Scribd
Upload
22 views

Why Hasn

The document discusses the ideas presented in the book "Getting to Yes" which focuses on understanding interests rather than positions in negotiations, finding mutually beneficial agreements, and seeing the other side as a partner rather than an opponent. It also examines the legacy of "Getting to Yes" in terms of the ideas it presented, whether it leads to better negotiated outcomes, and if its approach should be used even when there are profound disagreements. Finally, it notes that "Getting to Yes" called for a major cultural change in how most parties approach negotiations.

Uploaded by

Bridgit mueni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

Why Hasn

The document discusses the ideas presented in the book "Getting to Yes" which focuses on understanding interests rather than positions in negotiations, finding mutually beneficial agreements, and seeing the other side as a partner rather than an opponent. It also examines the legacy of "Getting to Yes" in terms of the ideas it presented, whether it leads to better negotiated outcomes, and if its approach should be used even when there are profound disagreements. Finally, it notes that "Getting to Yes" called for a major cultural change in how most parties approach negotiations.

Uploaded by

Bridgit mueni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Why Hasn’t the World Gotten to Yes?

An Appreciation and Some Reflections


The basic core ideas of “getting to yes” are authors, are that by determining what parties’ interests and
needs actually are, rather than assuming what they are, we can search for ways to craft a solution to a
problem by looking for complementary, not competing, goals, needs, or desires. We can then search for
new resources or expanded options and use principles of merit or agreed-upon standards to find
solutions, which can often be creative (better than what parties would have come up with on their own),
sometimes contingent (to be revisited as conditions change), and more legitimate because they are
mutually arrived at, rather than commanded by the law or other powerful institutions or acquiesced in
through the force of power. Among the most important contribution of “getting to yes” was the focus
on joint or mutual, rather than individual gain.

The legacy of Getting to Yes operates on several different levels. It functions on the ideational or
theoretical level; that is, what ideas did it give us? It also functions on the practical level: do we achieve
more consensual and better-executed settlements than we used to? Is this a good model of negotiation
to teach people? Finally, the book’s legacy has a moral dimension: should we continue to try to “get to
yes” with those whom we have profound disagreements with or whom we are trying to make something
new with?

At the level of ideas, Getting to Yes was nothing short of a plea for a major cultural change. To focus on
underlying interests and to approach another party in a negotiation with the idea of forging a joint
agreement that would meet the needs of both parties was — and, I am afraid, still is —countercultural
to the way in which most parties approach negotiations.

Rather than thinking of the other side as someone to be bested, Getting to Yes asks us to think about
seeing the other party as a partner in creating new entities, new or better relationships, or new
resources, even if we are in disagreement (or worse, engaged in litigation or war) with the other

party.

Negotiating rationally: the power and impact of the negotiator’s frame


The frames a manager imposes on problems or disputes are a function of the referent point by which we
evaluate success or failure and gains or losses.

In the context of a negotiation, there is often little objective about the choice of a particular referent
point, although the point that we choose can significantly influence the attractiveness of various
outcomes.

Simply posing problems as choices among potential gains rather than choices among potential losses
can significantly influence the negotiator’s preferences for specific outcomes

The framing effect suggests that to induce concessionary behavior from an opponent, a negotiator
should always create anchors or emphasize referents that lead the opposition to a positive frame and
couch the negotiation in terms of what the other side has to gain
Chapter 3: the third foundation: authoritative standards and norms
The first duty of a wise advocate is to convince his opponent that he understands their arguments

Persuasive arguments about standards, norms, positioning themes and authority are the bread and
butter of negotiation. They illustrate the fairness and consistency matter.

When stakes are high enough, people do not make a concession just because they are caught making an
inconsistent statement or realize that the other side has a good argument. They make it because they
decide, after careful consideration, that it is within their reach and helps them advance towards their
goal.

A reasoned argument supporting your position is an admission ticket that establishes your request as
legitimate and gets the other side’s attention. But argument alone is not always sufficient to achieve
bargaining success. Your request should also be within the zone of other party’s interests and your
manner of communicating the standard must be persuasive

Are salary histories history?


Hiring managers often rely on past salaries as a yardstick for gauging the minimum they could pay a
candidate.

The problem is that women earn on average, around 80 cents to a man’s dollar

The legislation: at least 5 states and a growing number of jurisdictions have enacted laws prohibiting
employers from asking job candidates about their past salaries

Penalties: Fines for violations vary. Delaware’s law imposes civil penalties of up to $ 10,000 for each
violation; infractions of New York City’s law could result in penalties of up to $250,000.

The reaction: Nearly two-thirds of chief human resource officers and other corporate executives
surveyed believe the bans will do little to improve pay equity.

Instead of looking at what an applicant is earning, it is important to pay attention to the skill set the
person has and how relevant it is to the job being filled.

When implementing a ban on asking job candidates about their salaries, it is important to:

a. Know the law


b. Change your mindset about compensation and negotiation
c. Figure out the salary range for each job, and consider sharing pay bands with applicants
d. Conduct competitive market analyses

-ask applicants what their salary expectations are


-train hiring and management personnel

-modify all paperwork to comply with bans

You might also like