Question

长长长长篇英语作文 急急!!!!!一天时间!!!拜托了

顺带翻译
一天时间
主要是长,我做手抄报用的
拜托了
急急急急急急急急急急急急!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

呵呵呵~你也槐旅没说绝让什么内容~那我把我写铅宏凳得给你把~

Collaborative Principled Negotiation

Introduction

In the second half of the twentieth century , the rapid development of economy globalization and integration ,by promises of great benefits from free flow of people ,goods, services and capital, have mingled all countries and areas into one interdependent and interrelated body. Resolving political, especially economy disputes and conflicts by peaceful means based on equality and mutual benefit has prevailed in international affairs since countries started to view each other as partners and cooperators rather than adversaries and antagonists. Some scholars and social workers begin advocating a brand new idea, which win—win concept. Collaborative principled negotiation based on mutual success and convergence of interests is a typical example of this concept .Practices demonstrated its high effectiveness in dealing with disagreement and conflicts in international business negotiation ,therefore, it has become widely accepted.

1. Overview of collaborative principled negotiation

Negotiation is regarded as an important and necessary social activity, especially in international business negotiation, a great impulse to social economic development in our modern life. In view of the abuse of traditional win---lose concept of business negotiation, we advocate a brand new method of collaborative principled negotiation, a win---win concept to improve the efficiency and fairness of business negotiation.

Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage and attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests.

Collaborative principled negotiation is also commonly known as Harvard principled negotiation, which is developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury in the book Getting to Yes published in 1981.The core and spirit of the method is to reach a solution beneficial to both parties by way of stressing interests and value not by way of bargaining. The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issue on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do .It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness. When the interests

of the involved parties are contradictory, an objective criterion should be applied to.

1. System of collaborative principled negotiation

1.1 Four fundamental principles

It is very important to view each other as cooperators rather than adversaries in international business negotiation. The process of negotiation is not simply considered as competing but mutual communicating and seeking for common development. Otherwise, they will attack and blame each other, protect and defend habitually each party’s utmost interests and make no concession, which would inevitably lead negotiation into impasse or failure. Instead, they should stand side by side to generate mutual gain and improve their relationship. The interest---based approach of collaborative principled negotiation advocates four fundamental principles of negotiation: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests not positions; 3) invent options for mutual gain; 4) insist on objective criteria.

1.1.1 Separating the people from the problems

Every negotiation has two basic components: people and problems. Separating the people from the problems means separating the relationship issues (e.g. perceptions, emotions, communication, reliability and so on ) from the substantive issues (e.g. terms, dates, figures and so on ) and dealing with each set of issues on its own merits, don’t make substantive concessions in the hope of improving relations.

Human beings are not computers. We are imperfectly skilled in communication, we perceive the actions and words of others differently and we are creatures of long memories and strong emotions. Emotions, personalities, feelings and so on become entangled in the substance of the problem. And so we will tend to take responses to the issues as personal attacks.

It’s generally understood that in negotiations problems will be discussed and resolved if talks are going on in a friendly and sincere atmosphere. Unfortunately more often than not high tension is build up due to negotiators’ prejudice against the other party’s intention. It is conceivable that negotiations would be directed to personal disputes and both sides say something hurting each other when such prejudice or misunderstanding exists. As a result negotiators’ personal feeling is mingled with interests and events to be discussed. For example, you may feel very uncomfortable when your counterpart appears arrogant and superior, so you probably throw out something to knock off his arrogance, which may further irritate him and make him take retaliation action. The focus of negotiation is shifted from interests and issues of both parties to personal dignity and self—respect, thus the attacks and quarrels end up with nothing. In other cases your counterpart may misunderstand your intention and openly show his emotion when you make comments on his opinion and events he has described.

People problems often mainly tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. Perceptions are important because they define the problem and solution. While there is an “objective reality”, the reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute, effective negotiation may be difficult to achieve. This is what we have been calling framing problems—the problems that people see or define a situation differently, depending on who they are and what their situations are. So it is crucial for both sides to understand the others’ viewpoints. There are seven basic ways for handling the problems of perception.

First, try to see the situation from your opponent’s perspective. The parties should try to put themselves in the shoes of the other to understand that part’s constraints of the situation. You don’t have to agree with their perceptions of the situation. But it is important to understand what they think and feel, and why they think and feel as they do.

Second, don’t deduce your opponent’s intentions from your own fears. It is common to assure that your opponent plans to do just what you fear they will do. This sort of suspicious attitude makes it difficult to accurately perceive your opponent’s real intentions; whatever they do you will assure the worst.

Third, avoid blaming your opponent for the problem. Blame, even if it is deserved, will only make your opponent defensive. Even worse, your opponent may attack you in response. Blame is generally counter--productive.

Fourth, discuss each other’s perceptions. Explicit discuss of each side’s perceptions will help both sides to better understand each other. And discuss will help each side to avoid projecting their fears onto one another. Also, such discussion may reveal shared perceptions. Acknowledging shared perceptions can strength the parties’ relationship, and facilitate productive negotiations.

Fifth, seek opportunities to act in consistently with your opponent’s misperceptions. That is, try to disappoint your opponent’s worst beliefs and expectations about you. Just as it is important for you to have an accurate perception of your opponent, it is also important for them to have an accurate perception of you. Disappointing your opponent’s negative or inaccurate beliefs will help you to change those beliefs.

Sixth, give your opponent a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the negotiation process. If your opponent doesn’t feel involved in the negotiation process, then they are unlikely to feel involved in its outcome. Conversely, if they feel that the process is in part their process, they are more likely to accept its conclusion. The more that the party is involved in the process; the more likely they are to be involved in and to support the outcome.

Seventh, make your proposals consistent with the principles and self—image of your opponent. Each side should try to make proposals that would be appealing to the other side. All the parties to a negotiation need to be able to reconcile the agreement with their principles and self—images. That is, they need to feel the final agreement doesn’t compromise their integrity. Proposals which are consistent with your opponent’s principles and which don’t undermine their self—images are more likely to be accepted.

Understanding the other side’s perceptions will improve communication and enable a party to re—frame its proposal in way that makes it easier for the other side to say “yes”.

People problems also often involve difficult emotions—fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with. People often react with fear or anger when they feel that their interests are threatened. The first step in dealing with emotions is to acknowledge them, and try to understand their source. The parties must acknowledge the fact that certain emotions are present, even when they don’t see those feelings as reasonable. Dismissing another’s feeling as unreasonable is likely to provoke an even more intense emotional response. The parties must allow the other side to express their emotions. They must not react emotionally to emotional outbursts. Symbolic gestures such as apologies or an expression of sympathy can help to defuse strong emotions.

Communication is the third main source of people problems. Negotiators may not be speaking to each other, but may simply grandstand for their respective constituencies. The parties may not be listening to each other, but may instead be planning their own responses. Even when the parties are speaking to each other and are listening, misunderstandings may occur. To combat these problems, the parties should employ active listening. The listeners should give the speaker their full attention, occasionally summarizing the speaker’s points to confirm their understanding. It is important to remember that understanding the other’s case doesn’t mean agreeing with it. Speakers should direct their speech toward the other parties and keep focused on what they are trying to communicate. Each side should avoid blaming or attacking the other, and should speak about themselves. Generally the best way to deal with people problems is to prevent them from arising. People problems are less likely to come up if the parties have a good relationship, and think of each other as partners in negotiation rather than adversaries.

On general, to separate people from problem, the crucial point is to understand the other party, control one’s own emotion and strengthen communication. We look for chances to correct our counterparts afterwards if their opinion is not right; we allow them to express their dissatisfaction if they feel upset and we find more chances to exchange our opinions if misunderstanding happens. By doing so we treat our counterpart as a cooperator sitting on the same boat sinking and floating together, and the course of negotiation as a process of achieving mutual success hand in hand.

1.1.1 Focusing on interests not positions

Conflicts of interests bring people to negotiation table. Negotiation about interests means negotiating things that people really want and need, not what they say that they want or need, these are not the same. In negotiation, it is very often difficult to focus on interests since the interests of one party are frequently not clearly identified and expressed outwardly, and comparatively speaking positions are concrete and explicitly exposed to each other. One important task of negotiation is to overpass one’s position and to look for solutions satisfying both parties’ interests.

1.1.1.1 Cause of involving in positions

Positions may be thought of as one-- dimensional point in a space of infinite possible solution. Positions are symbolic representations of a participant’s underlying interests. People tend to take extreme positions that are designed to counter their opponent’s position for the purpose of having their interests realized or protecting their interests or gaining more interests.

1.1.1.2 Harm of haggling on positions

Defining a problem in terms of positions means that at least one party will “lose”. Positional bargaining, in which each side comes to the table with a list of demands and opens with their positions on an issue, is likely to be ineffective and costly. The parties then bargain from their separate opening positions to agree on one position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of positional bargaining. It is an inefficient means of reaching agreements, and the agreements tend to neglect the parties’ interests. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the parties’ relationship. Its failure in the labor, management and diplomatic contexts are manifold. It often produces unyielding attitudes and endless haggling, which makes negotiation be a competitive of wills and will destroy the friendly atmosphere. Parties try their utmost to make their counterpart change position, only resulting in either one party make concession to reach a bad agreement or neither party compromise to end in negotiation. Negotiators considering problems on their own position and regardless of the other party’s reasonable interests, even act by threat and deception that would lead negotiation to a failure.

1.1.1.3 Emphasis on interests

Good agreements focus on the parties’ interests not their positions. Your position is something you have decided upon, your interests are what cause you to so decide. If asked why they are taking that position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons—their true interests and needs—are actually compatible, not mutually exclusive. When a problem is defined in terms of the parties’ underlying interests, it is often possible to find a solution that is satisfies both parties’ interests. In negotiation, there are always multiple, shared, compatible and conflicting interests. The first step is to identify the parties’ interests regarding the issue at hand. This can be done by asking why they hold the positions they do, and by considering why they hold some other possible position. Each party usually has a number of different interests underlying their positions. And interests may differ somewhat among the individual members of each side. However, all people will share certain basic interests or needs, such as the need for security and economic well—being. Identifying shared and compatible interests as “common ground” or “points of agreement” is helpful in establishing a foundation for additional negotiation discussions. Once the parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together. If a party wants the other side to take their interests into account, that party must explain their interests clearly. The other side will be more motivated to take those interests into account if the first party shows that they are paying attention to the other side’s interests. Discussions should look forward to the desired solution, rather than focusing on t past events. If we have learned anything about the past, it is that “we can’t change it”. The past may help us to identify problems needing solution, but other than that, it doesn’t tend to yield the best solution for the future. Parties should keep a clear focus on their interests, but remain open to different proposals and positions.

Focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle—invent options for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over original positions that assure that for one side to win, the other side must lose. The prolonged dispute over the South China Sea among neighboring countries has been a disturbing factor for the instability in the region. Some countries have demanded sea territory and some other countries have declared actual controlling right over some islands. Facing the dispute, China, being the real owner of the sea area, reiterates China’s sovereignty over the territory, meanwhile exploring the real interests of neighboring countries’ demanding for the territory. It was found out that an important reason behind their claim is the rich fishing and mineral resources in the area. The Chinese government hence proposed in talks with relative countries that “put aside dispute, engage in joint exploration”. The proposal met with general acceptance and proved to be quite effective in lightening the tense atmosphere in the region. The instability would have been deteriorating if the disputing countries, particularly China, had hold on to their position and showed no flexibility in the issue.

Successful negotiations are the result of mutual giving and taking of interests rather than keeping firm on one’s own positions. The method of focusing on the common interests of negotiating parties works well because firstly, there is always more one way of fulfilling each other’s interests, and secondly, both sides can always find out certain common interests, otherwise they will not sit together discussing and talking.

1.1.2 Inventing options for mutual gain

The first two principles look at the relation between people and problems, and interests and positions, which are conductive for negotiators to establish an objective view on those important factors in negotiations. The third principle of inventing options for mutual gain provides an approach to fulfillment of the two parties’ demands.

Why are negotiators easily trapped by their own positions? The explanation is that many negotiations simply focus on a single event and the solution to the event is either win or lose, for example, price of a car, size of commission, or time limit of a loan. The distributive nature of interest gaining limits people’s scope of thinking and causes people to insist on their own stance. In such case, there is one way out, which is to jointly make the cake of interests as large as possible before cutting it apart so that both sides may get what they desire for. To this end, negotiators should be able to provide creative options and alternative to unaccepted solutions. There are in fact always alternative solutions to problems to be solved, which are, unfortunately, often not fully understood.

2.1.3.1 Obstacles for generating creative options

Generally speaking, there are three factors hindering people from seeking for alternative solutions:

One is the fixed distributive plan. Both sides perceive the size of the cake is fixed, thus your gain is my loss and my gain is your loss. The rigid distributive concept retards creative thinking and options and hence results in failure of negotiations.

The second is seeking for only one solution. Negotiators are inclined to rest on their laurels they have achieved and hope to arrive at the final solution without other nuisances. They are not

Answer 2

都不告诉我们是什么内容。