Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.71 AVERAGE
3.71 AVERAGE
Boring, repetitive, I had no interest in spending any more time with this man.
Often quoted in business and management books, this is worth a quick perusal. The age of title (2002) shows, as the format is full of words and void of charts and lists. Skip to page 257 to get the key points, and remember that being liked isn't the goal of negotiation!
informative
slow-paced
ethnocentric and pessimistic. Doesn't grasp or address the fact that the problem is in an adversarial system that feigns "win-win" and often limits it to business environments. The problem isn't "win-win" as a possibility, but the fact that it is abused to cajole impracticable preliminary agreements. The book dismisses "win-win" entirely however.
It fails to see that the culture at the center of its view does not so adhere to "win-win" in the first place. Mentions sports but how many of those are win-win? Awards? "Competition" underpins the entire doctrine of "a marketplace of ideas." Mentions law, how much of that is win-win? Compare it to the European system, of which the author is an ardent admirer, which is an inquisitorial system, and closer to "win-win" than the culture the book claims to be overtaken by it. Because the very legal system -the book's culture of origin's regulatory apparatus- is founded on an "adversarial" system, the book seems to be carrying coals to Newcastle.
The issue is that win-win should mean win-win, yes mean yes, and no mean no!
If you think this is a book about saying "no" and standing on principles; it's not, it is about starting with "no" as a negotiating tactic, even if you have interest in saying "maybe," indeed even if you have strong interest in saying "yes," on the assumption that most negotiations -without rigorous negotiation- manufacture inequitable consent, that's not too problematic, but the assumption that all "win-win" is willful spin is excessive.
In one way alone, did this book deliver. It isn't afraid to challenge what it thinks is the status quo.
It fails to see that the culture at the center of its view does not so adhere to "win-win" in the first place. Mentions sports but how many of those are win-win? Awards? "Competition" underpins the entire doctrine of "a marketplace of ideas." Mentions law, how much of that is win-win? Compare it to the European system, of which the author is an ardent admirer, which is an inquisitorial system, and closer to "win-win" than the culture the book claims to be overtaken by it. Because the very legal system -the book's culture of origin's regulatory apparatus- is founded on an "adversarial" system, the book seems to be carrying coals to Newcastle.
The issue is that win-win should mean win-win, yes mean yes, and no mean no!
If you think this is a book about saying "no" and standing on principles; it's not, it is about starting with "no" as a negotiating tactic, even if you have interest in saying "maybe," indeed even if you have strong interest in saying "yes," on the assumption that most negotiations -without rigorous negotiation- manufacture inequitable consent, that's not too problematic, but the assumption that all "win-win" is willful spin is excessive.
In one way alone, did this book deliver. It isn't afraid to challenge what it thinks is the status quo.
Good book with lots of tidbits. I did get lost in many of the sports metaphors/stories.