| I have most of an abandoned book written on it. Abandoned because I will finish it when I can show it actually works. As a foundation, "Getting to Yes," is key, but as another commenter mentioned, it has been considered outdated because it assumes rational parties. This isn't a limit, as you need to play scales before you can play jazz, but there are no "scale recitals." "Rational," has a few concepts wrapped up in it. Main limit on the basic theories (I would say) is that it focuses on discussing a transaction with a finite outcome, positioning one another in relation to a commitment event. A raise, a consulting rate, price of a car, etc. Reality is that society has changed, and deals are really more about achieving a temporary political equilibrium. You could say they always were, but strong personal connections and relationships in business aren't as much of a factor as public reputation/image has become. In a graph sense, many "weak ties," are more valuable than a few strong ones. IMHO, traditional negotiation assumed valuing "strong tie" networks. Negotiation in a "weak tie," network has very different dynamics than a "strong tie," network. A very useful traditional reference is The Economist Guide: https://www.amazon.com/Economist-Negotiation-Z-Guide-ebook/d... It is an encyclopedia/dictionary approach to get the concepts and an overview of what people on the other side of the table likely already understand. Weak tie negotiation uses some of the same traditional techniques, but requires more advanced concepts from some other authors. Maybe I should finish that book. |