Waching daily May 31 2017

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.