Reflect on taking out "but"

When the word "but" is added to qualify a statement, the only thing the listener hears is what comes after the "but". When listening to statements containing the word "but", I believe that I have identified the cause for people to naturally pay closer attention to the statement after following the "but." The statement following the word "but" is typically the part of the statement requiring action or correction. Here are a few examples, "you wrote an excellent paper, but you need to correct the second paragraph." The second part of the statement is the part that captures the listeners attention because it requires action. Another example is, "you played a great game, but you should have tried harder in the second half." The correction required by the listener is again subsequent to the term "but."

I feel that adding a positive statement is not necessarily a bad thing before giving bad news. Under those circumstances utilizing the word "but" is appropriate. However, if the objective is to give a compliment, leave the "but" out.   

Applying integrative bargaining in a business environment

The dilemma of trust and the dilemma of honesty should play a huge part in integrative bargaining.

The dilemma of trust relates to how much of what you believe the other party tells you is the truth. By assuming that all the information the other party discloses is the truth, a party leaves themselves open to be taken advantage of. In my experience the best way to combat this dilemma is to find out all the information you can about a transaction prior to entering into negotiation. This will allow you to corroborate information provided or identify when the other party is not being completely forthcoming or truthful. In mortgage sales, employees were taught to sell benefits to the borrower while downplaying the actual terms of the loan. This acted as a method of distributive bargaining disguised as integrative bargaining. The loan officer would point out several areas in which the loan was accomplishing the interests of the borrower. Focusing on these interest caused the borrower to believe the loan officer was focused on accomplishing the borrowers objectives. Thus, causing the borrower ignore the point of contention (the rate and costs).

The dilemma of honesty relates to how much does a party disclose to the opposing party. Disclosure can further weakened the position to the borrower. Loan officers were taught to seek out the underlying interests of the borrower and use those interests like a weapon to charge higher rates and collect larger fees. Borrowers who provided honest and accurate information seldom ever got better deals.

This is not to say that I believe that disclosing honest interests is a bad thing for a negotiator to do, but a negotiator must first address the trust dilemma. This can be accomplished by verifying the information given prior to disclosing truthful information about one's own interests. Researching as much information as possible prior to starting negotiations is one way to combat the trust dilemma.

Differences between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining

In a negotiation that involves distributive bargaining (Claiming Value) the parties positions are typically in direct opposition to each other. Instead of focusing on their mutually beneficial interests, they fight for their own position. In some situations one party will be a clear winner while the other party will be a clear loser. Each party is only focusing on getting as close to their desired result at the expense of the other party. This type of winner or loser bargaining can damage or destroy a relationship. It should be avoided when parties are interdependent and maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship is extremely important. In situations where both bargain softly to try to maintain the relationship, both parties compromise and end up losing out because neither party gets what they desired. This type of bargaining does not produce efficient result.

This type of bargaining is useful when the party utilizing it values the substance of the negotiation more than the relationship with the other party. It is also valuable when at the end of the integrative bargaining phase to distribute value.

.
Integrative bargaining (creating value) allows parties to strengthen their relationship and possibly get what they substantively out of the bargain. During integrative bargaining, parties seek to form an alliance to attack the problem is a way that allows them to find a mutually beneficial solution to a common problem. This can include finding new resources or using existing resources in a mutually beneficial way. By working together and looking past positions to see each others interests, they can often find solutions that will accomplish the objectives of both parties. Integrative bargaining focuses first on ways to create value for both parties and but usually their is still a distributive bargaining phase left at the end of integrative bargaining.

This is extremely valuable when parties are interdependent of each other. Finding ways to create a win-win situation also provides leverage to gain agreement in areas that are win-lose.

Blog #4 "Negotiating for a friends gym membership"

On Sunday afternoon, I was meeting a friend at the school gym to workout. Upon our arrival, we noticed that the gym closed early because of the Labor Day holiday. I have been a member of another gym called Maximus for several months and I knew Maximus was open. In the past I had noticed that Maximus was offering free trial passes, allowing members to bring friends in to try the gym. We went to Maximus to see what we could negotiate.

Upon arriving at Maximus we were sent to see a sales councilor. His interest was in selling my friends a membership. Our interest was strictly getting to use the gym that day for free. My friend had no interest in becoming a member because the school gym was free. We presented our position as possibly wanting to join after he tried the gym out. We did not disclose our true interest and gave the councilor the perception we believed would strengthen our position. To my surprise the sales councilor did not use any of the wide variety of approaches used to discover our underlying interest. He failed to take my friend on a tour around the gym, ask about why he wants to work out, or even ask him why he didn't want to join today. The sales councilor, assuming price was our only interest, immediately initiated a distributive bargaining method of negotiation focusing only on price.

Because price was not our interest, both the express and implied messages sent to the sales councilor made him believe that our position was pretty strong and his was very weak. He continued to drop the price of the membership and actual came down so low that the offer given to my friend was cheaper than the price I was paying. I then proceeded to request that he lower my membership dues to that price as well, he agreed. After getting the price to what we believed was the sales councilors reservation point, I proceeded to negotiate a two week clause that would allow my friend to cancel without a penalty and get a full refund.

Essentially from our perspective we got the free pass; however, I am sure that many members fail to cancel within the two weeks. The sales councilor may also be under the assumption that since we got such a great deal my friend would not cancel anyways.

This experience taught me that it is impossible to effectively negotiate an agreement when you do not understand the interests of the other party. I am certain my friend will cancel in two weeks but at least my dues were reduced.

Blog #3 Reflect on "tell me more" after you try it on someone.

"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.

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.

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.