Estrategia De Cacao
Páginas: 15 (3601 palabras)
Publicado: 31 de mayo de 2012
I M P R O V I N G T H E P R A C T I C E O F M A N A G E M E NT
Negotiation is not a competitive sport
By Steven P. Cohen Reprint # 9B04TD05 IVEY MANAGEMENT SERVICES • July/August 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004
To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials,please contact: Ivey Publishing,I vey Management Services c/o Richard Ivey School of Business The University of Western OntarioLondon,Ontario N6A 3K7 Tel: (519)661-3208 Fax: (519)661-3882 Email: cases@ivey.uwo.ca Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction,storage or transmittal of this material without its written permission.This material is not covered under authorization form CanCopy or any other reproduction rights organization.
Ivey Business Journal Online is published by Ivey Management Services adivision of the Richard Ivey School of Business. For subscription information,please contact: Tel: (519) 661- 4215 Email: ibjonline@ivey.uwo.ca or visit www.iveybusinessjournal.com
Negotiation is not a competitive sport
Taking a hard line may be fine -- but only in the short term, and only if you really believe that your counterpart is your adversary. But negotiation is often a series ofepisodes, which means that considering your counterpart as a partner or a collaborator is the foundation of trusting and fruitful-- and ongoing -- negotiation. How the game is played matters more than who wins.
When one party says, "My way or the highway," it puts itself in a position it can't get out of without losing face. This is as true in international diplomacy as it is when a parenttries to reach an agreement with a fifteen-year-old child. When parties adopt a position, locking themselves into a narrow range of 'acceptable' outcomes, they often conclude that the most appropriate approach to negotiation is to treat the process as competitive - where the outcome has to yield winners and losers. The short-term thinking that underlies this approach tends to vitiate the likelihoodof serving the longter m interests of the 'winner' in a win/lose competitive negotiation, even if the short-term objectives are achieved. This article will describe how to avoid that approach and build a foundation for successful, trusting and ongoing negotiation.
A fanciful history of negotiation
By Steven P. Cohen
Steven P. Cohen is the president of The Negotiation Skills Company, Pride'sCrossing, Massachusetts, (www.negotiationskills.com) and the author of Negotiating Skills for Managers, (McGraw Hill 2002). He is an adjunct professor in the international MBA programs at Brandeis University, and Groupe HEC, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Why negotiate?
If everyone -- an individual or a company -- had everything they wanted, there would be no particular reason to negotiate,bargain, or collaborate in decision-making. But in the real world, we do not have everything; the resources we control or influence do not serve all of our interests. Unless we can find and reach agreements with parties who can respond to our interests, our needs will not be satisfied. Moreover, we are far more likely to find agreeable counterparties for joint decision-making if we can offer somethingthat is important to them. Some parties' negotiating styles put them in a bind, literally; the unilateral decision-making and the resulting demands particular to such styles give these parties little leeway for achieving favorable results.
A potted history of the process of reaching agreement could say that in the old days, two property owners who had a disagreement would hire knights todetermine who was right. The process was called waging war. Several centuries ago, someone invented lawyers, and as a consequence, the process of determining who's right in a dispute became one of waging law. Using this line of reasoning, negotiation could be viewed as waging peace. However, if negotiation is viewed as a means for determining who is right, it retains the underlying sense that, as a...
Negotiation is not a competitive sport
By Steven P. Cohen Reprint # 9B04TD05 IVEY MANAGEMENT SERVICES • July/August 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004
To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials,please contact: Ivey Publishing,I vey Management Services c/o Richard Ivey School of Business The University of Western OntarioLondon,Ontario N6A 3K7 Tel: (519)661-3208 Fax: (519)661-3882 Email: cases@ivey.uwo.ca Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction,storage or transmittal of this material without its written permission.This material is not covered under authorization form CanCopy or any other reproduction rights organization.
Ivey Business Journal Online is published by Ivey Management Services adivision of the Richard Ivey School of Business. For subscription information,please contact: Tel: (519) 661- 4215 Email: ibjonline@ivey.uwo.ca or visit www.iveybusinessjournal.com
Negotiation is not a competitive sport
Taking a hard line may be fine -- but only in the short term, and only if you really believe that your counterpart is your adversary. But negotiation is often a series ofepisodes, which means that considering your counterpart as a partner or a collaborator is the foundation of trusting and fruitful-- and ongoing -- negotiation. How the game is played matters more than who wins.
When one party says, "My way or the highway," it puts itself in a position it can't get out of without losing face. This is as true in international diplomacy as it is when a parenttries to reach an agreement with a fifteen-year-old child. When parties adopt a position, locking themselves into a narrow range of 'acceptable' outcomes, they often conclude that the most appropriate approach to negotiation is to treat the process as competitive - where the outcome has to yield winners and losers. The short-term thinking that underlies this approach tends to vitiate the likelihoodof serving the longter m interests of the 'winner' in a win/lose competitive negotiation, even if the short-term objectives are achieved. This article will describe how to avoid that approach and build a foundation for successful, trusting and ongoing negotiation.
A fanciful history of negotiation
By Steven P. Cohen
Steven P. Cohen is the president of The Negotiation Skills Company, Pride'sCrossing, Massachusetts, (www.negotiationskills.com) and the author of Negotiating Skills for Managers, (McGraw Hill 2002). He is an adjunct professor in the international MBA programs at Brandeis University, and Groupe HEC, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Why negotiate?
If everyone -- an individual or a company -- had everything they wanted, there would be no particular reason to negotiate,bargain, or collaborate in decision-making. But in the real world, we do not have everything; the resources we control or influence do not serve all of our interests. Unless we can find and reach agreements with parties who can respond to our interests, our needs will not be satisfied. Moreover, we are far more likely to find agreeable counterparties for joint decision-making if we can offer somethingthat is important to them. Some parties' negotiating styles put them in a bind, literally; the unilateral decision-making and the resulting demands particular to such styles give these parties little leeway for achieving favorable results.
A potted history of the process of reaching agreement could say that in the old days, two property owners who had a disagreement would hire knights todetermine who was right. The process was called waging war. Several centuries ago, someone invented lawyers, and as a consequence, the process of determining who's right in a dispute became one of waging law. Using this line of reasoning, negotiation could be viewed as waging peace. However, if negotiation is viewed as a means for determining who is right, it retains the underlying sense that, as a...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.