George strait check yes or no free download

The parties should not simply assume that their worst fears will become the actions of the other party. Nor should one side blame the other for the problem. Each side should try to make proposals which would be appealing to the other side. The more that the parties are involved in the process, the more likely they are to be involved in and to support the outcome. Emotions are a second source of people problems. Negotiation can be a frustrating process.

People often react with fear or anger when they feel that their interests are threatened. The first step in dealing with emotions is to acknowledge them, and to try to understand their source. The parties must acknowledge the fact that certain emotions are present, even when they don't see those feelings as reasonable.

Dismissing another's feelings as unreasonable is likely to provoke an even more intense emotional response. The parties must allow the other side to express their emotions. They must not react emotionally to emotional outbursts. Symbolic gestures such as apologies or an expression of sympathy can help to defuse strong emotions.

Communication is the third main source of people problems. Negotiators may not be speaking to each other, but may simply be grandstanding for their respective constituencies. The parties may not be listening to each other, but may instead be planning their own responses.

Even when the parties are speaking to each other and are listening, misunderstandings may occur. To combat these problems, the parties should employ active listening. The listeners should give the speaker their full attention, occasionally summarizing the speaker's points to confirm their understanding. Speakers should direct their speech toward the other parties and keep focused on what they are trying to communicate. Each side should avoid blaming or attacking the other, and should speak about themselves.

Generally the best way to deal with people problems is to prevent them from arising. People problems are less likely to come up if the parties have a good relationship, and think of each other as partners in negotiation rather than as adversaries.

Focus on Interests Good agreements focus on the parties' interests, rather than their positions. As Fisher and Ury explain, "Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.

When a problem is defined in terms of the parties' underlying interests it is often possible to find a solution which satisfies both parties' interests. The first step is to identify the parties' interests regarding the issue at hand.

This can be done by asking why they hold the positions they do, and by considering why they don't hold some other possible position. Each party usually has a number of different interests underlying their positions. And interests may differ somewhat among the individual members of each side. However, all people will share certain basic interests or needs, such as the need for security and economic well-being. Once the parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together.

If a party wants the other side to take their interests into account, that party must explain their interests clearly. The other side will be more motivated to take those interests into account if the first party shows that they are paying attention to the other side's interests. Discussions should look forward to the desired solution, rather than focusing on past events. Parties should keep a clear focus on their interests, but remain open to different proposals and positions. Parties may decide prematurely on an option and so fail to consider alternatives.

The parties may be intent on narrowing their options to find the single answer. The parties may define the problem in win-lose terms, assuming that the only options are for one side to win and the other to lose.

Or a party may decide that it is up to the other side to come up with a solution to the problem. The authors also suggest four techniques for overcoming these obstacles and generating creative options. First it is important to separate the invention process from the evaluation stage.

The parties should come together in an informal atmosphere and brainstorm for all possible solutions to the problem. Wild and creative proposals are encouraged. Brainstorming sessions can be made more creative and productive by encouraging the parties to shift between four types of thinking: stating the problem, analyzing the problem, considering general approaches, and considering specific actions.

Parties may suggest partial solutions to the problem. Only after a variety of proposals have been made should the group turn to evaluating the ideas. Evaluation should start with the most promising proposals. The parties may also refine and improve proposals at this point. Participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on shared interests.

When the parties' interests differ, they should seek options in which those differences can be made compatible or even complementary. The key to reconciling different interests is to "look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa.

To do this it is important to identify the decision makers and target proposals directly toward them. Proposals are easier to agree to when they seem legitimate, or when they are supported by precedent. Threats are usually less effective at motivating agreement than are beneficial offers. Allowing such differences to spark a battle of wills will destroy relationships, is inefficient, and is not likely to produce wise agreements.

Decisions based on reasonable standards makes it easier for the parties to agree and preserve their good relationship. The first step is to develop objective criteria. Usually there are a number of different criteria which could be used.

The parties must agree which criteria is best for their situation. Criteria should be both legitimate and practical. Scientific findings, professional standards, or legal precedent are possible sources of objective criteria. One way to test for objectivity is to ask if both sides would agree to be bound by those standards. Rather than agreeing in substantive criteria, the parties may create a fair procedure for resolving their dispute. For example, children may fairly divide a piece of cake by having one child cut it, and the other choose their piece.

There are three points to keep in mind when using objective criteria. First each issue should be approached as a shared search for objective criteria. Ask for the reasoning behind the other party's suggestions. Using the other parties' reasoning to support your own position can be a powerful way to negotiate. Second, each party must keep an open mind.

They must be reasonable, and be willing to reconsider their positions when there is reason to. Third, while they should be reasonable, negotiators must never give in to pressure, threats, or bribes.

When the other party stubbornly refuses to be reasonable, the first party may shift the discussion from a search for substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria. However, Fisher and Ury suggest ways to protect the weaker party against a poor agreement, and to help the weaker party make the most of their assets.

Often negotiators will establish a "bottom line" in an attempt to protect themselves against a poor agreement. Negotiators decide in advance of actual negotiations to reject any proposal below that line.

Fisher and Ury argue against using bottom lines. Because the bottom line figure is decided upon in advance of discussions, the figure may be arbitrary or unrealistic.

Having already committed oneself to a rigid bottom line also inhibits inventiveness in generating options. Instead the weaker party should concentrate on assessing their best alternative to a negotiated agreement BATNA. The authors note that "the reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. Power in a negotiation comes from the ability to walk away from negotiations. Generally, the weaker party can take unilateral steps to improve their alternatives to negotiation.

They must identify potential opportunities and take steps to further develop those opportunities. The weaker party will have a better understanding of the negotiation context if they also try to estimate the other side's BATNA. Fisher and Ury conclude that "developing your BATNA thus not only enables you to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement, it will probably raise that minimum.

Fisher and Ury describe three approaches for dealing with opponents who are stuck in positional bargaining. First, one side may simply continue to use the principled approach. The authors point out that this approach is often contagious. Second, the principled party may use "negotiation jujitsu" to bring the other party in line. The key is to refuse to respond in kind to their positional bargaining. Positional bargainers usually attack either by asserting their position, or by attacking the other side's ideas or people.

When they assert their position, respond by asking for the reasons behind that position. When they attack the other side's ideas, the principle party should take it as constructive criticism and invite further feedback and advice. Personal attacks should be recast as attacks on the problem. Generally the principled party should use questions and strategic silences to draw the other party out.

When the other party remains stuck in positional bargaining, the one- text approach may be used. In this approach a third party is brought in. The third party should interview each side separately to determine what their underlying interests are. The third party then assembles a list of their interests and asks each side for their comments and criticisms of the list. She then takes those comments and draws up a proposal. The proposal is given to the parties for comments, redrafted, and returned again for more comments.

This process continues until the third party feels that no further improvements can be made. At that point, the parties must decide whether to accept the refined proposal or to abandon negotiations. The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation. Fisher and Ury identify the general types of tricky tactics.

Parties may engage in deliberate deception about the facts, their authority, or their intentions. The best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other side's claims. It may help to ask them for further clarification of a claim, or to put the claim in writing. However, in doing this it is very important not to bee seen as calling the other party a liar; that is, as making a personal attack.

Another common type of tactic is psychological warfare. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective simply be recognizing them for what they are.

Explicitly identifying them to the offending party will often put an end to suck attacks. Threats are a way to apply psychological pressure. The principled negotiator should ignore them where possible, or undertake principled negotiations on the use of threats in the proceedings. The last class of trick tactics are positional pressure tactics which attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions.

The tricky side may refuse to negotiate, hoping to use their entry into negotiations as a bargaining chip, or they may open with extreme demands. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a bargaining tactic, and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate.

They may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants, and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable commitments to certain positions, or to make-take-it-or-leave-it offers.

The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests. Insist that any proposals be evaluated on their merits, and don't hesitate to point out dirty tricks.

Mankiw, N. Gregory, Principles of Economics, McRae, Dr. Jossey-Bass, London, Mnookin, Robert H. Nierenberg, Gerard I. The Art of Negotiating. New York: Coernerstone Library, Pruitt, Dean. Raiffa, Howard. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, Schelling, Thomas C. New York: Bantam Books, The 4 Fundamentals of Principled Negotiations Principled negotiations focus on merits, not positions. They are built on 4 key foundations—people, interests, options, and criteria.

Do get the full details from the book or our full page summary. To focus on the issues, you must first tackle the people issues separately. Get a copy of the book for the full tips and examples! Rather than depend on a battle of wills or subjective opinions, insist on using fair, objective criteria to jointly assess options. Instead, use principled negotiations to negotiate the rules of the game.

Learn to identify the 3 common types of dirty tricks, so you can address them. Integrative bargaining also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining" is a negotiation strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become involved in a conflict.

This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome. Why is Integrative Bargaining Important? Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved than does positional bargaining.

Positional bargaining is based on fixed, opposing viewpoints positions and tends to result in compromise or no agreement at all. Oftentimes, compromises do not efficiently satisfy the true interests of the disputants. Instead, compromises simply split the difference between the two positions, giving each side half of what they want.

Creative, integrative solutions, on the other hand, can potentially give everyone all of what they want. There are often many interests behind any one position.

If parties focus on identifying those interests, they will increase their ability to develop win-win solutions. The classic example of interest-based bargaining and creating joint value is that of a dispute between two little girls over an orange. Both girls take the position that they want the whole orange. Their mother serves as the moderator of the dispute and based on their positions, cuts the orange in half and gives each girl one half. This outcome represents a compromise. However, if the mother had asked each of the girls why she wanted the orange -- what her interests were -- there could have been a different, win-win outcome.

This is because one girl wanted to eat the meat of the orange, but the other just wanted the peel to use in baking some cookies. If their mother had known their interests, they could have both gotten all of what they wanted, rather than just half. Integrative solutions are generally more gratifying for all involved in negotiation, as the true needs and concerns of both sides will be met to some degree.

It is a collaborative process and therefore the parties actually end up helping each other. This prevents ongoing ill will after the negotiation concludes.

Instead, interest-based bargaining facilitates constructive, positive relationships between previous adversaries. This will take some work by the negotiating parties, as interests are often less tangible than positions and are often not publicly revealed.

A key approach to determining interests is asking "Why? Why do you need that? What are your concerns? If you cannot ask these questions directly, get an intermediary to ask them. The bottom line is you need to figure out why people feel the way they do, why they are demanding what they are demanding.

Be sure to make it clear that you are asking these questions so you can understand their interests needs, hopes, fears, or desires better, not because you are challenging them or trying to figure out how to beat them. Next you might ask yourself how the other side perceives your demands.

What is standing in the way of them agreeing with you? Do they know your underlying interests? Do you know what your own underlying interests are? If you can figure out their interests as well as your own, you will be much more likely to find a solution that benefits both sides. You must also analyze the potential consequences of an agreement you are advocating, as the other side would see them. This is essentially the process of weighing pros and cons, but you attempt to do it from the perspective of the other side.

Then you will be better equipped to negotiate an agreement that will be acceptable to both of you. There are a few other points to remember about identifying interests.

First, you must realize that each side will probably have multiple interests it is trying to satisfy. Not only will a single person have multiple interests, but if you are negotiating with a group, you must remember that each individual in the group may have differing interests. Also important is the fact that the most powerful interests are basic human needs - security, economic well being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one's life.

If you can take care of the basic needs of both sides, then agreement will be easier. You should make a list of each side's interests as they become apparent. This way you will be able to remember them and also to evaluate their relative importance. After interests are identified, the parties need to work together cooperatively to try to figure out the best ways to meet those interests. Often by "brainstorming" -- listing all the options anyone can think of without criticizing or dismissing anything initially, parties can come up with creative new ideas for meeting interests and needs that had not occurred to anyone before.

The goal is a win-win outcome, giving each side as much of their interests as possible, and enough, at a minimum that they see the outcome as a win, rather than a loss. Using Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Together Although distributive bargaining is frequently seen as the opposite of integrative bargaining, the two are not mutually exclusive. Distributive bargaining plays a role in integrative bargaining, because ultimately "the pie" has to be split up. Integrative bargaining is a good way to make the pie joint value as large as it possibly can be, but ultimately the parties must distribute the value that was created through negotiation.

They must agree on who gets what. The idea behind integrative bargaining is that this last step will not be difficult once the parties reach that stage.

This is because the interest-based approach is supposed to help create a cooperative working relationship.

Theoretically, the parties should know who wants what by the time they split the pie. New York: Penguin Books, Use the following to cite this article: Spangler, Brad. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Next I will share 5 conflict experiences where the story lends itself to a negotiation lesson of general application.

Two conflicts failed and three succeeded. The purpose of the negotiation was to persuade NKK to invest , build and operate a steel mill in the province. The local negotiators were the City of Seattle and the BC province. I was on the negotiating team and after more than 80 years of failure we made a deal that became an International Treaty between the US and Canada. For the first time in Canada the law removed labour injunctions from the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

Also a new administrative body with very broad powers like a labour court given the power to regulate strikes, picketing and collective bargaining. Matkin "Tis the set of the sails and not the gales that determines the way we go.

I want to explore some fresh ideas that will help us to manage better the conflict that exists in our industrial relations environment. Conflict arising from competing interests has been with us from the beginning of civilization. The problem is how we respond to conflict. How do we negotiate? As the poet said, "Tis the set of the sails and not the gales that determines the way we go.

In British Columbia, for example, we have gone through strife in our collective bargaining and have weathered far too many storms. But from this very turbulent history there is now emerging a new opportunity for success. After years of confrontation we are on the road to reconciliation. There is a better attitude developing in the province that bodes well for the success of principled bargaining.

The concept of principled bargaining is an approach to negotiations that is based primarily on the work of Dr. Roger Fisherr of Harvard Law School. I have seen its value in my experiences with many difficult disputes over the years. Principled bargaining is different from positional or adversarial bargaining, the traditional method of negotiating that causes many problems. Principled bargaining is different because it reduces the importance of haggling by creating a more constructive dynamic where objective criteria are debated.

This is not an Utopian idea because it is drawn from practical with experience. Principled bargaining is based on five key practices: bargaining from principle rather than Position; treating your opponents with respect; responding to opposition with integration; finding an agreement based upon the justice of the situation; making tirnely and positive commitments. The importance of using principle, respect, integration' justice and timeliness in bargaining is that these ingredients will create a more constructive negotiation experience.

I have struggled with many difficult conflicts in my career as a government trouble shooter. I was the Deputy Minister of Labour in British Columbia during some very serious confrontations between labour and management. I worked with the west coast longshore unions 15 years ago and helped the special mediator Chief Justice Nemetz appointed by an Act of the Canadian Parliament to find a successful resolution to a dispute over manning that threatened the economy of the nation.

I was green, but I watched closely and learned from experience about the art of negotiating. I had first-hand experience with corrosive positional bargaining and the terrible tol1 it takes on relationships and the ability of contestants to generate options. More recently I participated as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in the major federal-provincial negotiations that produced the entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

Why did these constitutional negotiations succeed in reaching agreement after 50 years of failure? Principled bargaining meant in the Canadian constitutional negotiations that the governments were prepared to look behind their positions to their interests and resolve the conflict of interests with principle.

The basic conflict was between two fixed positions representing different values. In this case' the competing principles were parliamentary supremacy and judicial review. And they arrived at their successful agreement for a new charter by negotiating the override clause into their agreement. On the other hand, we have suffered from strikes and lockouts in Canada where the parties have been caught in the vice of positional bargaining.

We saw the public sector unions in British Colunbia, in , take issue with the provincial government over its nethod of imposing restraint Bill 3, for example, before amendment allowed the government to fire public servants without cause. The result of this conflict was adversarial bargaining that brought us to the edge of a general strike.

Soon after this conflagration we suffered negative impact to our economy from a dispute in the pulp and paper industry that closed down all the pulp mills for 20 weeks and eost us millions of dollars.

Again the value of principled bargaining was ignored by both parties as they held tenaciously to fixed positions out clarifying their interests. The pulp lockout was only ended by government legislation. Five days later a major bus dispute cornrnenced in the city of Vancouver that lasted 90 days. This bus dispute was a paradigm of adversarial bargaining, with a major issue being the introduction of part-tirne drivers.

She Don't Know She's Beautiful. Sammy Kershaw. I'm Gonna Miss Her. Brad Paisley. Easton Corbin. There Goes My Life. Kenny Chesney. Tracy Lawrence. Joe Nichols. Every Light In The House. Collaborating is easy with Word , PowerPoint , and Excel.

You can chat in real time with Skype —right from your inbox. Use Outlook's powerful built-in calendar to keep track of your appointments and schedule meetings with others. We've designed Outlook. Rangeway Primary School opens its new Yarning Circle, a welcoming place for students and community members.

Secondary schools in the Pilbara are connecting students with local employers through speed recruitment events. A Perth secondary school is a step closer to establishing a space academy to inspire and educate the next generation of astronauts. Southern River College students donate to refugee children from Afghanistan. Harvey students awarded lifesaving bravery gold medallion for a courageous rescue. Each fortnight we take a look at the news and compile a summary of some of the exciting stories about our schools, staff and students.

District high schools welcome a unique online mentoring opportunity for their students. More than Harrisdale Primary School staff participated in the rewarding experience as part of the school development day. Governor Stirling Senior High School Year 12 student Shannon Walding is among 85 up-and-coming artists to have their talents featured in a selective online collection.

Primary school student and proud Noongar girl Alkira Hansen has taken out a top business award. Harrisdale Primary School special educational needs students have launched a pen pal program with a local aged care facility. Imagine the possibilities a world-class international education will open up for your child.

Perth Government schools. Congratulations to the thousands of students Here are some handy tips to help kids get thro