字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント ...valuable to you. Okay. Let's follow up a little bit on this. So in integrative negotiation, both sides try to find out what the other side needs. This is really the key point. They want to understand each other. Now, again, it sounds great in theory, very difficult to execute. Why? Because if both sides are not both working towards win-win, then one side is going to win. That's the side who's secretly trying to win-lose. Because I'm going to be honest with you. I'm going to tell you a lot of information. I'm going to tell you all of those things that usually I'd be trying to keep secret. I want you to understand me. I want you to understand me. I want to understand you. You want me to understand. When it's mutual, we have a much better chance to have a maximal outcome, rather than fighting over every point, rather than taking a strong stand, rather than giving a dollar discount, giving 50 cent discount, giving 10, rather than doing this kind of idea. It's possible that we find out what both sides want is different. And we can give different things to both sides. Integrative negotiation generally moves through four stages. Stage 1, stage 2, stage three, stage 4. Let's take a look at these stages a little bit. Stage one is to find the common problem. So we need to understand what is it that's different between us. Stage two is understand more. Let me understand what do you want, why do you want it? right? You don't...want the hot dog. why don't you want the hot dog? You're on a diet. What kind of diet? Oh, you're not allowed to eat bread. How about half the bread? Oh, no bread, OK. Now I understand--understand the needs. Stage 3-- brainstorming to think up solutions. Think up solutions, come up with ways to make both sides happy. And then Stage Four-- Take the solution that is best for both sides. That's not compromise. That doesn't mean half and half. It means pick the solution from your list of solutions, possibilities to help both sides get what they want. Key to this is you need to really work towards this idea of mutual benefit, and also you need to avoid being personal. I think in the example we just saw, was... interesting when we look at the job interview. We didn't get personal. We didn't say, "You know, I don't like your attitude or you're being too forceful. You're asking for too much." We often do that in distributive bargaining, so we're trying to make the other side look bad. We're trying to make the other side saying, "You don't compromise. Yyou don't give in enough. You're not working together." We say that because we want to push the other side to give in more. In this case, we try not to say those things. We don't accuse the other side of something. We don't say you're not giving in. We don't say that they're trying to push on something too hard. Rather we just stay open, and we say, "Explain more. Why do you want that? What's up with that? What's the deal on that? Can I understand you more? Let me understand." And by understanding more, I can maybe find something there, like: hey you eat the hot dog I'll eat the bread, or hey take the lower salary now, but then you're going to get lower tuition costs after you come to work for us. That's pretty cool. "A number of tactics are helpful in moving through these four stages." We're going to look at tactics a little bit more in the next unit of this. But just to mention a few things here to help us keep going. In the first stage, both sides share their information by stating what the problem is. A buyer may complain about the product they receive were defective as in quality problems. The seller may complain about the product quality was acceptable. So here we seem to have a problem that's you know insurmountable. One side thinks the quality is bad. The other side thinks the quality is okay. How can we overcome that? Well, the way to do that is don't argue over who is wrong, and who is right. In other words, don't focus on that disagreement area. We disagree about this quality. OKay, well I think the quality is good. You think the quality is bad. What can we do? Let's not talk about that so much. Let's try to talk about some other things. What are some of the other things we can talk about? Well, we can do things like try to define the problem more clearly, that is explain to me what is it about the quality that was the problem when you sold it to your customers. What happened? What is it the customers found? What is it they felt? What do they report to you? What .....what were the complaints they had? Explain to me more. Show the facts. Okay, let me just list the facts. Product A had this problem, Product B had this problem. Let me just show you the facts. In this way, it's not personal. Don't come to a solution too fast. Don't instantly say you must give me something. You must replace this defective product. You must return my money. Rather at the beginning, we try to de-emphasize a solution too early, and we try to explain the situation more. Let me help you understand what happened, and let me listen to you to explain why you did what you did. And I can explain why I did ... what I did. Okay. After we get a little bit of understanding, understanding the situation understanding the context, now we go to stage two. Find interest and needs. What is it you need? So in this one, we need to explain what do I want, right? Now at the beginning, we were talking about things like our targets, our goal package. Remember? and that's useful, but here we're trying to stay more open. So we're going to say, "What is it I really want?" So in my case of a defective product, I don't really care about the defective product. What I care about is my customers. I bought your product. My customer said it had a problem. What is it I want? I want my customers to be satisfied, to not complain. So you need to begin to ask yourself what do you want? and then explain that to the other side. You need to try to understand what does the other side want. So you ask yourself questions like "What do I want? how important is this to me? how important is this relationship to me?" Something we've talked about previously, so both sides try to understand each other, and by understanding each other, they may get a better idea of what the problem is. And then we do a little bit of brainstorming. We try to come up with solutions. The key point here is to not criticize solutions, not to shoot down solutions, but to generate as many solutions as possible, thinking outside of the box, expanding the pie, coming up with different ideas. Think of as many as possible, be creative and think of anything. Don't criticize ideas as being bad. Just come up with a list. Generate ... as many ideas as possible for what could possibly be a solution. Then in the end, you're going to stage four. You're going to choose one of those solutions. And then you choose the solution that's maximal for both sides. Okay, so I think why did I cover integrative bargaining second and distributive bargaining first? And the reason is because I think it's very easy for us to believe or feel, "Hey integrative bargaining is wonderful. Everyone gets together. Everyone is happy. It's win-win. We should always work to win win." But I want you to keep in mind that's easy to say. It's hard to do. The key part of having a successful integrative negotiation is that both sides are being integrative orientation, or holding integrative orientation. They both want to win-win. You don't know that that's always true for the other side. They'll tell you, "I'm being honest." Are they being honest? Are they telling you the truth? Is that really what they're thinking? It's not easy to know, maybe impossible to know, maybe you need to have a track record or history so we could say: "Well, if maybe this one time, I believe you and then if it's successful, then later next time, two months later, six months later, a year later, we negotiate, I know I can trust you. You know you can trust me." So at some time I have to make that sacrifice. At the same time, you may believe you make that sacrifice, but then in this specific deal that is not true, and you end up losing. So you need to ask yourself at the beginning, as we said, "How important was that relationship? How important was getting that deal?" We may lose a deal. We may get a bad deal because you thought you were working towards win-win, but you weren't. Then you may consider that if your job depends on it, and you need to maximize this deal, are you ready to take that chance that trusting the other side is going to really get you what both sides want? I'm not sure. That's something you need to judge. So there's no easy answer, but I do want to emphasize: Be careful. Don't assume everything's win-win. Don't just go up to another group during our RPG and say, "Hey I'm win-win. You're win-win Let's be win-win. Let's be integrated." Yeah, okay. It's possible, but it's not likely. So be careful. Think about it, maybe establish some relationships, and know who you can trust, and who you can't trust. All right, Well, that's a happy ending, right? We have integrated negotiation. Good luck with your integration! Win-win. Expand the pie. Think out the box, there's a bunch of phrases like this. Good luck with your negotiations! See you next time!