GET THE YES
By William Ury, Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton
A method for negotiating and reaching agreements in any type of conflict
Audio Produced by CONSEJOS PARA SER FELIZ
Like it or not, we are all negotiators at some point in our lives.
We discussed a pay raise with our boss. We try to agree, with
A stranger, on the price of our house. We negotiate with our partner the place where
We will go to dinner and with our children, when it is time to turn off the lights. Negotiation is a
Basic means of getting from others what we want. It is a bidirectional communication,
Designed to reach an agreement, when we and the other share some interests
And we have others who are opposed to each other.
There are more and more occasions that require negotiation, as more and more
Conflicts. Everyone wants to be involved in decisions that affect them, while
That, on the other hand, fewer and fewer people are able to accept decisions
Which have been taken by others. People are different and use negotiation to manage
This differences. Whether in business, government or family, we reach the majority
Of decisions through negotiation.
Even though each day is negotiated more, it is not easy to do well. The strategies
Which are usually used in negotiation often leave people unsatisfied, exhausted
Or alienated.
There are two dominant forms of negotiation: soft and hard. The soft negotiator wants
Avoid personal conflict by making concessions easily. Wants a solution
Friendly, but nevertheless almost always ends up being exploited and feeling bitter.
The hard negotiator considers any situation as a struggle of wills, in which the
Part that adopts the most extreme positions and maintains them for longer is the
Triumphs He wants to win, but often ends up provoking a similar response.
Hard that exhausts him and his resources, and that damages his relationship with the other party.
However, there is a third way of negotiating, neither hard nor soft, but both things to the
time. It is a method of negotiation based on the principles developed in the Project
Harvard of Negotiation and that serves to decide subjects, questions and subjects. It is based
In our circumstances, and does not need to go through a bargaining process in which each
Part tells what he will do and what he will not do. He suggests that, whenever possible,
Let us seek mutual benefits; And that when interests come into conflict, we insist
In which the result is based on certain norms or criteria fair, independent of the desire
Or the will of the parties.
The bargaining method based on principles is hard with the circumstances
And soft with people. It does not employ tricks or affected poses. It teaches us how to
Get what we have the right to do without ceasing to be honest. It allows us to be fair
While protecting ourselves against those who would take advantage of our honesty. From
This method of negotiation based on principles is what this work is about.
Separate people from the problem
A basic fact of negotiation, which is often forgotten in corporate transactions
And international, is that we are not dealing with abstract representatives of the other party,
But with people of flesh and blood. Our interlocutors have emotions, values deeply
Rooted and different points of view.
This human aspect of negotiation can be an advantage or a drag. A relationship
Active in which trust, understanding, respect and friendship have been built
Over time can make each new negotiation easier and more efficient.
On the other hand, misunderstandings can reinforce prejudices and make an exploration impossible
Rational solution of possible solutions, so that negotiation can fail.
At the time of negotiation it is easy to forget, not only that we must deal with the problems
Of others, but also with our own. It is likely that our perceptions
Are unilateral and that we are not listening or communicating properly. To get over
This one-sidedness is advisable to think of three basic categories: perception,
Emotion and communication. The many different problems that we can have
Or our interlocutors fit all of them into one of these three categories.
Perception: Whether we are making a deal or resolving a dispute, the
Differences arise from the distinction that exists between our thinking and that of our
Interlocutors. Fundamentally, conflict does not lie in objective reality, but in
The minds of people.
Seeking objective reality can be very useful, but it is ultimately the reality,
As seen by each party, that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and the one that opens
The way to a solution.
If we want to influence others, it is not enough to know that they see things differently.
We also need to empathically know the power of your point of view and feel the
Emotional strength with which they believe in him. To carry out this task we must be willing
Not to issue a judgment on the others until we have put ourselves in their place.
Take into consideration the opposing perceptions that a tenant may have and their
At the time of negotiating the renewal of his contract. One thinks the rent
Is too high, the other that has not been increased for a long time. For the tenant
The apartment needs to be painted, while the landlord seems to have deteriorated it
very much. The tenant knows people who pay less for a similar apartment and the
Home, in turn, to people who pay more, etc.
Understanding the views of the two is not the same as agreeing with them.
A better understanding of your thinking can lead us to review our own
Points of view on the circumstances of a situation, which allows us to reduce
The area of conflict and helps us to progress in our self-interest, which, in this way,
It has just been illuminated again.
One very frequent temptation to avoid in negotiation is to place responsibility
Of our problem on the other side, for example, as when we say: "You can not
Trust your company. Whenever they are in charge of repairing our generator in this factory,
They do it very badly and it gets spoiled right away. " Even if blaming someone else was
Justified, is usually a counterproductive attitude. If attacked, the other party will
The defensive and will resist everything we say. I will stop listening or will return
The blow with an attack of its own.
This is why it is important, when we talk about the problem, to separate the symptoms of
Person with whom we are speaking. For example, we could say: "Our generator, from the
That you do maintenance, has been spoiled again. This is the third time this month.
The first time was ruined a whole week. The factory needs a generator
so it works. I want you to advise me on how we can minimize
The risk of generator failure. Should we change maintenance companies, sue
The manufacturer, or what? ".
Emotion: In a negotiation, the first thing to do is to recognize and understand
The emotions, the emotions of others and their own. We must observe ourselves during the negotiation
To see if we are nervous, angry with the other party, etc. Likewise, we must listen
To others to get an idea of what their emotions are. The presence of emotions
On one side it will generate emotions in the other. Fear can engender anger, and the
Anger, fear.
Another important thing is to explicitly express emotions and recognize them as legitimate.
By turning our feelings or those of others into an explicit focus of discussion,
Not only reduce the severity of the problem, but also make negotiations
Less reactive and more proactive. In that sense, it is not bad to say: "You know, our
People think that they have been treated badly and are very upset. We are afraid that, although
Reached an agreement, it would not be maintained. Whether it is rational or not, this is our
concern. Personally, I think we may be wrong to feel this fear,
But it is a feeling that others have. Do your people think the same thing? "
Often an effective way to treat anger and frustration of others as well as
Other negative emotions, is to help them vent. A psychological release
Is achieved through the simple process of counting complaints. Instead of interrupting
The controversial speeches or leave the other party planted, it is better that we let it overturn
Their complaints about us, listening quietly without responding to their attacks and, from time to time,
Ask him to continue until he has said all he has to say. In this way,
We leave very little room for problematic matters, we encourage the other party to speak up
That he can no more and has very little or no residue that can exasperate him.
Communication: Negotiation is nothing more than a one-way communication process
And return, in order to reach a joint decision. Communication is not,
Never, something easy; Even among people who have a huge baggage of values and experiences
Shared: couples who have spent decades together also incur daily
Interpretations.
Communication has three major problems. First, the partners may not
Speak to each other to understand each other, but to act for the gallery, so a communication
Effective is absolutely impossible.
The second problem of communication is that, even when we speak to them, others
Do not seem to pay sufficient attention to what we tell them. Probably the same
We would be equally incapable of repeating what the
other part. In both cases communication is non-existent.
The third problem of communication is misinterpretation. What one says,
The other may misinterpret it. This is especially true when the parties speak languages
Different; That is when opportunities for misunderstandings multiply.
What we can do about these three communication problems is the following:
Listen actively and recognize what has been said: Listening well is difficult,
Especially under the stress of an ongoing negotiation, but only then can we understand
The perceptions of others, feel their emotions and hear what they are trying
say. If we pay attention and we interrupt from time to time to say: "I have understood
Well you're saying that ...? ", The other party will realize that we are not
Just killing time or going through a pure process and feel the satisfaction
Of being heard and understood.
Talking to be understood: Sometimes it is easy to forget that a negotiation is not
a debate. We do not try to persuade the other party to reach agreement or reach
A shared opinion. In this context, it is not at all persuasive to blame the problem
To the other party, to insult or raise the voice. On the contrary, what helps is to recognize explicitly
That the other sees the situation differently and try to move forward as people who
Have a common problem.
Talk about us, not about others. It is more convincing to describe a problem
In terms of the impact it has on us in terms of what others did
And why they did it. So, it would be better to say, "I feel disappointed," instead
Of the following: "You have broken your word." If we make a statement about the other party
That it seems to us that it is not true, it will either ignore or anger us. However, one
Manifestation on how we feel about ourselves is difficult to question. That way we communicate
The same information without provoking a defensive reaction, which would prevent it from being accepted.
Speaking with a purpose: Sometimes the problem is not insufficient communication, but
An excess of it. When anger and bad faith are very great, it is best to keep some
Ideas. Other times, the full disclosure of how flexible they can be made more difficult
reach an agreement.
If we let the other party know that we are willing to sell a house for
240,000 euros, after he has told us that he would be willing to pay up to 300,000,
There may be more problems closing the deal than if we had kept quiet.
Before making an important statement, we must know what it is that we want to communicate
Or discover, and know for what purpose that information will serve us.
Focus on interests, not positions
Consider the case of two men who are arguing in a library by a window.
One wants it open and another wants it closed. When the librarian asks one
Why do you want the window open, one answers: "To get some fresh air". To the
Asking the other why he wants it closed receives the answer "to have no current".
After a little thought, the librarian opens, at all, a window in the room
Of next, with which arrives the fresh air without having current.
This story is typical of many negotiations. The problem of the parties is a problem of
Positions so that they often come to a standstill.
The librarian could not have devised the solution she gave if only she had focused
In the positions manifested by the two men wanting the window open or closed. In
Instead, he focused on his underlying interests of fresh air and no current. This difference
Between positions and interests is crucial in a negotiation.
End interests in the problem: The basic problem in a negotiation does not lie in the
Positions in conflict, but in the conflict between interests of various kinds. The
Parties may say: "We do not agree. Ask for 600,000 euros for the house. I will not pay
A cent more than 500 000 ".
But at a more basic level the problem is this: "You need at least 60 000
Euros to settle with his ex-wife. I have told my family that I would not pay more than
500,000 euros for a house ".
The desires and concerns of this type are an example of interests. Interest motivates
To people and are what is behind their positions.
Behind these opposing positions reside shared and compatible interests, as well as others
Confronted or in conflict: We tend to assume that, if the
The other part is opposed to ours, their interests are as well. If, for example,
We are interested in reducing the rent, the other part should be increase. Without
However, in most negotiations there are many more shared interests
Or compatible than those who oppose.
Thus, a tenant can share with their possible landlord the stability they both want.
The landlord wants a stable tenant; The tenant wants a permanent address.
Both would like to see that the apartment is kept in good condition. The tenant is going
To live there; The landlord wants to increase the value of the property, as well as the reputation
of the building.
Realizing that each side has multiple interests: In almost all negotiations,
Each party has many interests. As in the case of the tenant who is negotiating
A rental agreement, we may want to obtain a favorable rental agreement,
Which can be reached quickly and with little effort, and maintain a good relationship
Work with our landlord. In this case we would not only have a strong interest in
Influence any agreement we reach, but also to enter into an agreement.
We would be trying to satisfy, simultaneously, our independent and shared interests.
The most powerful interests are basic human needs: Human needs
Such as safety, economic well-being, the feeling of being in a natural environment,
Recognition or control over one's life, regardless of how fundamental they are,
Can easily be overlooked.
In the negotiations on the future of Northern Ireland, Protestant leaders tended to
To ignore the need of Catholics for recognition and feeling part of the
Country, be accepted and treated as equals. At the same time, Catholic leaders, often,
Seemed to attach little importance to the need for Protestants to feel secure. Try
Protestant fears as "his problem", rather than as a legitimate concern,
In need of attention, made it even more difficult to negotiate a solution.
Talking about interests: The purpose of a negotiation is to serve our interests
And the possibility of that happening increases when we communicate them. If we want the
Other part take into consideration our interests, we must explain what they are.
Here, the guideline is to be concrete. The specific details will not only make our
Description, but will add impact. For example, a member of a group of citizens
Who complains about a construction project in the neighborhood should speak explicitly
On issues such as securing child safety: "Three times over
Of last week a child has been almost hit by one of his trucks. Around
At eight-thirty, Tuesday morning, that huge truck of his, the red of the gravel,
Which was heading north at almost 90 km / h had to make a sudden and little turn
Runs over seven-year-old Loretta Johnson. "
Recognize the interests of others as part of the problem: Others listen better
If they consider that they have been understood. If we want the other side to appreciate our
Interests, we must begin by showing them that we appreciate theirs. For example: "Such
As I see it, your interests as a construction company are, basically, to achieve
That the work is carried out with the minimum cost and preserve the reputation of security and
Responsibility they have in the city. Did I understand it well? "
In addition to demonstrating that we have understood the interests of the other party, it helps if we recognize
That their interests are part of the general problem that we are trying to solve. It is
Especially easy if you have shared interests:
"It would be terrible for all of us that one of your trucks would run over a child."
Discuss the problem before the proposal: If we want someone to listen and understand
Our reasoning, we must first express our interests and reasons and, more
Our conclusions or proposals. Thus, in the example above, we should
Talk first to the company about the dangers it is creating for young children.
They will listen carefully, if only to try to find out where we want
Come to terms with the matter. And when we tell you, you will understand why.
Invent options for mutual benefit
A very common problem in negotiation is that there seems to be no way to divide
The cake and satisfy the two parties. Often it is being negotiated in a single dimension,
Such as the price of a car, the duration of the lease of an apartment
Or the amount of the commission on a sale. Other times we face the only choice
Of winning or losing.
It is here that the ability to invent options is revealed as one of the possessions
More valuable a negotiator can have. However, this ability is often seen
Frustrated by the four most frequent obstacles: (1) premature judgment, (2) search
Of the only answer, (3) the presumption of a cake of a fixed size and (4) think
That "solving your problem is your problem". To overcome these barriers, we need to understand them.
Premature Judgment: Since prosecution hinders the imagination, we must separate the process
Of thinking about possible decisions in the process of selecting any of them. We must invent
First and then decide.
By definition, inventing new ideas requires that we think of things that are not yet in
our mind. Therefore, we should consider the convenience of setting up a brainstorming session
With a few colleagues or even in conjunction with the other party. The advantage of a session
Of this kind is that it effectively separates the invention from the decision. Discuss options
Is something radically different from the taking of positions. While the posture on one side
Will conflict with the other, options invite other options. Even
The language used is different. They are questions, not assertions; Is open and
unclosed. For example: "What other options have occurred to you?", "What
Do you think if we decide ...? "," How would this work? "," What can
Of bad in this? ", Etc.
The search for the only answer: If the first impediment to creative thinking
Is premature criticism, the second is the premature conclusion.
When looking for the only and best response from the beginning, we are likely to short-circuit
A wiser and wiser decision-making process, in which we make a selection
Among a large number of possible answers.
If we are asked who should receive the Nobel Peace Prize this year, we would do
Well in replying: "Well, let me think about it" and create a list of about one
Hundred names of diplomacy, business, journalism, religion,
Law, politics, etc., making sure to invent a lot of ideas. In this way
We would end up with a better decision than if we had decided right at the beginning.
The presumption of a cake of a fixed size: One of the reasons why sometimes
There are so few options on the table in a negotiation is that each side sees the situation
Like a fixed pie: the less there is for you, the more there will be for me. This presumption
Is seldom accurate. Keep in mind that both parts can always be worse
Of what they are now.
In addition to a shared interest in avoiding a joint loss, it almost always exists
The possibility of a joint gain. This may appear in the form of development
Of a mutually advantageous relationship or the satisfaction of the interests of each
Part through a creative solution.
It is very helpful to make the common interest explicit and to formulate it as a goal
common. For example, a manager of an oil refinery, threatened by the tax hike
By the municipality where it is located, could establish with the mayor the objective
Common of getting to bring new industries to the city. This would be beneficial both
For the refinery, which could have in its vicinity a plastics factory, such as
For the municipality, in which new jobs would be created. The exemption of
Taxes for new companies would then be an action to achieve the objective
Shared, and not a concession that makes the mayor to the manager.
To think that "the solution of your problem is your problem": For a negotiator
Reach an agreement that satisfies their own selfishness, needs to develop a solution
Which is also attractive to the egoism of the other. Therefore, instead of putting
The other part difficult things, we have to present an option, if not attractive,
At least as painless as possible.
However complex the decision-making process of the other party may seem,
We will understand much better if we select a person - probably the same with
Which we are already dealing with - and try to understand how the problem looks from its
point of view. Thus we can see our role in a new light and consider
That our job, for example, is to give that person new necessary arguments
To convince others to come to an agreement with her. A British ambassador
Described his work as "Helping my opponent get new instructions."
If we stand firmly in our opponent's place, we will understand his problem and the
Kind of options that can solve it.
Insist on the use of objective criteria
No matter how well we understand the interests of the other party or invent ways to reconcile them,
We will almost always face the harsh reality of conflicting interests. As much as
Talk about "win-win" strategies, nothing can hide this fact. We want
Let the rent be lower; The landlord wants it higher. We want them delivered to us
The goods tomorrow; The supplier would prefer to deliver it next week. This class
Of differences can not be hidden under carpet.
Trying to reconcile differences based on will has very serious costs.
No negotiation has any possibility of being effective if we throw our will
Against the other party: either we will have to give in or we will have to do it
they. The solution is to negotiate on some basis independent of the will of anyone
Of the parties, ie on the basis of objective criteria.
The more efficiency, impartiality or scientific criteria we use to treat our
Particular problem, we are more likely to get a final result that is judicious
And impartial. The more we refer to ourselves and the other part to the preceding and
Customary in our community, the greater our opportunity to benefit from the
Past experience In addition, an agreement that is in line with a precedent is
Less vulnerable to attack. If a rental agreement contains the usual terms
Or if a contract of sale follows what is customary in the industry, there is less risk
That either negotiator thinks he has been treated harshly or tried,
Later, denounce the agreement.
We will usually find more than one objective criterion that we can use as a basis for
an agreement. Suppose our car is unused and we file a claim
Before an insurance company. In our discussion with the expert we can take into
Counts some car's value indices such as the original cost less depreciation,
The amount by which we could have sold the car, the cost of replacing that car
For a similar one, etc.
Once we have identified some of the objective criteria and are prepared
To discuss them with the other party we must remember three basic points:
Formulate each issue as if it were the joint search of
Objective criteria: If we are negotiating to buy a house, we can start by
Say, "Look, you want a high price and I, a low one. Let's see if we find
What would be the fair price. What objective norms can be more important? "
Despite our conflicting interests, we now have a common goal with the other
Part: arrive at a fair price. Here we can begin to suggest one or more
Criteria for establishing it: the house cost adjusted for depreciation and the
Inflation, the recent sale price of similar houses in the neighborhood, etc., and
Then invite the seller to submit their suggestions.
Reasoning and being open to reasoning about which rules are most appropriate and how they should
To apply: Insisting that an agreement is based on objective criteria does not mean
Which is based solely on the criteria that we present. A rule of legitimacy
Does not exclude the existence of others. What the other party believes to be fair may not be
Which we believe to be just. When each part presents a different standard, we have
To find an objective basis for deciding between them, such as which standard they have used
The parties in the past or which standard is most widely applied.
In a given case, there may be two criteria (such as, for example, market value and
Depreciated cost) that produce different results, but that the two parties are
Agree that they seem equally legitimate. In this case, divide the difference or arrive
To a certain compromise between the results suggested by the two objective criteria
Is perfectly legitimate, because the result will remain independent of the will
OF THE PARTIES:
Never give in to pressure, only to the principle: Pressure can adopt
Many forms: a bribe, a threat, a manipulative call to trust or the simple
Refusal to make any concessions. In all these cases, the response based on the principles
Must be the same: invite the other party to state their reasoning, suggest criteria
Objectives and refuse to make any concessions if it is not supported by these bases.
Never give in to pressure, only to principles.
It is difficult to say who will prevail, but, in general, we will have the advantage
Since, in addition to our willpower, we will also have the power of persuasion
And the legitimacy that allows us to remain open to reason. It will be easier to
We resist making an arbitrary concession of what would be for the other party
Resist any objective criteria.
Let's look at a case in which one party used positional haggling and the other, negotiation
Based on principles. Tomás, a garbage truck, has totally left his car.
Unusable in the place where I had parked it. The car was insured, but the amount
That Thomas could recover had to be negotiated with the company's expert.
".
Expert: The company has studied the case and is entitled to an indemnity of 800
euros
Thomas: How did you get to that number?
Expert: Well, that's what we decided the car was worth. How much do you want?
Tomás: What corresponds to me according to my policy. A similar used car, along with
The taxes, I would leave for 1500 euros.
Expert: That's too much.
Tomas: I do not ask for 1500, not 1000, not 5000, but fair compensation. This
Agree that it is only fair that I get what I need to replace the car?
Expert: I offer you 1000 euros. That's the best I can pay you. It is the norm of the company.
Tomás: The 1000 euros may be a fair amount. I do not know. Of course i understand your posture
If you are bound by the company's policy. But unless you can tell me, objectively,
Why, I'd better go to trial.
Expert: Well, Mr. Garcia. Here I have an advertisement in today's newspaper where
Offer a Ford for 1000 euros.
Thomas: I see. What mileage does it have?
Expert: 85,000. Why?
Thomas: Because mine was only 42,000. How much does the value of the car increase, in
your book?
Expert: Let me see ... 300 euros.
Tomás: If we assume that the 1000 euros are a possible base, this raises the figure to 1300.
Does the ad say anything from a radio ...?
Half an hour later Tom left the office with a check for 1600 euros.
What if others are more powerful?
No method can guarantee success if all influence and power are in the hands
Of the other party. If we walked into an antique shop to buy a set of
Authentic silver tea, valued in thousands of euros, and all we have is a ticket
Of 500, we should not expect an expert negotiation to overcome that difference.
In response to power, the most any negotiation method can do is to achieve
Objectives:
1. Prevent us from reaching an agreement that we should reject.
At any given moment, a goal may seem tremendously important to us, but looking at it
Retrospectively we can realize that we had more options. For example,
We will be concerned that we have not been able to reach an agreement in an important business in the
That we have invested a lot of money. Under these conditions, a great danger is that we are
Too accommodating to the views of the other party. The siren song "Vamos
To all agree and end with this "is very persuasive and can end with
Our acceptance of a treatment that we should have rejected.
2. Help us make the most of what we have so that any agreement
That we do will satisfy our interests as best as possible.
When a family is deciding the minimum price of their house, the appropriate question that
Must do is not what they "should" be able to get, but what they will do
Yes, after a certain time, they have not sold the house. Once all alternatives have been considered
(Rent, conversion of the lot into a car park, etc.), you should see which of those alternatives
Is the most attractive and compare it with the best offer received by the house. They will find out
What is its "best possible alternative to a negotiated agreement (MAPAN)". That's him
Only criterion that can protect them both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable
As to reject terms beneficial to their interests.
What happens if they do not want to continue the game?
If the other party does not want to continue our game and is entrenched in their positions we can:
Negotiation Jiu-jitsu: adopt a strategy that focuses on what the other party can
do. It counteracts the basic movements of positional negotiation in such a way
Which directs its attention to circumstances. This strategy is called Jiu-jitsu trading.
According to this strategy, as in the martial arts, judo and jiu-jitsu,
We must avoid throwing our force against our opponent directly. In
Instead, we must try to channel the opponent's strength towards exploration
Of interests, inventing mutually beneficial options and seeking independent criteria.
Meditation of a text: Focus on what a third party can do. If jiu-jitsu
Has no effect on the other party we should consider including a
Third, trained to focus the discussion on interests, options and criteria.
The most effective tool that a third party can use is the
The meditation of a text.
In this procedure a mediator separates the parts of the problem and directs the discussion
Towards existing interests and options. Perhaps the most famous use that has been made
Of it was the one carried out by the United States at Camp David in September 1978,
When he acted as mediator between Egypt and Israel. The United States listened to both parties,
A draft with which nobody was committed, requested that criticism be made, and
Improved the draft, over and over, until the authors considered that they could not
Improve it more. When President Carter introduced the text, Israel and Egypt accepted it.
The procedure worked remarkably well, as a mechanical technique to limit the number
Decisions, reduce the uncertainty of each decision and prevent the parties from leaving.
Finding themselves increasingly locked in their positions.
In conclusion
Many of the ideas in this book are already known in some of our levels of experience.
What the authors have tried to do is to organize common sense and experience
To provide us with a useful frame of thought and action. The more coherent they are
These ideas with our knowledge and intuition, so much the better. Many expert lawyers and men
Experienced business have commented that, after reading it, they finally knew what
Have been doing and why, sometimes, it worked.
Theory and experience suggest that the bargaining method based on the principles
Produces, in the long run, substantive results. In addition, it has been shown to be more comfortable,
More effective and less expensive for human relations.
This does not mean that it is easy to change customs, separate emotions from
Circumstances or recruit other people in the task of finding a suitable solution
For a shared problem. From time to time we will have to remind ourselves
That the first thing we are trying to win is a better way of negotiating,
We must choose between the satisfactions of obtaining what we desire and being honored,
Because we can have both.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét