and process issues.
- Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?
- It is not a question of whether to negotiate, the answer is yes. It is the question of how should we negotiate since negotiation does not mean giving in. If questions of personal safety can be resolved, and we have a good case, we are more likely to influence the terrorists than they are to influence us, or work out an arrangement in which neither side gives in.
- Negotiate with someone like Hitler depends on the alternatives. Some interests we have may be worth fighting and even dying for. If such interests are at stake and cannot be met by less costly means, we should be prepared to fight if that will help or even if it won't help. However, if we can achieve a substantial measure of interests through nonviolent means, we should consider the means seriously over the option of war.
- Negotiate where people are acting out of religious conviction is a yes. Even people's religious convictions are unlikely to be changed through negotiation, or religion servers only as a handy boundary line for dividing groups of people, the actions they take may be subject to influence. Negotiation does not require compromising the principles, rather it is achieved by finding a solution that is arguably consistent with each side's principles.
- Then, when does it make sense not to negotiate and how much effort to put into it? It depends on how good our BATNA is and how likely we think that negotiation will produce better result. Analyse and think through both sides' BATNA carefully, then decide whether negotiation makes sense.
- It is not a question of whether to negotiate, the answer is yes. It is the question of how should we negotiate since negotiation does not mean giving in. If questions of personal safety can be resolved, and we have a good case, we are more likely to influence the terrorists than they are to influence us, or work out an arrangement in which neither side gives in.
- How should I adjust my negotiating approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on? Different people have different interest and styles of communication.
- Get in step with the other side's way of thinking. Be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns, norms of behavior, and mood of those with whom we are dealing. Adapt our behavior accordingly and pay attention to the differences such as fast or slow pacing, high or low formality, close or distant physical proximity while talking, binding and inclusive oral or written agreements, direct or indirect bluntness of communication, short term or longer term time frame, business only or all-encompassing scope of relationship, expected private or public place of doing business, negotiators equals in status or the most competent people for the task, and the rigidity of commitments either written in stone or meant to be flexible.
- Adapt the general advice to the specific situation, and implement the general principles on the specific context.
- Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, know and respect them, but avoid stereotyping individuals and making assumptions beforehand.
- Question our assumptions and listen actively. Be open to learning that the other are quite unlike what we expected.
Questions about Tactics: - Get in step with the other side's way of thinking. Be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns, norms of behavior, and mood of those with whom we are dealing. Adapt our behavior accordingly and pay attention to the differences such as fast or slow pacing, high or low formality, close or distant physical proximity while talking, binding and inclusive oral or written agreements, direct or indirect bluntness of communication, short term or longer term time frame, business only or all-encompassing scope of relationship, expected private or public place of doing business, negotiators equals in status or the most competent people for the task, and the rigidity of commitments either written in stone or meant to be flexible.
- How do I decide things like "Where should we meet?" "Who should make the first offer?" and "How high should I start?"
- The answer is case by case. Good tactical advice required knowledge of specific circumstances.
- Strategy depends on preparation. Firstly, strategy is a function of preparation and it suggests itself. Secondly, a clever strategy cannot make up for lacking of preparation.
- Learn the rule of being well prepared with external measures of value. And do not fall into the trap of measuring success only by how far the other party has moved from their original position.
- Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
- Think about closure from the beginning, then work backwards. Focus on the goals, and imagine what it might be like to implement an agreement.
- Consider crafting a framework agreement. Draft possible terms of an agreement as the negotiation goes to surface the important issues, keep discussion focused, give a sense of progress, provide the record of discussions, and reduce the chance of later misunderstanding.
- Move toward commitment gradually. Seek a consensus proposal that reflects all points made and meets each side's interests on that issue as well as possible. If we are unable to reach consensus on a single option, try at least to narrow the range of options under consideration and then go on to another issue. Along the way, avoid demands or locking in, instead offer options and ask for criticism. Agree explicitly that all commitments are tentative to encourage options. Write "Tentative draft No commitments" at the top of a framework agreement.
- Be persistent in pursuing the interests but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution. Separate the interests from ways to meet them.
- Make an offer naturally grown from the discussion at some point. An early offer might be limited to the pairing of a couple of key issues.
- Be generous at the end. When we sense the close to the end, consider giving the other side something we know to be of value to them and still consistent with the basic logic of our proposal. Make clear that this is a final gesture to avoid the other side raise expectations of further concessions.
- Think about closure from the beginning, then work backwards. Focus on the goals, and imagine what it might be like to implement an agreement.
- How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
- Start small, when stakes are small, when we have a good BATNA, when the other side is likely to be amenable. Try new ideas and approaches one at a time.
- Make an investment. Willing to take a fresh look at what we do or to consider changing it, at the risk of temporarily get worse, but offer more long term potential.
- Review the performance. What worked? What did not? What might we have done differently? Keep the record.
- Prepare! Plan how to build and maintain a good working relationship with the other side. Write out the list of interests and invent the list of options. Look for a variety of external benchmarks or criteria and think through. Even ask the partners to roleplay the negotiation.
Questions about Power: - Start small, when stakes are small, when we have a good BATNA, when the other side is likely to be amenable. Try new ideas and approaches one at a time.
- Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And How do I enhance my negotiating power?
- Some things we can't get, since no matter how skilled we are, there are limits to what we can get through negotiation. We should not expect success unless we are able to make the other side an offer which is more attractive than their BATNA. Concentrate instead on improving our BATNA and changing their.
- How we negotiate makes a big difference between coming to terms and not, or between an outcome favorable to us or not, or good relationship or not, when there is a chance for agreement.
- Resources are not the same as negotiation power. Negotiation power is the ability to persuade someone to do something.
- Do not ask "who's more powerful". To be optimistic to let our reach exceed our grasp. Without wasting a lot of resources on hopeless causes, recognize that many things are worth trying for ever if we may not succeed.
- There are many sources of negotiation power. One is having a good BATNA. Each of four elements: people, interest, options, and objective criteria, is also a source of negotiation power. If the other side is strong in one area, we can try to develop strength in another. And another source is the power of commitment.
- There is power in developing a good working relationship between the people negotiating. Understanding, emotions, communications, people problems are all contribute to negotiation. More negotiation power for one side does not necessarily mean less for the other side. The better the working relationship, the better able each side is to influence the other.
- Good communication and good listening helps to understand interests, other side's concerns. There is power in understanding interests.
- There is power in inventing an elegant option. Brainstorming increase the ability to influence others.
- There is power in using external standards of legitimacy, as a sword to persuade others, and as a shield to help us resist pressure to give in arbitrarily. Convincing the other side that we are asking for no more than is fair is one of the most powerful arguments we can make.
- There is power in developing a good BATNA. Efforts to improve one's own alternatives and to lower the other side's estimate of theirs are critical ways to enhance our negotiation power.
- There is power in making a carefully crafted commitment. We can commit to what we will do by making a firm offer. We can make a negative commitment as to what we will not do carefully. We can clarify precisely what commitments we would like the other side to make. Clarify what we will do and make it easier for the other side to commit. The more concrete the offer, the more persuasive. Make the offer as a fading opportunity by indicating when and how it will expire. Clarify what we will do if the other side does not accept the offer. Consider committing to what we will not do. At some point, it may be best to put a final offer on the table and mean it. Clarify what we want them to do which makes sense.
- Make the most of our potential power, and use each source of power in harmony with other sources. Also we can be mor effective if we believe in what we are saying and doing.
- Some things we can't get, since no matter how skilled we are, there are limits to what we can get through negotiation. We should not expect success unless we are able to make the other side an offer which is more attractive than their BATNA. Concentrate instead on improving our BATNA and changing their.