Roger Fisher

Negotiating Power Getting and Using Influence

In this article the debilitating effects of negative commitments, especially threats made at an early stage of negotiation, are explored. Mistaken views of the sources of negotiating power are analyzed and six sources of negotiating power are presented. Would-be negotiators are offered a checklist of things they can do in advance of any particular negotiation to enhance their negotiating power.

Das Harvard-Konzept

Das Harvard Konzept gilt seit mehr als 20 Jahren als das Standardwerk zum erfolgreichen Verhandeln. Ob Konditionsauseinandersetzungen mit Lieferanten, Tarifverhandlungen der Gewerkschaften oder schwierigste politische Konflikte auf höchster Ebene für Praktiker sämtlicher Berufsgruppen hat sich das sachbezogene Verhandeln als die wirksamste Methode bewährt, um Differenzen auszuräumen und zu einer gemeinsamen Lösung zu finden.

The structure of negotiation: An alternative model

As we seek to understand and design the features of negotiation that will best help us achieve good outcomes, it may prove useful to look at structure. Currently, I am focusing on the international arena and working on four interrelated but different aspects of negotiation: Relationship Issues. These concern the way in which governments deal with each other. An effective working relationship appears to depend on the extent of mutual acceptance, trust, reliability, consultation, understanding, concern, and respect for each others rights to differ. Issues of Skill. The quality of a negotiation depends greatly upon the competence of the persons involved, including their experience, training, awareness, sensitivity, and judgment, and the intellectual tools and frameworks available to them. Issues of Process. Just as Roberts Rules of Order established the process within which most legislative bodies tend to operate, so working assumptions and standard operating procedures tend to set the agenda and determine the sequence of events in an international negotiation. More work needs to be done on devising better rules to guide the process and procedures of international negotiations. Negotiation Structure. A fourth perspective is to look at the institutional arrangements or systems within which international negotiations take place. In this column, I want to look at structure, and outline two contrasting models of bilateral negotiation. These outlines were stimulated by work of Dr. Victor Kremenyuk of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Building a U.S.-Soviet working relationship

ConclusionThe crucial determinant of U.S. and Soviet security, and the security of the world, will not depend on technological development, breakthroughs in deterrence theory, or even on agreements the two countries might sign at the summit talks. The future depends on whether the two governments are able to work together.Both the United States and the Soviet Union have developed procedures for solving conflicts with other governments, even former enemies, without hostilities or threats of force. The essential difference between these relationships and the U.S.-Soviet relationship lies not in the degree of difference in cultural heritage or security interests, but in the way the two governments approach their problems—through consultations and dispute resolution procedures, or through conflict and recrimination.The process of interaction is the essence of a working relationship. It means the difference between hostile confrontation and constructive collaboration, between fear and security, between war and peace. The summit meeting provides an opportunity to change the nature of the relationship, to change the focus of U.S.-Soviet interaction from antagonistic bargaining over divisive issues to constructive collaboration on possible solutions and working procedures.

Building a US-Soviet Working Relationship: Ideas on Process

The process of negotiating international agreements is often more crucial to the resolution of differences than the relative negotiating positions of the parties. The working relationship between the parties and the procedures for resolving disputes can determine whether a negotiation will deteriorate into accusations and recriminations or create a solution which serves the interests of both parties and strengthens the procedures for dealing with future disputes.

South Africa: problems and choices

Abstract Before we try to change anyone elses thinking we should understand empathetically, their present perceptions. In any international conflict today what counts is how opposing parties see and feel the situation. Before dealing with a conflict anyone should put himself in the other partys shoes and carefully consider what is important to them. In most conflicts parties look for a substantive solution as though conflicts were getting to be resolved once and for all. There are getting to be an endless stream of differences. The critical question lies not in the “answer” but in the process by which the parties pursue that answer. But answers to a conflict that are worked out by one party are not the answer. An imposed solution to a conflict is not a solution. Whether the problem is a marriage, relations with a teen‐aged son, an international conflict or a new constitution, theory tells us that effective participation in joint decision‐making is more likely to succeed than any so‐called solution —no m...