"Tell me more" can be rendered ineffective by the other parties unwillingness to provide additional information.
I was recently dating an amazing woman and lost her because of my inability to communicate and negotiate effectively. She had complained to me several times about things that I was doing and I always defended my position instead of addressing the issues. I viewed my position as "trying as hard as I can to be a good boyfriend." Every time she attempted to tell me that she didn't perceive my actions the same way, I tried to defend my position. I explained to her why her perception was wrong. After several weeks of not hearing her warnings or not fully understanding her feelings, she had finally decided that things were not going to work. I wish I had read "Getting to Yes" sooner before the damage was done.
During our breakup discussion, I thought back to the negotiation class exercise "tell me more." I wanted to get to the substantive issues behind her decision to end things. I desperately wanted to separate the person (me) from the underlying problem. Unfortunately it seems, she was unwavering on her perception that I was the problem. By this time her position had already changed to "wanting out." I tried countless times to ask her for more information about what the exact problems were and I faced the same generalized grievances as she continued to defend her position of ending things. I believe that "tell me more" could have saved this relationship if I had used it at a time when her position was still "wanting things to be better."
I feel like this class has already helped me realize some critical mistakes I have been making.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Blog #2 Reflect on some piece of the book which applies to something you faced during the week prior to class
This week, the girl that I was dating and I broke up. Ironically, many of the principals in this book applied to this experience. The one that stuck out to me the most I will describe below.
During our relationship I did everything that I could think of to try to make this girls life a little better. I bought her little surprises, tried to resolve every problem she mentioned, and I consciously did and said things to let her know that I cared. From my position, I was being a good boyfriend. However, she was still unhappy with our relationship and I could not understand why.
Upon reading the book and recounting past conversations in my head, I realized that she was uncomfortable with me doing all those things. Her perception was that I did not respect her Independence and I thought that she could not take care of herself. While this perception could not be further from the truth, this book taught me that the golden rule (always treat others as you would have them treat you is wrong). The correct statement should be, "always treat others how they would want you to treat them." Good intentions that are perceived to be bad intentions have the same effect as bad intentions.
During our relationship I did everything that I could think of to try to make this girls life a little better. I bought her little surprises, tried to resolve every problem she mentioned, and I consciously did and said things to let her know that I cared. From my position, I was being a good boyfriend. However, she was still unhappy with our relationship and I could not understand why.
Upon reading the book and recounting past conversations in my head, I realized that she was uncomfortable with me doing all those things. Her perception was that I did not respect her Independence and I thought that she could not take care of herself. While this perception could not be further from the truth, this book taught me that the golden rule (always treat others as you would have them treat you is wrong). The correct statement should be, "always treat others how they would want you to treat them." Good intentions that are perceived to be bad intentions have the same effect as bad intentions.
Blog #1 Reflecting on Chapters 1-3
Negotiations have traditionally consisted of positional bargaining. Each side takes a position and defends that position against attack. Under that model participants had to chose between substance and the relationship. If the participant valued substance they would take a hard bargaining position could damage the relationship. If the participant valued the relationship they would take a soft approach. Soft bargaining is dominated by hard bargaining. In this model, typically one party loses and one party wins and this method is inefficient because of the time and potential for either no agreement or damage to the relationship.
In principled negotiations, the participants are hard on the problems and soft on the people. It allows agreements that can be mutually beneficial and do not damage the relationship. The basics boil down to four points: (1) separate the people from the problem, (2) Focus on interests and not positions, (3) generate a variety of possibilities before deciding on what to do, (4) Insist that the results are based on objective criterion.
Separating the people from the problem allows individuals to not become personally attached to defending a position. Seek alliances with the other party to identify ways in which the problem can be solved. Pressing a substantive issue, then the problem is a personal one will lead to frustration and will ultimately damage the relationship. By working on personal problem first, it allows the substance of an deal to be objectively worked on by both parties to seek a mutual resolution.
Interests are the underlying rationale for a position. You cannot know what to offer if you do not know what the other side really wants. By identifying interest, you might find that you have shared interest or your interests do not conflict. Shared interest increase the possibility of forming an agreement.
Finding out what is important and identifying options is tool that allows a party to identify what is really important to the other side. It also can spark creativity in drafting a solution that will benefit both sides.
By seeking objective criterion on the interest that compete, you can eliminate either party feeling like they were soft or gave in. Objective criterion might include: blue book values, appraised values, or expert opinions.
By following these steps: both parties can leave with the agreement that best serves their needs, the process is efficient, and the relationship is stronger or at least not damaged.
In principled negotiations, the participants are hard on the problems and soft on the people. It allows agreements that can be mutually beneficial and do not damage the relationship. The basics boil down to four points: (1) separate the people from the problem, (2) Focus on interests and not positions, (3) generate a variety of possibilities before deciding on what to do, (4) Insist that the results are based on objective criterion.
Separating the people from the problem allows individuals to not become personally attached to defending a position. Seek alliances with the other party to identify ways in which the problem can be solved. Pressing a substantive issue, then the problem is a personal one will lead to frustration and will ultimately damage the relationship. By working on personal problem first, it allows the substance of an deal to be objectively worked on by both parties to seek a mutual resolution.
Interests are the underlying rationale for a position. You cannot know what to offer if you do not know what the other side really wants. By identifying interest, you might find that you have shared interest or your interests do not conflict. Shared interest increase the possibility of forming an agreement.
Finding out what is important and identifying options is tool that allows a party to identify what is really important to the other side. It also can spark creativity in drafting a solution that will benefit both sides.
By seeking objective criterion on the interest that compete, you can eliminate either party feeling like they were soft or gave in. Objective criterion might include: blue book values, appraised values, or expert opinions.
By following these steps: both parties can leave with the agreement that best serves their needs, the process is efficient, and the relationship is stronger or at least not damaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)