1

What is this book about?

Negotiating power, this is a classic that guides us to negotiate effectively. It has been published for nearly 30 years, and the first and second editions are enduring. It has become the most classic negotiation book in the world and an authoritative guide to dealing with negotiation issues.

This book has three authors, all of whom are members of the negotiation project of Harvard University. Therefore, this book is also called the most authoritative negotiation guide of Harvard University. The three authors are: Roger Fisher, a professor at Harvard University and director of Harvard negotiation project, who provides negotiation consulting services for many government departments, enterprises and individuals; William Yuri, consultant of international negotiation cooperation organization and one of the founders of Harvard negotiation project, once taught negotiation courses for entrepreneurs and government officials at Harvard Business School. Bruce Barton, deputy director of Harvard negotiation program, founded two consulting companies, which are devoted to negotiation training and consulting.

2

What do we usually do?

Where are the negotiators?

The word negotiation looks very formal. But in fact, life is full of negotiation. For example, two people discuss what to eat at night, persuade their children to go to bed early, talk to their boss about a raise, and go to the vegetable market to bargain. These are all negotiations.

We usually use two negotiation methods, namely, moderate negotiation and tough negotiation.

Gentle negotiation is to avoid friction and conflict between the two sides, hoping to save each other's face and maintain the relationship while reaching a consensus. Therefore, it is easy to make concessions in the negotiation process and even suffer unilateral losses by adopting a moderate negotiation method. However, in the end, I found that I was used by the other party and suffered a dull loss.

People who take tough negotiations think that negotiation is a zero-sum game, and either you win or I lose, so they would rather break their heads than give in. This kind of positive negotiation will not only make you exhausted, but also hurt your relationship with the other party.

It can be seen that whether it is moderate negotiation or tough negotiation, the result will not only take care of the interests of both sides, but also destroy the interpersonal relationship between the two sides.

You may think that this is the way to negotiate. Interests and interpersonal relationships are like fish and bear's paw. If you want benefits, you have to sacrifice interpersonal relationships. If you want to maintain interpersonal relationships, you need to suffer some losses.

Many people have the same idea as you. Therefore, many people are not satisfied with their usual negotiation skills and even stay away from negotiations.

three

Interests and interpersonal relationships

Is it really impossible to have both?

Don't!

The "principle negotiation" method developed by "Harvard University Negotiation Project" can fairly solve the conflict of interests among negotiators, further promote interpersonal relationships and pave the way for future cooperation.

Negotiating in principle refers to being tough on principles and principles, but taking a gentle attitude towards people. It is neither tough nor gentle, but both rigid and flexible. Principle negotiation is a negotiation method of "you can have your cake and eat it", and it is also the most effective negotiation strategy in the negotiation field so far. The reason why this book is regarded as the Bible of negotiation lies in its detailed introduction to principled negotiation.

Negotiation in principle, is it really so magical?

The reason why principle negotiation is the most effective negotiation strategy stems from its four principles, namely: separation of characters; The interests of both sides of the negotiation should be taken care of; Create projects for common interests; Try to find a neutral and objective evaluation standard.

four

Principle 1

See people and things separately

Each of us is a creature with strong feelings. In the process of negotiation, feelings are often intertwined with objective interests, which will undoubtedly affect the outcome of negotiation. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of objective interests without affecting each other's feelings, it is necessary to deal with the problem of interests and interpersonal relations separately. This is the first principle of principle negotiation: separate people from things.

For example, you casually say, "The kitchen is a mess!" My mother-in-law is likely to fly into a rage: "I cook for you in different ways every day, and you accuse me!" " "

You are just stating the facts, but your mother-in-law thinks you made a personal attack on her. My mother-in-law just doesn't separate people from things.

Treating other people's problems as accusations against themselves is the first sequela of confusing people and things.

The second sequela of confusing people with things is to make subjective guesses about other people's opinions and feedback. You ask your boss for a raise, but the boss tells you that the company's performance is not very good recently. You think to yourself: That's it, the boss is crying poor. This is the rhythm of not wanting a raise. So, you are unhappy and start to refute, saying that how hard you work, the overall performance of the company is not your own problem, and so on. The boss was very anxious. You are a member of the company. How can the poor performance of the company have nothing to do with you? After this conversation, the two broke up in discord and the negotiation failed.

In fact, when the boss tells you that the company's performance is not good, it's not that he doesn't want to give you a raise, he just wants to sell you a favor, which means that even if the performance is not good, the company will give you a raise, and I hope you will work harder for the company. But because you made a subjective guess about the boss's feedback, the negotiation failed.

How to distinguish people from things?

First of all, you should realize that if you want to have both interests and interpersonal relationships in the negotiation process, you must regard the other party as a collaborator and let the other party feel your understanding. This will prevent the other party from taking your questions as accusations or making subjective guesses about your opinions and feedback.

Secondly, in the process of communication, only talk about yourself, not each other. In many negotiations, both sides will spend a lot of energy and time to explain and condemn each other's motives and intentions. Doing so will put both sides in a position of blaming each other. If you want to win the trust of others in negotiations, you can't just analyze what the other party did or why, but focus on expressing your feelings. For example, you can say "I'm disappointed" instead of "you broke your promise"; You can say "I feel discriminated against" instead of "you are a racist" to express your feelings, which not only conveys the information, but also won't make the other party take the defensive and refuse to accept your opinion.

five

Principle 2

The interests of both parties to the negotiation

It must be handled.

Why did the talks break down? Even if a consensus was reached, why were both sides full of anger? The reason is very simple, that is, everyone is fighting for their own interests, without considering the common interests. Therefore, if both sides want to resolve conflicts of interest amicably and properly, they need to take care of their interests. This is the second principle of principle negotiation: we should take care of the interests of both sides.

The interests of both sides should be taken care of, that is to say, we should focus on interests rather than positions when negotiating. Interests can find common interests, but positions are often fragmented.

However, many of us focus on our own position in the negotiation process, and the result is that the negotiation breaks down, or even if a consensus is reached, our hearts are full of anger.

For example, you suggest watching Jurassic World 2, but your girlfriend wants to see a romantic movie starring domestic small fresh meat.

The difference between you and your girlfriend lies in your different positions. Your position is that you finally have time to watch movies, of course, you have to watch popular blockbusters with good reputation; Your girlfriend's position is that this is my date time with my boyfriend, of course, I have to watch romantic movies, otherwise it means that he doesn't care about me.

After understanding the positions of both sides, it will be much easier to "solve the problem". For example, if you take your girlfriend to see "Jurassic World 2", at the same time, you also buy snacks and flowers to go to the cinema, or take your girlfriend to a fancy restaurant after watching the movie to give her a romantic and unforgettable night.

If you are always entangled in the position, you will feel that your girlfriend is not considerate enough, and your girlfriend will feel that you don't care about her or even love her, then the problem is serious.

From this example, we can see that everyone's position is specific and clear, but the interests behind the position may not be obvious; The positions of the negotiating parties are opposite, but the interests behind them are not necessarily completely in conflict. Position is only the appearance, and interest is the essence. It is the key to reach a consensus to discover the interest essence of their respective needs through the appearance of their respective positions.

How can we fully take care of the interests of both sides in the negotiation?

The way is to stand on the other side and ask "why" more.

For example, when you go to work and feel bored in the office, you want to open the window next to you, but the colleague sitting next to you is very unhappy and insists on closing the window. You two are arguing about this. Opening and closing windows are two completely different positions. If we continue to negotiate on this position, there will never be any result. But if you ask "why", things will be clear.

Why did you open the window? Because you are bored and want to breathe fresh air;

Why don't your colleagues open the window? Because he thought there would be air flow when he opened the window, he messed up all the papers on the table.

At this time, the "answer" to "solve the problem" is very clear: you can open the window next door and let in fresh air, so that there will be no direct flow to mess up the documents.

You see, we can find an effective way to solve the problem by focusing on the interests and taking care of the interests of both sides of the negotiation, not on the position.

six

Principle 3

Make plans for common interests

After taking care of the interests of both sides in the negotiation, we should make a plan for common interests. Creating a plan for common interests can ensure that both sides can get what they want most in this process and maximize the interests of both sides. This is the third principle of principle negotiation: making plans for common interests.

However, in real life, we often don't create a plan, but focus on a single plan, so that both sides can't get what they want, or even if they get what they want, they don't maximize their benefits.

To share a little story. An adult gave two children an orange. Two children discuss how to divide oranges. The two quarreled and finally reached an agreement. One child was responsible for cutting oranges and the other chose oranges. Then, the two children took half of the oranges according to the agreed method and took them home happily.

After returning home, one of the children peeled the skin and threw it into the trash can, and put the pulp into the juicer to squeeze the juice. Another child dug out the pulp and threw it into the trash can, leaving the orange peel to be ground and mixed with flour to bake the cake.

The two children seemed to negotiate successfully, and each of them was given half of the oranges, but in fact they did not maximize their interests.

One person takes orange meat and one person takes orange peel, which is the maximization of interests.

However, in our daily life, there are many examples in which negotiations seem to be successful, but the interests are not maximized. The reason is that there is no creative plan, but we are staring at a single plan-the cake in front of us, racking our brains to think how to cut it, in order to get more.

As mentioned above, opening the window next door is to create a plan for common interests. Why is this a plan created for the common good?

In the past, you and your colleagues were struggling with the window around you, but now the "answer" to "solve the problem" is the window next door. This is the created scheme.

In order to create a plan to ensure that both sides can get what they want most and maximize the interests of both sides in the negotiation, we need to abandon single thinking, don't cut the cake, and think about making the cake bigger.

Suppose you are the boss of an oil refining company, and you pay 6.5438+0 million profit tax to the municipal government every year, but now the mayor requires you to pay 2 million profit tax every year. You think to yourself: The cake is so big. If the profits and taxes paid are doubled, it means less money will fall into your pocket. At this time, how should you negotiate with the government?

We might as well analyze it further.

What does the mayor want? Want money-for municipal construction or to reduce the burden on ordinary taxpayers. But just from you, the mayor can't get all the money he needs now and in the future. So in addition to raising your profits and taxes, he will definitely raise the profits and taxes standards of other enterprises. At the same time, in order to promote the local economic development, the mayor must also want to promote the further development of enterprises.

What do you want? Of course, you don't want to pay more profits tax. You want to use this money to improve refining technology, expand the scale and further expand your business. You even want to attract some plastic factories to build their factories near your company to facilitate the use of your products. But now that the government raises corporate profits and taxes, it is estimated that there will be no plastic factory to build a factory.

In this way, the common interests of you and the mayor are much more obvious. Your unanimous goal is to accelerate industrial development and promote economic development.

At this time, you will find that if you want to take care of common interests, you can not only cut off the existing cake, but even make it bigger.

For example, you suggest that the government implement a five-year tax exemption policy for new enterprises to attract more enterprises to settle in. It seems tax-free, but the more enterprises that settle in, the faster the local economy will develop. The government has benefited from it, and you will also benefit from it-the idea of attracting plastic factories to build factories can also land.

Having said that, I believe you have made an amazing discovery: it is precisely because of the different needs of both sides that we can make the cake bigger. However, in daily life, we always think that the differences between the two sides will cause problems, and we will cut the originally small cake into pieces, but we don't know that differences can solve the problem or even make a big cake.

Therefore, when looking for a plan with common interests, we must "create" the plan instead of staring at the cake in front of us and thinking about how to cut it.

seven

Principle 4

Try to find neutrality and objectivity.

Criteria

How to judge whether the scheme created for common interests is effective? This requires finding a neutral and objective evaluation standard. For example, the same standards in the market, expert opinions, practices, laws and other standards to judge. Through neutral and objective evaluation criteria, rather than just relying on their own wishes, both sides of the negotiation need not make concessions and can get a fair solution. This is the fourth principle of principled negotiation: try to find neutral and objective standards.

Let's look at a common shopping case:

Customer: Boss, how much is this bracelet?

Seller: Good eye! This bracelet is the best seller in our store, 800 yuan.

Guest: Hey, it's a little here. It's still 500 yuan.

Seller: the purchase price is more than 500. You want me to sell at a loss.

Guest: So 550 yuan.

Seller: If you really want it, I'll give you a step, and you give me a step, so it's 750 yuan.

……

No matter how much the bracelet is sold in the end, both the buyer and the seller will be unhappy, the buyer will still feel expensive, and the seller will feel that the buyer is too smart to make any money. Moreover, such transactions are inefficient.

However, if "the price is clearly marked" or "the market can be checked immediately after sweeping", then buyers and sellers will not be entangled in the price.

"Clear price tag" or "you can check the market immediately after sweeping" are neutral and objective evaluation criteria.

So, how should we formulate a neutral and objective evaluation standard?

To formulate a neutral and objective evaluation standard, we need to take two steps. The first step is to set fair standards, and the second step is to set fair procedures. Only standards without procedures will not be implemented, and fairness will not play a role.

Moral standards, precedents, scientific judgments, industry standards, efficiency, traditional standards, etc. Can be used as a reference for formulating fair standards.

After the standards are formulated, procedures must be formulated. Without fair procedures, fair standards will be abused. There is a classic story. There are seven monks in a temple. Because there are too many monks, there are often contradictions. How to make everyone have porridge to eat has become a top priority.

At first, seven monks each took turns on duty every day and shared porridge. As a result, only the person in charge of distributing porridge can eat enough, and everyone else can't eat enough. Later, seven monks jointly elected a respected old monk to share porridge. The result is that people who have a good relationship with the old monk can eat enough, while others have no chance to eat enough. This method actually breeds corruption.

Later, a three-person porridge sharing Committee and a four-person supervision Committee were established. Therefore, the two committees often attack and quarrel with each other. When the porridge was finally finished, it was cold. This method is too inefficient.

Finally, the seven monks summed up their experiences and lessons and came up with a way: the seven monks took turns to divide the porridge, but the people who divided the porridge could not eat the last bowl left until everyone else had chosen it. A miracle happened, and monks can eat hot porridge on an equal footing.

You see, monks all know the standard of fairness, that is, everyone gets the same amount of porridge, but because there is no fair procedure, the standard of fairness can never be implemented and even breeds corruption. Later, people who divide porridge will have to wait until everyone else has finished picking and eat the last bowl left-fair procedures have been formed and fair standards have been implemented-before monks can eat hot porridge equally.

After formulating neutral and objective standards, how should we use objective standards to negotiate with each other?

First of all, both sides should jointly seek objective standards for each issue. For example, if you are going to buy a second-hand house, you might as well come straight to the point and say to the real estate agent, "You want a high price and I want a low price. Then we might as well see how much the second-hand house with the same apartment in the same community is selling now." Take this as a reference! "

Secondly, we should convince people by reasoning and be willing to accept reasonable persuasion. For example, if you ask your boss for a raise, your reference standard is your excellent performance, the salary standard of the same position in other companies and so on. But the boss promised to give you half of the expected salary and provide you with opportunities and expenses for on-the-job study. At this time, you should weigh whether the salary promised by the boss plus the opportunity and cost of on-the-job study meet your expectations. If so, don't continue to struggle with the actual salary.

Finally, follow principles and never give in to pressure. Pressure takes many forms, such as bribery, threats, coercion, force or refusal to yield. In the face of pressure, let the other party give reasons and put forward applicable objective standards, otherwise it will never compromise.

eight

The title of this book can be changed to

Ways to win benefits and enhance friendship

The above is the effective negotiation strategy taught by negotiating power-principled negotiation.

Let's summarize.

Through the book "Negotiation Power", we have mastered the negotiation method-principled negotiation, which can not only protect the legitimate rights and interests of both parties to the negotiation, but also solve the conflict of interests fairly, further enhance interpersonal relationships and pave the way for future cooperation.

Principle-based negotiation is effective because it has four principles. These four principles are: separating people from things; The interests of both sides of the negotiation should be taken care of; Create projects for common interests; Try to find a neutral and objective evaluation standard.

In fact, these four principles all point to the point that the relationship between the parties in the negotiation is often more important than the outcome of any specific issue. In other words, the significance of maintaining relations is far higher than the outcome of negotiations.

This is really a surprising conclusion.

However, when you think about it, this is not subversive.

Because the vast majority of negotiations are conducted in the context of the continuous development of interpersonal relationships. Therefore, negotiations should focus on promoting rather than destroying interpersonal relationships, paving the way for future negotiations.

Moreover, negotiations that can further promote interpersonal relationships and pave the way for future cooperation must also be negotiations that safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of both parties and fairly resolve their conflicts of interest.

Finally, let's look at this book outside the negotiation itself.

This book actually solves such a problem for us: how to turn contradictions into promoting interpersonal relationships?

This book tells us that conflicts and interpersonal relationships are not contradictory, and only by first settling interpersonal relationships can conflicts be properly resolved.

The way to deal with interpersonal relationships is the four principles of principle negotiation.

Therefore, this book is suitable for everyone in our workplace to read. It can help us effectively improve our communication skills and resolve conflicts of interest. Because conflicts are everywhere, communication happens from time to time.

Well, this is the whole content of bargaining power. Congratulations on mastering another method to solve contradictions and promote interpersonal relationships.