Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • BRIAN: Our guest today is Bill Ury.

  • Bill's written and published several books.

  • He's here with one of those books, which is "Getting to Yes

  • with Yourself."

  • As I read your press on your site,

  • it's almost looking at it as a prequel to "Getting to Yes,"

  • which was your first book, which has been printed

  • 12 million times in English and has

  • been published in 37 languages.

  • So we've got quite an accomplished,

  • well read individual with us today.

  • Other books are "The Third Side,"

  • "Getting Past No," and "The Power of a Positive No."

  • But that's just a small bit of who Bill is.

  • And I don't know if-- for those of you who

  • I sent the link around to his page,

  • I'll try not to bore you or try not to go on for too long.

  • But he's the co-founder of Harvard's program

  • on negotiation.

  • And he's currently a distinguished senior fellow

  • at Harvard, correct?

  • But this is where it starts to get really, really interesting.

  • He's worked providing mediation services in conflicts ranging

  • from Kentucky coal mines to the Middle East and to the Balkans.

  • He's worked with Jimmy Carter to create an organization

  • to help avert or solve for civil wars

  • where he's actually traveled to Indonesia

  • and helped to resolve a civil war,

  • and in Venezuela to prevent a civil war.

  • So later today when you think you're really cool

  • and you've closed that $20,000 upgrade for your client,

  • think back to this and you'll put it in perspective, OK?

  • It's still really cool.

  • Go close it.

  • But put it in perspective.

  • He's also won several awards or been recognized

  • many, many times for his work.

  • There were one or two that jumped off the page for me.

  • He's won a Distinguished Service medal from Russia for his work.

  • So in addition to everything else that I've

  • been telling you, he actually might be a spy for all we know.

  • He has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.

  • The work that he's done in terms of global political conflict

  • is just part of what he does.

  • He also works with top corporate executives

  • in training them to learn how to be better mediators and better

  • negotiators.

  • And what I'm really looking forward today

  • is hearing how you kind of marry global conflict resolution

  • to good business practices.

  • And after Bill speaks with us for a few minutes

  • and presents to us, I hope we can

  • have a wide open conversation around that.

  • We have between 15 and 20 of his most recent books

  • here today, so after the talk if you'd like one,

  • please grab one.

  • If you'd really like one and there isn't one left for you,

  • just get in touch with me afterwards

  • and we'll get a few more for those people who

  • really want them, OK?

  • So thanks for coming today.

  • Welcome, Bill.

  • Bill, it's all yours.

  • WILLIAM URY: OK.

  • Thanks, Brian.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • Appreciate it.

  • That was quite an intro.

  • What I want to talk with you this morning

  • is really about what I think is one

  • of the more important, valuable, useful skills that any of us

  • can have in today's challenging times,

  • and that's a skill of negotiation, of getting to yes,

  • of trying to reach agreement with others.

  • And as I've been in this field ever since I

  • was a graduate student up the way

  • here at Harvard many years ago, I've

  • had kind of like a front seat view on something

  • that I call a revolution that actually accompanies

  • the knowledge revolution, the information

  • revolution of which Google is a part, which

  • is a more silent revolution, but it's

  • a revolution in the way in which we as individuals,

  • organizations, or societies make decisions.

  • Because typically a generation or two ago,

  • the main way in which people made

  • decisions was people on the top of the pyramids of power

  • gave the orders, and the people on the bottom

  • simply followed the orders.

  • And now thanks to the information revolution,

  • those pyramids of power are starting

  • to collapse into organizational forms

  • that more resemble networks, flatter

  • forms, more horizontal forms.

  • And as that shifts, the form of decision making shifts

  • from vertical to horizontal, and another name

  • for horizontal decision making is negotiation, is getting yes.

  • So that to get our jobs done nowadays,

  • we're literally dependent on dozens, hundreds, thousands

  • of individuals, organizations over whom

  • we exercise no direct control.

  • If we want to get to yes with them, we have to negotiate.

  • So let me just actually ask you, if you don't mind,

  • a few quick questions about your own negotiating experience.

  • Because if you think about it, what I'm interested in

  • is what stops us from getting the yes?

  • So let me just ask you to think about your own experience

  • for a moment here and ask yourself the question of, if I

  • were to define negotiation very simply and very broadly

  • as trying to reach agreement with someone-- you have

  • some interests which maybe you hold in common

  • like an ongoing relationship with a customer,

  • and some interests which maybe are in tension with each other,

  • like you'd like to get more money for your contract

  • for Google, and maybe they'd like to pay you less,

  • who do you find yourself negotiating

  • with in the broad sense of the term in the course of your day?

  • Just if you wouldn't mind just calling it out.

  • Who do you negotiate with?

  • AUDIENCE: Spouse.

  • WILLIAM URY: Your spouse.

  • OK, we'll start with the hard ones there.

  • AUDIENCE: Your children.

  • WILLIAM URY: Your children, OK.

  • Who else?

  • Your what?

  • AUDIENCE: Colleagues.

  • WILLIAM URY: Your colleagues.

  • OK.

  • Who else?

  • AUDIENCE: Internal teams.

  • WILLIAM URY: Your what?

  • AUDIENCE: Internal teams.

  • WILLIAM URY: Internal teams.

  • Right.

  • AUDIENCE: CMOs.

  • WILLIAM URY: What was that?

  • AUDIENCE: CMOs.

  • WILLIAM URY: CMOs, OK.

  • CMOs.

  • Who else?

  • AUDIENCE: My teenagers.

  • WILLIAM URY: Your teenagers.

  • OK.

  • So it's at home, it's at work.

  • Now if you were to kind of just make a ballpark estimate

  • of how much of your time do you spend broadly

  • speaking in the course of your day,

  • engaged in the process of back and forth communication, trying

  • to reach agreement with your teenagers, your spouse,

  • your colleagues, your clients, your suppliers, your boss,

  • the internal partners, and so on?

  • What percentage of your time do you

  • think it would be, what fraction of the time if you

  • had to give it a certain percentage?

  • What would you say?

  • AUDIENCE: About half.

  • AUDIENCE: Half.

  • WILLIAM URY: Half.

  • Yeah.

  • How many would agree with that?

  • It's at least half?

  • OK.

  • So we don't always think of it formally as negotiation,

  • but in the informal sense, we're engaged in this process

  • from the time we get up in the morning with our spouse,

  • teenagers, kids, and so on to the time we go to bed at night.

  • And so let me just ask you a couple other questions.

  • I mean, would you say, maybe looking

  • at the past, say, five or 10 years of your work career,

  • would you say that the amount of time

  • that you spend negotiating, has it stayed pretty steady?

  • Does it go down over time as you get

  • maybe more authority in your job?

  • Or does it go up?

  • What would you say?

  • AUDIENCE: Up.

  • WILLIAM URY: How many say it's going up?

  • OK, almost all of you.

  • So that's the negotiation revolution in form.

  • And I've travelled around the world,

  • and every country around the world I see this revolution

  • taking place in the way in which we make decisions.

  • More and more negotiation.

  • And--

  • AUDIENCE: Even in Russia?

  • WILLIAM URY: Even in Russia.

  • [LAUGHS]

  • Even in Russia.

  • A little slower in Russia, but even in Russia.

  • Yeah, no, absolutely.

  • Well, you know, I used to go to Russia

  • back in the days of the Cold War.

  • And even though change has been slow sometimes,

  • it's changed a lot since those days.

  • There's a lot more negotiation going on.

  • In fact, "Getting to Yes," I remember when it first

  • came out, there were some Russian friends

  • who wanted to translate it into Russian,

  • but they thought negotiation was subversive.

  • They didn't want to teach people how

  • to negotiate because then they would challenge authority.

  • But now there are Russian editions of it.

  • So one thing that I think might be useful just for the next,

  • you know, we've got this hour together here,

  • is if you have in mind at least one

  • challenging negotiation that you're currently facing,

  • something, it might be just for yourself.

  • It might be with your teenager or it

  • might be with your customer, it might

  • be an internal negotiation with a CMO, or whoever it is,

  • have in mind some challenging negotiation, OK?

  • Everyone got at least one in mind?

  • So let me ask you a quick question then

  • about the one you just selected.

  • There are maybe two types of negotiations we engage in,

  • the internal negotiations inside the organization

  • with our colleagues and coworkers

  • and so on, and then there are the external negotiations,

  • let's say, with clients, for example, or suppliers.

  • How many of you, just out of curiosity,

  • have just selected an external situation?

  • External.

  • OK?

  • How many of you selected an internal situation?

  • OK.

  • And just out of curiosity, if you

  • had to say which one was harder, the negotiation inside

  • or the negotiation outside, if you

  • had to just make a broad generalization, which

  • personally do you find more challenging?

  • Internal negotiations or external?

  • AUDIENCE: Internal.

  • AUDIENCE: Internal.

  • WILLIAM URY: How many would say external?

  • OK.

  • How many would say internal?

  • OK.

  • Great.

  • I mean, obviously both can be challenging.

  • But the great majority of hands go up

  • on internal, which is interesting that oftentimes we

  • experience the more challenging negotiations as being

  • the ones with the people with whom supposedly we're

  • on the same team working for the same mission, whatever,

  • but those are often more challenging.

  • Well over the years, my passion over the years

  • has been helping people get to yes, individuals,

  • organizations, societies, as Brian was mentioning, even

  • in war-like situations.

  • And the thing that sort of struck me over the years

  • is when my colleagues and I wrote "Getting to Yes,"

  • the most frequent question we got for a while was, yeah,

  • but how do you get to yes with the people who

  • don't want to get to yes, you know?

  • How do you deal with people who are

  • kind of rigid and they're intransigent

  • or they're using dirty tricks, or all kinds of things?

  • So I kind of specialized in that for a long time.

  • In fact, my follow on book was a book

  • called "Getting Past No," which was negotiating

  • with difficult people, negotiating

  • in difficult situations.

  • But over the years I began to realize that in fact, perhaps

  • the most difficult person we have

  • to deal with in a negotiation, in the process of getting

  • to yes, be it with our teenagers,

  • our spouses, our coworkers, or our clients,

  • is not what we think it is.

  • It's not just the difficult person

  • on the other side of the table, as difficult

  • as that person can be.

  • Actually the biggest obstacle to us

  • getting what we want in negotiation, curiously enough,

  • is right here.

  • It's ourselves.

  • It's the person on this side of the table.

  • It's the person we look at in the mirror.

  • Because after all, what could be more internal?

  • It feels to me like the more internal the negotiation goes,

  • the more difficult it is.

  • What could be more internal than ourselves?

  • And so our biggest opponent actually,

  • the person who's going to give us the most trouble

  • often is the person we're looking at in the mirror.

  • I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who

  • once said, if you could kick in the pants

  • the person who's going to give you the most trouble that day,

  • you wouldn't sit for a month.

  • And so to me, that obstacle can also

  • become our biggest opportunity.

  • If we can turn our own inner opponent,

  • as it were, into our biggest ally.

  • And that's really the subject of this book, my newest book,

  • which is "Getting to Yes with Yourself and Other Worthy

  • Opponents."

  • And where it lies is to me it lies

  • in our very understandable, very natural human tendency

  • to react.

  • In other words, to act without thinking.

  • I mean, negotiation is supposed to be goal oriented behavior.

  • You're looking rationally to advance your objective.

  • But oftentimes our own emotions, for example, get in the way.

  • As Ambrose Bierce one said, when angry,

  • you will make the best speech you will ever regret.

  • And it happens a lot these days.

  • And so the first and most important negotiation

  • starts within.

  • And I want to talk a little bit about that,

  • but then I don't want to go too deep into this

  • without really drawing you out more

  • and getting into your own situations.

  • But just to highlight a couple of points here from this.

  • To me, interestingly, the foundation

  • of being able to get to yes with yourself

  • is the ability to step back from the situation.

  • And I like to use the metaphor going to the balcony.

  • It's almost like you're negotiating

  • with the other person on a stage.

  • Part of your mind goes to a mental or emotional balcony

  • overlooking that stage where it's

  • a place of calm, of perspective, of self-control, where you

  • above all can keep your eyes on the prize.

  • And for example, these days there's

  • so much going on in our lives.

  • We get texts, we get emails, we get calls.

  • There's so much information flooding in all the time.

  • And let's imagine you get an email, an internal message

  • from your organization, and you've

  • been left out of an important decision.

  • And you feel irritated.

  • You feel frustrated.

  • You feel pissed.

  • So it's very tempting to just kind of compose a reply, right?

  • And then you get the satisfaction

  • of hitting the Reply button, but you don't just

  • hit the Reply button.

  • You hit the Reply All button and then

  • it goes to the entire organization.

  • And there's a button on that screen

  • sometimes, or at least it used to be,

  • which is the Save As Draft button, you know?

  • That's the button that very rarely gets used.

  • And you compose it, you get it out of your system,

  • you hit Save As Draft.

  • That's the balcony button.

  • And you do whatever you-- everyone

  • has their favorite techniques for going to the balcony.

  • They might be go for a workout, go have a cup of coffee

  • with a friend, whatever.

  • Take a night to sleep on it.

  • Just take a few minutes by yourself.

  • Whatever your technique is for going to that balcony, you're

  • going to come back, look at that message, that email,

  • and you're going to say, wait a minute.

  • Is this really going to advance my interests in the situation?

  • And you're going to hit the Delete button,

  • and then either going to pick up the phone

  • and call the person, or even better

  • get together with them if you can do that.

  • Because when you're going to resolve a difference like that,

  • it's much easier to do that with more ability

  • to communicate with a voice, for example,

  • than it is through an email.

  • Emails lend themselves very much to miscommunication.

  • They're great for information transfer,

  • but not so good for handling delicate or possibly

  • emotionally sensitive issues.

  • So that's kind of going to the balcony.

  • You know, if I think about my own personal experience--

  • Brian was asking me to tell a story too

  • about my own personal experience-- some years ago,

  • I was involved as a third party in the country of Venezuela.

  • And it was at a time when Venezuela, there were,

  • like, a million people on the streets

  • calling for the downfall of the president, who

  • was then Hugo Chavez.

  • And about a million people on the streets

  • wanting to support him.

  • And international observers worried

  • that it might turn into a civil war.

  • And I had been asked by President Carter

  • to go down and meet with both parties and talk to them.

  • And anyway, I had a number of meetings with both sides.

  • I want to talk about one particular meeting

  • I had with President Chavez.

  • He liked to meet at night, so we had made a meeting

  • at the presidential palace at 9:00 PM.

  • He was a little bit late.

  • 10:00 PM, 11:00 PM.

  • Finally at midnight I'm ushered in

  • to see the president expecting to find him all alone.

  • Instead I find him surrounded by his entire cabinet.

  • And he kind pulls up a seat, says, here Bill.

  • Have a seat here.

  • And tell me.

  • What do you think of the situation.

  • What's your impression?

  • And how are we doing?

  • And I said, you know, Mr. President,

  • I've been talking to some of your ministers here,

  • I've been talking to the opposition.

  • And it seems to me we're making some progress.

  • He said, what do you mean, progress?

  • Are you blind?

  • Are you naive?

  • What are you, foolish?

  • You're not seeing the dirty tricks the other side,

  • those traitors on the other side are up to?

  • He proceeded to get furious and he leaned in very close

  • to my face and proceeded to yell at me for, I'd say,

  • approximately 30 minutes.

  • Now you put yourself in my shoes for a moment.

  • I'm thinking, well, hey, that's not true.

  • We're not foolish.

  • And he's not seeing this.

  • And I'm wanting to defend myself.

  • But I was able to go to the balcony for a moment.

  • And actually one little technique

  • that helped me go the balcony was a friend of mine

  • a few months earlier had said, you know Bill,

  • if you're ever in a tough situation,

  • he said, pinch the palm of your hand.

  • And I said, Arnon, why would I pinch the palm of my hand?

  • And he said, well, because that'll keep you alert.

  • And maybe it'll keep you a little more alert.

  • So at that moment, for whatever reason,

  • I remembered the pinch the palm of my hand.

  • And because at that mind, in just

  • in terms of thinking about it, I was thinking, wow, two

  • years of work all down the drain, you know?

  • You go through all these things.

  • And I'm sure, tough customer calls sometimes,

  • you can literally, you know, you think

  • you might be losing that important customer, and so on.

  • So at that moment I just was able to go to the balcony,

  • not react.

  • Because if I had reacted, I mean,

  • President Chavez was famous for giving eight hour speeches.

  • I mean, the conversation could go way off the rails.

  • And that might have been the end.

  • But by not reacting, by going to the balcony,

  • by listening instead, I was able to listen, just kind of clear

  • my mind because I was able to observe myself

  • from the balcony, just note the thoughts

  • and the feelings that are going through me.

  • Just, OK, that's fine.

  • Now let me pay attention to President Chavez

  • and just give attention to him and try

  • and figure out what was going on for him.

  • I mean, why was he yelling at me?

  • What was going on?

  • Was this some kind of show for the cabinet and so on?

  • What was irritating him so much?

  • And sure enough, by just listening to them,

  • he could have gone on forever, but since I wasn't reacting,

  • after about a half an hour he started

  • to run a little bit how the steam.

  • Even he did.

  • And then I saw, if you just watch body language,

  • I saw his shoulders sink a little bit.

  • And in a very weary tone of voice he said to me,

  • so Ury, what should I do?

  • That is the sound of a human mind opening.

  • Before that, if someone's angry with you,

  • like it's your spouse, your teenager, or whatever,

  • it's very hard to use reason with someone

  • who's in a highly emotional state of mind.

  • It's like beating your head against a stone wall.

  • But by listening, he kind of went

  • into a different emotional phase of kind of like, OK.

  • So what should I do?

  • And I said, Mr. President, this is December.

  • Christmas is coming up.

  • Last Christmas all the festivities around the country

  • were canceled.

  • No one had any fun because of this conflict.

  • Why don't you just declare a truce?

  • Give everyone a chance to go to the balcony for a few weeks.

  • Enjoy the family with their holidays,

  • and maybe when they come back in January everyone

  • will be in a better mood to listen and see

  • if we can make some progress.

  • He said, oh, that's a great idea.

  • I'm going to propose that in my next speech.

  • And then his mood had completely shifted.

  • He said, you know, and over Christmas, I

  • think I'd like you to come with me

  • and actually see around the country.

  • And you come with me.

  • And then he said, for a moment he said, wait.

  • If you're always with me, maybe you

  • won't be seen as a neutral anymore.

  • But he said, that's no problem.

  • I'll give you a disguise.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • Complete shift.

  • How?

  • Because I had been able to get to yes in a sense with myself,

  • restrain my own natural reaction to defend myself.

  • You know, it would have gotten no use

  • to get into an argument with the president of Venezuela.

  • I was able to go to the balcony and then

  • I was able to shift that situation.

  • Just one example.

  • Let me ask you, just if I may, what techniques

  • you use to go to the balcony in your very busy hectic lives,

  • either work or personal.

  • What do you do to go to the balcony?

  • Anybody?

  • AUDIENCE: Sleep on it.

  • WILLIAM URY: You sleep on it.

  • OK.

  • AUDIENCE: Go for a walk.

  • WILLIAM URY: Go for a walk.

  • AUDIENCE: Fresh air.

  • WILLIAM URY: Fresh air.

  • Yeah.

  • Anything else?

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] draft emails, but save them.

  • WILLIAM URY: You draft emails and then save them, right?

  • Save As Draft.

  • OK.

  • AUDIENCE: Talk to a colleague.

  • WILLIAM URY: Talk to a colleague.

  • Yeah.

  • Someone else can be your balcony.

  • OK.

  • Good.

  • Let me, if I may, just give you one more story,

  • and then I want to see what's on your minds.

  • And it'll open it up to conversation here,

  • and see what kind of questions you've got.

  • But this conversation that I met with President Chavez

  • was 10, 12 years ago.

  • But a more recent one that I got involved in,

  • which was a business conversation,

  • was about a year, year and a half ago.

  • The wife and daughter of a very prominent

  • Brazilian entrepreneur got in touch with me.

  • He was the founder of Latin America's largest retailer,

  • really, and build up this business from nothing.

  • He was a billionaire.

  • And he had sold half of his company

  • to a French also billionaire, president

  • of a very large French conglomerate.

  • And they'd worked together for some years,

  • and then they'd had a falling out.

  • And so they're fighting over control.

  • And Abilio was the name of the person I went see.

  • And he was, like, 76 at the time.

  • He was going to be chairman of the board for another eight

  • years.

  • Two and a half years of just sheer battle.

  • I mean, every lawyer you could imagine.

  • I mean, dozens and dozens and dozens of lawyers,

  • arbitration suits, it was all over the papers.

  • I think the "Financial Times" called it perhaps the biggest

  • cross-continental boardroom showdown in recent history.

  • And it was not just affecting the immediate parties,

  • but their families, 150,000 employees of the company.

  • It was even straining Brazil-French commercial

  • relations.

  • Anyway, so I sat down with Abilio.

  • I didn't know if I could help, but I sat down with him

  • in his living room there in Sao Paulo,

  • and I asked them to tell me a story.

  • And he told me the story.

  • And then I said, then I realized, you know,

  • there's always this negotiation with the other side,

  • and that's extremely difficult.

  • But as I was saying, sometimes even more difficult

  • is the negotiation inside ourself.

  • And what I could sense inside Abilio

  • was he wasn't sure whether he wanted just continue to fight.

  • Was a fighter naturally.

  • You know, just fight and fight.

  • Or did he really want to reach an agreement?

  • And sometimes we're also torn in a lot of these situations.

  • What is it we want to do?

  • So I asked him, Abilio, what do you want?

  • How can I help you?

  • What do you really want here?

  • And he had a ready answer to that.

  • And he said, OK, I want the stock at a certain price,

  • I want elimination of the non-compete clause,

  • I want company real estate, I want--

  • and he had named five or six other things.

  • He gave me a laundry list of what he wanted.

  • He was clear about what he wanted.

  • But to me, that's just the beginning.

  • Because oftentimes, we think we know what we want,

  • but we don't know what we really want.

  • So I asked him, but Abilio, you're

  • a man who's got everything.

  • You've got your own private plane.

  • You can fly everywhere around the world.

  • You've got your new family.

  • You've got everything.

  • Is this is really what you want to do with your life

  • is get involved in the big dispute?

  • I mean, what do you really want?

  • What do you most want in your life right now?

  • Anyway, he kind of struggled with that question for a while,

  • but then after a bit he finally said to me,

  • you know what I want?

  • I want my freedom.

  • Freedom.

  • That's what I want.

  • And I said, so what does freedom mean to you?

  • And he says, well, it's freedom to pursue my business dreams,

  • my business deals and so on.

  • And I want free to spend time with my family.

  • So once we've gotten down to that level,

  • and oftentimes that's what we need to do inside ourselves.

  • Ask ourselves, what is it truly that's important to us?

  • What's the prize?

  • From the balcony that's what we do.

  • Then it turned out once it was clear,

  • then I could ask a follow on question.

  • I could ask Abilio the kind of question

  • like, OK, so you really want your freedom?

  • Who can give you that freedom?

  • Who can give you that sense of freedom,

  • the thing you most want in the world?

  • Who can give that to you?

  • Is it your adversary, the former business partner?

  • Is that the only person that can give you your freedom?

  • You're a total hostage to him?

  • Or at least to some extent can you

  • yourself give yourself that sense of freedom?

  • And that kind of, like, opened up a possibility.

  • He said, OK.

  • Yeah, well maybe I can give myself that freedom.

  • So there was this kind of psychological antecedent

  • there inside himself.

  • He said, well, I could go ahead and pursue business deals

  • regardless of what this other guys doing.

  • I can go spend time with my family on a holiday.

  • And he proceeded to do those things.

  • And paradoxically, by doing that,

  • he was psychologically less dependent on the other side.

  • And it actually made it easier for me

  • then when it came to trying to find

  • a resolution with the other side.

  • And as it turned out, this huge colossal, titanic struggle

  • that all these lawyers were [INAUDIBLE],

  • I met with the other side in Paris

  • on a Monday in a restaurant there.

  • And the representative on the other side

  • said, so why are you here?

  • And I said, you know, because life's too short.

  • Life's too short for these kinds of lose-lose struggles,

  • because that's what often happens

  • in battles is each side's trying to win.

  • It's a win-lose struggle.

  • But in the end, what happens is everyone ends up losing.

  • And it's affecting everyone.

  • So he said, so how would you settle this?

  • What's your proposal?

  • And I said, well, if we can just agree on two principles,

  • I think maybe we can maybe make some progress.

  • He said, what are those?

  • I said, freedom.

  • Freedom for each individual.

  • Let them go on with their lives and we'll figure out

  • a way to free them from this struggle.

  • And dignity because everyone wants respect.

  • He said, so what would that mean?

  • And he called me back in his office the next day

  • and we looked at it.

  • And on one piece of paper we sat down,

  • what would be some terms that would tangibly reflect freedom

  • for each individual and dignity?

  • That was on a Tuesday.

  • By Friday we had both men in a law office

  • in San Paulo signing a contract resolving the whole dispute,

  • joint press conference, they then

  • made a talk to all the employees of the company together,

  • wished each other well in the future, and it was all over.

  • And that night, actually, there was a dinner

  • held by my client for, I think there were about 40 lawyers who

  • just arrived in Sao Paulo for an arbitration lawsuit

  • and just from all over the world, from New York,

  • from Paris, from the Middle East or whatever,

  • the best lawyers in the world.

  • And they were out of a job, as it were.

  • So I'm just giving you as an example that here again, seemed

  • like a very complicated dispute, but it really

  • starts within us often.

  • And so this new book of mine is about how do we

  • get to yes with ourselves in order

  • that we can get to yes with others?

  • It's almost as if I've realized that we've been negotiating--

  • these days, we need all the tools

  • we can get in negotiation.

  • And it's almost like we've been negotiating

  • with one arm tied behind our back.

  • Because we've just been focused on outer influence.

  • How do we influence the other side?

  • And we've neglected, sometimes, our ability

  • to influence ourselves who, after all, is our best

  • instrument for influencing others.

  • And so we can negotiate with both arms together.

  • So that's the essence of this book.

  • But at this point what I'd love to do

  • is just to see what's on your minds in terms of negotiation.

  • Any questions, any kinds of subjects,

  • any kinds of things that are giving you difficulty?

  • Think back to your own situation.

  • What makes them difficult?

  • Whether its customers, whether it's teenagers,

  • or whether you want to talk about world politics, anything.

  • Yes ma'am?

  • AUDIENCE: So you mentioned in each of these cases

  • that there's a million people around these individuals.

  • So I guess my question is, what do you

  • do when you have a toxic person or in arbitration [INAUDIBLE]

  • have the numbers.

  • How do you get them-- how often do

  • you see them influencing what's riling up both sides, right?

  • So if they're going into it and you've got a person,

  • you can get them alone, get them talking,

  • and the you can get to this resolution.

  • But when you've got these other people sort of in their ear,

  • how often do you need to influence them,

  • and what kind of [INAUDIBLE]?

  • WILLIAM URY: The question was, what do you

  • do about toxic individuals who may not be at the table

  • but are kind of poisoning the well, right?

  • So one thing to think about in negotiation

  • is what I like to think about is there's not just one

  • table in the negotiation to focus on.

  • In other words, you and the client

  • or you and the internal colleague or whatever,

  • always keep in mind that there are

  • three tables in the negotiation.

  • There's the table where you and the other side are talking,

  • but there's the internal tables on each side, the people you

  • have to go back to and report to an agreement about.

  • It might be your boss or your colleagues,

  • whoever, your family, and the people they [INAUDIBLE].

  • And essentially, that toxic individual you're talking about

  • is often sitting at that internal table as a spoiler.

  • They're kind of trying to block it.

  • And that's not uncommon in any negotiation.

  • Oftentimes, the real problems in negotiations

  • aren't at the external table.

  • It's at the two internal tables.

  • Those two internal negotiations where

  • you need to pay attention to just as much

  • as at what we think of as the negotiation

  • with the other side.

  • And so how do you disarm that toxic person?

  • One is first of all, you can try and find ways to talk to them,

  • find out what their real concern is.

  • What are they really concerned about?

  • See if you can.

  • And deal with that.

  • If you can't do that then you've got to think about,

  • how do you build kind of a winning coalition

  • inside the other team that they neutralize that person?

  • But it's not uncommon at all.

  • Right now, for example, well, my very first negotiation--

  • because when I was just starting off of this field,

  • I realized it's not just in the books.

  • You need to get out there in the real world.

  • So I got a job working at a coal mine in Kentucky

  • as Brian mentioned.

  • And this was a situation where the workforce was

  • going on strike all the time, what

  • were called wildcat strikes in contravention of the contract.

  • And tensions had gotten really high

  • and there was a lot of anger.

  • And when we got down, my colleague and I got down there,

  • management and the union would not even sit in the same room

  • together.

  • That's how bad things were.

  • So we just shuttled back and forth for about six weeks

  • until we had some proposals on the table

  • that both sides were interested.

  • And they came together and they reached an agreement.

  • And there was maybe, I don't know, maybe 10 people

  • representing labor and maybe 10 people representing management.

  • And we had a whole big pow wow.

  • It was like a peace agreement, and everyone was happy.

  • Except for one little critical detail

  • which had to be ratified by the workforce.

  • There had to be a vote.

  • And a week later the vote took place, almost unanimous,

  • in rejecting the very agreement that their leaders had just

  • negotiated.

  • Why they rejected it is partly because of what you're saying,

  • because there were some toxic individuals who were saying,

  • hey, don't trust management.

  • Don't trust anything that they do.

  • Even though the agreement on the surface and in reality

  • was much better for the union than their existing agreement

  • they thought, there must be a trick

  • if management's signing up to it.

  • So then we had to go back to square one and try to address

  • and deal with that toxicity, deal with that skepticism,

  • and go back to square one.

  • So it was an everlasting lesson for me

  • of dealing with those situations.

  • Please.

  • AUDIENCE: This is maybe slightly tangential,

  • but I think a lot of people are probably

  • thinking about it here.

  • You may know that Google has kind

  • of a long relationship with Stuart Diamond who

  • comes and teaches these courses that are always

  • sold out all over the place.

  • And I've taken one of his courses.

  • I'm sure you'd want to remain on the balcony

  • in talking about somebody else who's in the same field,

  • but I'm wondering, his approach partly to me

  • seems to come out of sort of more of the Stephen Covey type,

  • more formulaic, seven steps to this and that.

  • I mean, he distills his formula onto a business card

  • which he hands out at the end of the course.

  • His slogan is getting more.

  • I guess getting to yes was not enough for a business guy.

  • Always got to get more.

  • Anyway, I'm wondering if you would have any comments

  • on that kind of an approach that he lays out-- as I say,

  • I think a lot of people here have taken it

  • and are pretty familiar with it--

  • how that kind of contrasts with your interests.

  • This whole negotiation [INAUDIBLE] course is very rich

  • and has so many roots in game theory

  • and all kinds of other things.

  • And I'm just singling this one out

  • because it's probably the one that people at Google

  • are most familiar with.

  • So I'm wondering if you'd maybe have any contrast

  • or comparisons to your own approach there.

  • WILLIAM URY: Yeah.

  • I wish I actually was more familiar with his work,

  • but I'm familiar with Stephen Covey's work,

  • and Steven Covey was a friend of mine.

  • And Covey actually, his approach was very much congruent

  • with what we're talking about.

  • He very much believed in what's called win-win.

  • When "Getting to Yes" first came out,

  • I feel like the bestselling books about negotiation

  • had titles like, "Winning by Intimidation"

  • and "Looking Out for #1."

  • [LAUGHS]

  • I don't know if you remember those.

  • But "Getting to Yes" proposed that, yes,

  • you want to meet, satisfy your interests.

  • The purpose of negotiation is to satisfy your interests.

  • But in ongoing relationships, just

  • as you were mentioning with game theory,

  • if you're just playing the prisoner's dilemma and game

  • theory, just one round, it may be in your interests

  • to defect rather than cooperate.

  • But in any kind of ongoing relationship,

  • be it inside the organization or be

  • it a longstanding relationship with clients or suppliers

  • or whatever, it makes sense to cooperate.

  • It makes sense to cooperate.

  • And so yes, you want to get more, more for yourself,

  • but one of the best ways of getting more for yourself

  • is actually to expand the pie, to be creative and expand

  • the pie so there's more for you and more for the customer,

  • so that there's more for both.

  • And what "Getting to Yes" proposes

  • is that kind of approach where essentially, you

  • look behind positions for, what are the underlying needs?

  • What are the underlying interests, your interests,

  • and the other side's interests?

  • You try to invent options for mutual gain,

  • you try to expand the pie.

  • And where there are serious differences,

  • you make use of objective criteria

  • to decide, what's a fair way to divide up the pie?

  • So for example, here, actually, if you wouldn't mind,

  • let's do a two minute little negotiation challenge here.

  • If you wouldn't mind just pick a partner,

  • the person sitting right next to you.

  • And let's do a negotiation by email.

  • This will take 30 seconds.

  • OK, everyone pick a partner.

  • And just decide who's going to send the email

  • and who's going to receive the email, OK?

  • So here's the situation.

  • Let's imagine you two are department

  • heads in the same organization.

  • Let's say maybe it's Google, whatever.

  • You're not co-located.

  • One of you's here in Cambridge, one of you's

  • there in Mountain View, wherever.

  • And you have a common boss.

  • And this year the idea's been, we've got to cut costs.

  • And so let's say by the end of the year,

  • your common boss comes to both you and says, look,

  • you guys have done a great job.

  • But Everyone's done a great job cutting costs.

  • And I've got a little extra money left in the budget.

  • I don't know.

  • What would be a little bit significant?

  • Would it be, like, $500,000 or $100,000?

  • What would it be?

  • AUDIENCE: $100,000.

  • WILLIAM URY: Give me a number.

  • AUDIENCE: $500,000.

  • WILLIAM URY: $500,000.

  • OK, $500,000 left in the budget.

  • And he says, I don't know how to divide it between you

  • two different departments.

  • You guys decide.

  • So here are the rules, OK?

  • This is silent.

  • Silence done by email, so there's no talking.

  • It's just very simple.

  • The sender, you just take out a piece of paper

  • or if you don't have a piece of paper, it's fine too.

  • But just come up with two numbers

  • adding up to 500 for your proposal

  • for how to divide up the $500,000.

  • Now it's not so simple to just say $250,000 for each

  • because all your people at that internal table we were talking

  • about are saying, hey, we need all $500,000 you know,

  • for sales department or whatever it is.

  • We deserve it all.

  • You know?

  • That other team, they don't deserve it.

  • So you're under a lot of pressure

  • from your team to come back with as close to $500,000

  • as possible.

  • So you could put down as if you were emailing,

  • $500,000 for my department, zero for yours.

  • You could put down $475,000 for my department,

  • $25,000 for yours.

  • $450,000 for my department, and $50,000 for yours.

  • There's no creativity.

  • It's just two numbers here.

  • That's all you do.

  • It just takes 10 seconds.

  • That's your proposal.

  • Then those of you receive that number or those two numbers,

  • you have one decision to make.

  • Very simple.

  • Yes or no.

  • Either you accept it or you reject it.

  • That's it.

  • There's no follow on negotiation.

  • So if you say yes, you're going to get

  • whatever the other side's proposing.

  • You're going to get the $25,000, you're

  • going to get the $50,000, you're going to get whatever,

  • the $100,000.

  • If, however, you say no, neither department gets one penny.

  • Because the boss has said, look, if you two

  • can't reach agreement, that's OK.

  • I can find another use for the money.

  • So it's very simple.

  • Just two sequential decisions.

  • First person just picked two numbers that add up to 500,

  • the second person says yes or no,

  • and then we see the results, OK?

  • Takes 30 seconds.

  • No follow on negotiation and no talking

  • unless you just have to give me the proposal.

  • Everyone had a chance to go through the exercise?

  • OK, so it's just two sequential decisions.

  • Two numbers and then yes or no.

  • So I'm curious.

  • How many of you-- have you all had a chance to do it?

  • Yeah.

  • How many of you by curious said yes,

  • accepted the proposal you were offered?

  • OK?

  • How many of you said no, rejected

  • the proposal you were offered?

  • OK, a few of you.

  • So I'm kind of curious.

  • We're curious about why other people reject our proposals.

  • So let's just see if we can learn something here.

  • So Brian, you rejected the proposal

  • given to by Jonathan, right?

  • BRIAN: Yes.

  • WILLIAM URY: What proposal did he make?

  • BRIAN: $375,000 and $125,000.

  • WILLIAM URY: $375,000, $125,000.

  • So $375,000 for him, $125,000 for your department, right?

  • And why did you reject it?

  • BRIAN: $125,000 was close enough to zero for me.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • WILLIAM URY: $125,000, OK.

  • So you have a very-- OK.

  • So that's one.

  • How about-- there were some others who rejected?

  • Yeah, you sir.

  • You rejected.

  • AUDIENCE: $350,000 to $150,000.

  • WILLIAM URY: $350,000 to $150,000.

  • AUDIENCE: It was fairness.

  • WILLIAM URY: Fairness.

  • Fairness.

  • Now see, this is really interesting,

  • because you have economically rational decision

  • makers who are being offered a decision between $125,000

  • and zero or $150,000 and zero, and what are they picking?

  • Zero.

  • Why?

  • Because, as you heard, perceived fairness

  • plays in a very important role in negotiation.

  • It's either people will walk away from proposals--

  • and we're going to be startled, because after all, rationally

  • speaking, it's in their interest to accept.

  • How many of you, for example, accepted

  • a proposal that was less than $250,000?

  • How many accepted?

  • OK.

  • And when you accepted that how many of you

  • thought to yourself, OK, I'm going to accept this,

  • but I'm going to remember this.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • Right?

  • So that often happens.

  • How many of you, despite what I said, went ahead and just

  • proposed $250,000, $250,000 a 50/50 split?

  • Anybody?

  • You did.

  • And why'd you do that?

  • AUDIENCE: You know, in the spirit

  • of what you were talking about earlier in terms of freedom

  • is the fastest way to have both parties--

  • WILLIAM URY: It was a fast way to have both parties agree,

  • right?

  • OK.

  • Yeah.

  • OK.

  • AUDIENCE: I would have proposed--

  • WILLIAM URY: You would have proposed-- what was that?

  • AUDIENCE: Actually, Bob would have proposed,

  • but I would have proposed to give him $260,000,

  • so that next year, he'd have no excuse.

  • WILLIAM URY: There you go.

  • OK.

  • You know, it's interesting--

  • AUDIENCE: This year it looks like you need more than I do.

  • But next year [INAUDIBLE].

  • WILLIAM URY: He would have proposed $260,000 he said,

  • just to cultivate goodwill.

  • You know, I asked--

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] goodwill.

  • WILLIAM URY: Then what is it?

  • AUDIENCE: It's create the expectation-- leverage.

  • WILLIAM URY: Leverage.

  • OK.

  • [LAUGHS]

  • OK.

  • Well, you know, it's interesting,

  • because I once ran this exercise in,

  • I think it was Japan, just asked that question.

  • And there was a large number of people

  • who adopted that strategy.

  • But when I asked them why, because in east Asia,

  • they tend to believe in long term relationships.

  • They were investing in the long term relationship.

  • So for $10,000 extra, they were investing more

  • in the relationship.

  • So there are a lot of ways to approach this,

  • but the thing is that since perceived fairness plays

  • an enormously important role, if the other side thinks

  • you're just trying to win at their expense, A,

  • they're going to remember it, B, or they sometimes

  • may refuse to deal.

  • And as you just saw, they'll just walk away.

  • They'll accept zero like Brian did.

  • And so the question is, how can you

  • create a situation in the negotiation

  • that each side feels like they got at least a fair shake?

  • And it's not just about the person across the table,

  • because as the question came from before about

  • the toxic people, whoever you deal

  • with has to go back to their constituency, to their people.

  • In this particular case, you have

  • to go back to your department.

  • They say, how come you agreed to $100,000?

  • They're screwing us.

  • So people need to have a logic.

  • And that's why objective criteria like--

  • I didn't give you any information,

  • but like, which is the larger department?

  • Which department costs more?

  • Which department could use the money better, and so on?

  • Some logical thing so that each side,

  • there's some narrative there that each side

  • can use to say, OK.

  • We both deferred to what's fair.

  • And so this is just, again, something

  • to think about in negotiations, the psychology of fairness.

  • Because it may seem small, but it actually

  • makes a really important difference,

  • particularly in long-term relationships.

  • And this may be also one reason why

  • is it that we experience internal negotiations as more

  • difficult than external.

  • It's partly because there's more emotion involved.

  • There's a more ongoing relationship.

  • Sometimes there's often a lot more avoidance behavior inside.

  • We don't want to deal with difficult conflicts

  • because we're afraid of long-term impact.

  • Everyone's got their little black book out.

  • So again, things to think about.

  • I know there were some other questions there, so yeah.

  • Please.

  • AUDIENCE: I realize we could spend another hour talking

  • about what I'm about to ask, so say as little as you want to.

  • But I'm curious for your take on the situation in Washington

  • and the inability, it seems, for the two sides to work together.

  • I just would love your take on what

  • may be sort of causing that or how

  • they could make their negotiations better.

  • And actually, in light of your book,

  • I wondered if maybe the Republican party now feels

  • a little bit better with themselves now

  • having majorities in both houses,

  • and maybe that helps [INAUDIBLE].

  • I don't know.

  • WILLIAM URY: Sure.

  • There's been this stalemate in Washington.

  • I mean, it seems like both parties have been busy

  • getting to no rather than getting to yes

  • for the last six years.

  • And certainly it's challenging, even for the next two years.

  • But to me, it's a classic example

  • of the logic of each side trying to win

  • and the end is they're a stalemate.

  • Both sides end up losing.

  • And actually in these situations it's

  • lose-lose-lose because the American people, our country

  • loses.

  • Our ability to work together to build

  • a country with good infrastructure,

  • with decent pay for people, with opportunity for everyone,

  • that's suffered a lot in this process,

  • as well as our ability to work together

  • to solve global problems be it climate change or anything.

  • And so we've paid a huge cost for it.

  • Essentially they've been playing a game of an eye for an eye

  • and we all go blind.

  • And so how do you change that?

  • It's partly process like things we're talking about.

  • It's also partly systemic.

  • I had the opportunity a number of years

  • ago to be a facilitator at what was billed

  • as a bipartisan congressional retreat.

  • It was held in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

  • There were about 200 members of Congress.

  • About 100 Republicans, 100 Democrats with their spouses

  • and so on.

  • And it was interesting to me that when you actually

  • got people together, first of all, we asked them questions.

  • We broke them to small groups.

  • Let's say we had maybe four, each group per conversation

  • we had four congressman from each side, about eight.

  • But I asked them, what's this like?

  • Why'd you go into politics in the first place?

  • And what's the toll of this kind of conflict?

  • And it was interesting, particularly

  • hearing from them and their spouses of just how unpleasant

  • and how contrary to whatever they'd hoped to do.

  • Because you spend a lot of time trying

  • to get into Congress, and then you can do nothing basically.

  • It's frustrating.

  • And it was interesting, a lot of them

  • said to me that they'd spent more time visiting with people

  • across the aisle on the train ride

  • from DC, because we were all on one train that got hired up

  • to Hershey, Pennsylvania, than they had in the previous four

  • years.

  • So to me it's partly about breaking down those walls.

  • But once they got talking with each other,

  • I could really see there was real potential.

  • One of the problems is that in the old days,

  • or what seems like the old days when

  • there was more kind of collaboration, cooperation,

  • it was partly because there were lot of informal relationships

  • that existed, partly because people

  • used to live more in Washington.

  • Now they live more in their own districts

  • and they fly back every Friday night.

  • When they used to live in Washington,

  • their kids went to the same schools, you know?

  • The Little League or whatever it was.

  • They got together.

  • And so one thing I've found is that informal time

  • where you can have cross-cutting relationships that aren't just

  • that you're a Democrat and that you're a Republican can

  • kind of humanize the situation.

  • Because right now it's descended into a lot

  • of blaming, a lot of finger pointing.

  • And this is where it goes back to getting to yes with yourself

  • which is more about, OK, taking responsibility for yourself.

  • I'd love to see people say-- like two spouses.

  • You can blame each other or you can say, look, I'm responsible.

  • I'm 100% responsible for our relationship.

  • And then other person's 100% responsible

  • for the relationship.

  • So the Democrats are 100% responsible

  • for the-- instead of just saying,

  • oh, it's all the Republican's fault.

  • Or the Republicans are 100% responsible for what's

  • going on.

  • And just a different modality.

  • And it may seem hard, but I've seen many examples

  • of bipartisan cooperation, starting with Ted Kennedy.

  • I mean, for example, he was a classic, you know,

  • liberal battler, but he also knew how to build bridges.

  • He always worked with Republicans.

  • It's been done before.

  • It can be done again.

  • And I'm hoping, back to your question, that now,

  • because of what you said, the Republicans,

  • now that they control both houses of Congress,

  • they're under a little pressure to deliver

  • because they've got to deliver.

  • They're not just the minority party anymore.

  • So they've got to deliver.

  • And they want to deliver.

  • And President Obama also, he wants to deliver too.

  • He's got two years left to accomplish his legacy.

  • And so I'd say there's an incentive now

  • if they can learn these methods of getting to yes, which

  • is instead of attacking each other,

  • attack the problem together.

  • Sit down, try and figure out what the incentives are.

  • That little exercise we just did about perceived injustice,

  • there's a lot of that going on.

  • When I talk to Democrats and Republicans they think,

  • oh, they stung us there.

  • We're going to sting them back.

  • That kind of gotcha game.

  • Everyone's got their black books.

  • We've got to learn to get beyond that.

  • BRIAN: OK, it was great, Bill.

  • Thank so much for coming.

  • WILLIAM URY: It was my pleasure, Brian.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • BRIAN: Yep.

  • WILLIAM URY: It was great.

  • Yep, my pleasure.

BRIAN: Our guest today is Bill Ury.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 美國腔

威廉-尤里,"與自己達成共識"--在谷歌的演講。 (William Ury, "Getting to Yes with Yourself" | Talks At Google)

  • 470 46
    Joyce 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字