Awesome mate!

Thank you!!

Easier to read this than watching the guy talks.

Thank you!

Thanks... You saved my time.

I never tried this feature before!😹

Thankyou

I have try it for the 1st time . thanks a lot

You're a saviour

Thanks for this 🙌🏽

I am almos 50, and I did not have a clue about it!

You must remember the party sitting opposite also might have read the 4 principles

I am 46 and doing a small business never heard of these business too, until now it is due to what my partner and wife has done I am surviving, this will give me more insight and take some more responsibility from now onwards

@@bijutoms9365 It is important that they also know these principles. This is not about ‘tricking’ people or parties to gain an advantage but seeking win wins. See also Covey’s 3rd Alternative or the various iterations of restorative justice in non judicial situations. BTW I may have misinterpreted your comment. If so I apologise.

@@bijutoms9365 Then we are in win-win position ;)

I agree, not everyone is interested in negotiations, that is when its best to learn when to walk away (for most scenarios)

?

Shit ai go away

I'm in a country WAY TOO MANY people drag every work issue over into their personal space, and make too many issues personal attacks. I DID NOT find this as a young adult growing up on the US west coast. (maybe this doesn't apply TODAY to the USA, but I'm not there)>

i can offer a bit on the first principle, "separate the person from the issue". so say there's this video that's not very informative, you could mention it "hey this is a bad video why didn't you mention this", or you could make up a character that makes similar mistakes in not making their video informative or applicable for example; "hey this teddy made this video about how to tell what type of bear is in your forest while hunting, but never mentions what behavior these bears do, because in a low light situation it would be very hard to tell what type of bear it is, so shouldn't teddy have mentioned their behavior?" and then if they agree with you saying something like "yes teddy should've mentioned that in their video" you can then follow it up with your point of view of the video, or make up another character cementing them in their position of how teddy,bob,sheryl,johanson,etc should've made their video.

You're right, Harvard is a business school and these principles apply best to business. The main issue in the examples you mention, Divorce and Brexit, is that the people on opposing sides see each other as enemies. They refuse to compromise for emotional reasons as well as reasons of self protection, values, politics and a belief that their way is the right way. A win-win situation could only be possible if both parties were able to put feelings and beliefs aside to look at the facts without emotion. But the issue is complicated, and the communication methods for discussion on the topic are never free from emotion. UK politicians yell at each other and so do separated spouses. This is much easier to implement in a commercial setting.

@@phoebexxlouise Sorry, but ascribing emotions to the EU is not reasonable. Its very raison d'etre is to remove any emotion from negotiations, so actual solutions can be found. There was no rational win possible for the UK in brexit, as the cultural, geopolitical and economic costs were bound to be large. That's why the UK government has defined the matter entirely irrationally and emotionally, even though that actually made the damage to the UK far worse than it needed to be. There was no win possible for the EU either, as losing the leading member was always going to be a real loss. It dealt with the referendum result by a long period of public mourning that ran well into 2017. At the same time the governments negotiated about their priorities, and set up a scale of options that the UK could chose from. By the time the UK got to the negotiating table, it found that May's public speeches had already precluded anything like the deal Leave promised. The UK political class continued to be irrational, grandiose, emotional, self-destructive, angry and bitter because it had no real alternatives. It's hard for Brits to appreciate just how little the EU member states have worried about brexit. They investigated the likely results, took what measures they could, and let the EU coordinate overall assessments, overall responses needed and - of course - handle the succession of emotional clowns that the UK sent to the negotiating table. The emotional war has played almost entirely within the UK, where it continues to destroy civil society and the Union itself.

Putin must go!

I am pretty sure that he is not a native speaker, a native american would say were (wer, Pronunciation) The s is usually not that wide as the speaker said it

what's the point of the last sentence?

@@xubarney1326 It calls it what it is. It's the opposite of acting as a client's fiduciary. It's an indication that all a vendor cares about is making money and it's nothing to do with being a resource for ones client.

@@Detaileddesignsautospa well...sure...

This is sooo true unfortunately in my country, pakistan we believe in aggressive bargaining, its gets very personal and emotional. Facts go out the window. My approach is very simple you cant force or nag a seller to lower his price, which most people do here. Rather better approach is to find a better seller and do you research. The simple truth is if you business is good you negotiation power will will higher naturally, you cant force yourself to increase your negotiation power while running a shit business

With disadvantage you presumably mean that you lose more than the other side in case the negotiations fail? It shouldn't matter for the principles of the negotiations, though. Perhaps you will be (even) more motivated to look for a win-win solution, as any compromise is likely to be biased against you. And I guess the biggest concern is that #1 is going to be even harder to achieve: if you are at a disadvantage, it may psychologically be harder to see the other side as a partner rather than an opponent.

Good one. Harvard main is case.

They somehow follow them using common sense. With the distractions of the world and the business of the mind, commonsense is sometimes lost; hence the need for principles. They make the process robotic and effective, be there commonsense or not. Thanks!

Truth be told, they don't if they reach "manager" positions. How do you think the 1% are so successful. They know there's a middle ground and don't see that as giving in or losing. Your manager just wants to be boss and obeyed. The miracle is that these people are growing exponentially in organisational hierarchies, and they go right to the senior positions. It's common sense, as noted above, but that's gone out of the window when stupid people are promoted on hierarchical support structure schemes of arse covering. They can't negotiate. They just obey each other.