|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 zt巴基斯坦部落长老支持使用武力营救中国人质 |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
这些都是烟雾弹，用武力只是对恐怖分子“打白老虎”（玩过souhan吧？） -- Anonymous - (41 Byte) 2004-10-14 周四, 上午2:10 (51 reads) |
安魂曲
[个人文集]
加入时间: 2004/02/14
文章: 12787
经验值: 0
|
|
|
作者：安魂曲 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
Chapter 8: The Two Ds: Demands And Deadlines
To the skilled negotiator, demands and deadlines are like diamonds: your best friends.
Most people tend to get paranoid about two things in negotiations: demands and deadlines. Hostage negotiators are trained never to use those two words. We avoid talking about deadlines—ours or theirs—and we don’t make demands. We have points that are non-negotiable, of course; we’re never going to give the bad guy a gun, for instance. But we don’t present them as demands. We don’t need to make the people we’re dealing with any more squirrelly than they already are.
On the other hand, we welcome both demands and deadlines. They are valuable tools as we work toward a resolution in the negotiating crisis. If the other side gives you a list of demands—they won’t use that word, of course—and a deadline, jump for joy.
Demands: A Dirty Word
Demands is a very ugly word. It makes rational people act irrationally.
Don’t believe me? Go into a store and yell, “I demand satisfaction!” and notice how many different shades the salespeople’s faces turn.
Then go down to the other end of the mall and say, “Can you help me?” and see if there’s a difference.
Most negotiators realize that the word demand is too loaded to use in a serious negotiation. That doesn’t mean they won’t present them. They’ll use words that are easier to take, like wants or needs or even points or items. As a general rule, the more neutral the term you use to outline your position, the better off you are. Hostage negotiators generally present their own position passively: as a reaction to what the other guy does. We don’t have demands, but we do have non-negotiable points:
The hostage taker never gets a gun.
We never add to the hostages.
We never release people who are in jail or otherwise in legal custody.
As a general rule, we make these positions known as we answer requests by the subject. Which psychologically makes them easier for the other side to discuss. Not necessarily to accept, of course, but at least to discuss.
Give Something For Something
If you don’t call demands demands, then it’s easier to realize that meeting them can give you leverage in the negotiations. Call them needs. Meeting another person’s needs is a good thing: I meet your needs, you meet mine, we have a relationship going here, and it’s mutually beneficial.
Fulfilling the other side’s needs is the basis for fulfilling your own. It’s what the process is really all about.
But it’s give-and-take, tit-for-tat, one hand washing the other—take your favorite cliché and sticker it at the top of your notepad.
In hostage negotiations, we always give something for something. You want food, okay, good, I got food on the way—pizza, heroes, some of the best doughnuts this side of Krispy Kreme. I’ll meet your need, now you meet mine: Give me six of your hostages. Something for something.
Don’t get too hung up on the balance: one thing for one thing, two-for-two, etc. I think it’s better to keep it looser, like you’re not really keeping track.
But of course you are. If the other side starts balking or even runs out of needs, that’s not a problem: Remind them how much you’ve already given.
“I’ll take less of a raise than we both agree I’m worth, but in exchange for that, I really need . . .”
“I’m going to work my butt off to meet your deadline, but it’s going to cost me with my wife. To keep her happy, I have to build that into the price. . . .”
And on and on. Something for something. Successful negotiations are two-sided, mutual benefit operations. Demands are just a chance to make that happen.
Going First
There’s a game negotiators often play called “You go first.” You see it a lot in negotiations involving money, where it’s generally believed that the first person to actually mention a price loses. If a salesman says Auto X goes for $40,000, the prospective customer is not going to offer to pay more.
Now I realize that as a practical matter, the first person to mention a figure does set out the general parameters of the deal. And as a hostage negotiator, I’m used to being in the reactive mode. The words, “What exactly is it you want?” are not stapled to my lip only because they’re tattooed to my tongue.
But here’s the deal: It’s okay to go first. It’s okay to put a number out in the air. Realize that’s what you’re doing. Know that you’re setting the parameters of the discussion. And take it from there. A few times you may shock the other side because your offer is far higher (or far lower) than they were hoping for. But if you did your research properly, you know how much the thing is actually worth anyway. The odds are that they’ll eventually find out; you’re better off in the long run being fair.
And really, what is the downside? You’re our car salesman, you offered first to go $500 over invoice. The other side was prepared to pay more but now comes in a little lower, and the deal is still done.
You didn’t just sell him a car and make $400 plus the hold back and yadda-yadda-yadda. You also got him blabbing about what a great deal he got from the local Ford place. The $100 you supposedly lost will come back several times over in the form of his friends walking through the door.
作者：安魂曲 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
- 全信书不如无书。 -- 小学生 - (0 Byte) 2004-10-14 周四, 上午2:22 (39 reads)
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
