The No Asshole Rule --the inevitable experience in the life (Continued)

When we always talk about a* around, can that be ourselves -- an inner bad one -- behave badly? How can we stop our "Inner Jerk" from getting out? We need to understand that acting like an a* is a communicable disease. According to "emotional contagion" researchers, "in conversation, people tend automatically and continuously to mimic and synchronize their movements with facial expressions, voices, postures, movements, and instrumental behaviors of others." So being around people who are a* makes us feel a* and behave a* too. When we get a job offer, we should take a close look at the people we would work with, not just at whether they are successful or not. If the future colleagues are self-centered, nasty, unethical, narrow-minded, overworked and physically ill, there is little chance that we will turn them into better human beings or transform it into a healthy workplace, instead, odds are that we will catch their disease, even we think ourselves as moral and strong-willed persons. Unfortunately, "a* poisoning" is a contagious disease that anyone can catch. Then how can we avoid it? Dr. sutton gives the following suggestions:

• 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.

To keep our inner a* from getting out, "admitting you're an a* is the first step." We need to be aware of places and people that will turn us into an a*; we need to be aware of how seeing life as a bitter winner-takes-all contest can turn us into an instant jerk, and of how others see us even if it doesn't reflect our true intentions. Try to treat the person right in front of us, right now, in the right way.

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.

Using those tactics does not mean that we will bear with nasty workplace forever. Think twice if we really are trapped in and if we can make any changes.

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.

Dr. Sutton even brings following key lessons how to be an effective a*. Use it at your own risk.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Even with those "effective way to be an a*", there are many other nice, kind, warm-hearted people can reach to the same success without being nasty. I love the statement from the author:"I wrote it because my life and lives of the people I care about are too short and too precious to spend our days surrounded by jerks." Neither do we.

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.

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.
  

Dr. Sutton consolidates the dirty dozen list that a* uses everyday:

1. Personal insults
2. Invading one's "personal territory"
3. Uninvited physical contact
4. Threats and intimidation, both verbal and nonverbal
5. "Sarcastic jokes" and "teasing" used as insult delivery systems
6. Withering email flames
7. Status slaps intended to humiliate their victims
8. Public shaming or "status degradation" rituals
9. Rude interruptions
10. Two-faced attacks
11. Dirty looks
12. Treating people as if they are invisible.

According to the book, bullying, psychological abuse, mobbing, tyrants, and incivility in the workplace goes on and on, and much of this nastiness is directed by superiors to their subordinates(estimate run from 50% to 80%), with somewhat less between coworkers of roughly the same rank(estimates run from 20% to 50%), and upward nastiness where underlings take on their superiors(estimates less than 1% of cases).

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

Woes of Certified A*

• 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

Wicked Consequences for Management

• 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
  

Legal and HR Management Costs

• 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
  

When A* Reign: Negative Effects on Organizations

• 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
  

To sum the above factors up, we can be shocked to see that A* are creating more troubles than they're worth. Then why there are still so many a* around the workplace? Because when people believe " winning isn't everything; it's the only thing" and "Second place means being the first loser.", a* are seen as character flaws but tolerated when people are more talented, smarter, more difficult to replace, and endowed with a higher natural success rate than ordinary mortals. A bad society rule seems to be: " If you are a really big winner, you can get away with bring a really big a*."

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:

1. 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*.
2. 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".
3. 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?"
4. 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.
5. Power breeds nastiness: beware that giving people--even seemingly nice and sensitive people--even a little power can turn them into big jerks.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

The rule test is essentially right when things are going badly since it is easy to be civilized when things are going well.

(to be continued...)

Getting to Yes -- The final stop in the journey (Continued)

After Roger Fisher and William Ury explain four detailed propositions in their book "Getting to Yes":
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.

1. 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."
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
   4. 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.
      
2. Make the most of the assets we do have so that any agreement we reach will satisfy our interests as well as possible.
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. Consider the other side's BATNA: by knowing the other's alternatives, we can realistically estimate what we can expect from the negotiation.
      

What if they Won't play? Use principled negotiation, Negotiation Jujitsu, and one-text mediation procedure step by step.

1. If the other side insists on position, not merits, there are three approaches to focus their attention on the merits.
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
      
2. 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.
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
      
   4. 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.
      
3. Consider the one-text procedure if above strategy does not work.
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
4. Authors present couple useful phrases and strategies to be used in principled negotiation.
   1. "Please correct me if I'm wrong" makes us open to correction and persuasion, and establishes a dialogue based on reason.
      
   2. "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.
      
   3. "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.
   4. "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.
   5. "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.
   6. "Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?" Ask questions instead of statements of fact which shows threatening.
   7. "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.
   8. "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.
   9. "Let me get back to you" since a good negotiator rarely makes an important decision on the spot.
   10. "Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning": present all reasons first before offering a proposal.
   11. "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.
   12. "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.
   13. "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.
   14. "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.
       

What if they use dirty tricks? Taming the hard bargainer.

1. There are a lot of tactics and tricks people can use during negotiations. Most people response to tricky bargaining in two ways:
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. To respond in kind to the other side: in the end either one side yields or negotiation breaks off.
2. There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game when the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic:
   
   1. Recognize the tactic since we have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it.
      
   2. Raise the issue explicitly, bring it up with the other side can make the tactic less effective or the other side stop using it.
      
   3. 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.
      
3. The method to deal with tricky tactics remains the same:
   1. 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.
      
   2. Focus on interest, not positions. Look for the mutual interests.
      
   3. Invent options for mutual gains. Suggest alternative games to play.
   4. 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.
   5. Use BATNA as the last resort, but still leave the room open for negotiation in the future.
      
4. Authors listed three main categories of tricky tactic to prepare and identify:
   1. Deliberate deception: misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions.
      1. 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.
         
      2. 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."
         
      3. 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.
      4. 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."
         
      
      
   2. 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.
      1. 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.
         
      2. 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.
         
      3. 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?"
      4. 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..."
         
      
      
   3. Positional pressure tactics: is designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions.
      
      1. 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.
         
      2. 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.
         
      3. 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.
      4. 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.
      5. 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.
      6. 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.
      7. "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.
         

So far, the authors are talking about those knowledge we knew it all the time. However, they organize common sense and common experience in a way that provides a usable framework for thinking and acting.
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:
1. 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:
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. How complex are the issues? The more complex the subject matter, the more unwise it is to engage in positional bargaining.
      
   3. 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.
   4. 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.
   5. 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.
      
2. What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
3. Should I be fair if I don't have to be?
   1. 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:
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
      
   4. What damage might the unfair result cause to this or other relationship? such as the reputation for fair dealing.
      
   5. 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:
4. What do I do if the people are the problem?
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
   4. 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.
   5. 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.
      
5. Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
   4. 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.
      
6. 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.
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. Adapt the general advice to the specific situation, and implement the general principles on the specific context.
      
   3. Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, know and respect them, but avoid stereotyping individuals and making assumptions beforehand.
   4. Question our assumptions and listen actively. Be open to learning that the other are quite unlike what we expected.
      
Questions about Tactics:
7. How do I decide things like "Where should we meet?" "Who should make the first offer?" and "How high should I start?"
   
   1. The answer is case by case. Good tactical advice required knowledge of specific circumstances.
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
      
8. Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
   
   1. Think about closure from the beginning, then work backwards. Focus on the goals, and imagine what it might be like to implement an agreement.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. 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.
   4. Be persistent in pursuing the interests but not rigid in pursuing any particular solution. Separate the interests from ways to meet them.
      
   5. 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.
      
   6. 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.
      
9. How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. Review the performance. What worked? What did not? What might we have done differently? Keep the record.
   4. 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:
10. Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? And How do I enhance my negotiating power?
    
    1. 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.
       
    2. 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.
       
    3. Resources are not the same as negotiation power. Negotiation power is the ability to persuade someone to do something.
       
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
       
    7. Good communication and good listening helps to understand interests, other side's concerns. There is power in understanding interests.
       
    8. There is power in inventing an elegant option. Brainstorming increase the ability to influence others.
       
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
        
    12. 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.
        

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.