abstract

Each chapter of this book has self-test questions. After vivid analysis and explanation, four animals, owl, fox, sheep and donkey, are used as image metaphors to illustrate the character and mentality of different negotiators and determine different negotiation results. Help readers to judge their negotiating ability and effectively improve their negotiating strategies and skills.

Gavin Kennedy is a world-famous negotiation expert and negotiation skill training expert. He brought us into a world full of creative negotiation strategies and skills through in-depth analysis of negotiation behavior and easy-to-understand text description. Here, you don't have to worry about becoming a boring concept and stylized dogma. The author tells us that negotiation is everywhere and it is an indispensable part of our daily life. Lively and interesting, with clear views and rich cases.

Brief introduction of the author

Gavin Kennedy, Ph.D., University of Cambridge, UK, is currently the chief negotiator of Edinburgh Negotiation Consulting Company. He is a world-famous expert in negotiation and negotiation skills training. He trained and guided nearly 1 000 companies in more than 65,438+000 countries and regions around the world in business negotiation skills, and gave thousands of speeches on negotiation strategies.

Editor's recommendation

Recommended by Long Yongtu, chief representative of China's WTO accession negotiations.

The most classic negotiation books in Europe and America, the pillow books of many millionaires, and the latest edition of the classic bestseller of Gavin Kennedy, a world-famous negotiator.

The success of business negotiation depends not on the professional skills of managers, but on their negotiation skills.

Never give in unless you exchange. Do not accept the first bid of the other party.

The two words that are most beneficial to negotiators are "if".

According to China Youth Daily, Long Yongtu, secretary general of Boao Forum for Asia and Beijing CBD International Forum, said: "China cannot rely entirely on the government to provide for the elderly." . China, which is stepping into an aging society, cannot provide enough old-age security for the people only by the government buying social insurance. Western experience has proved that it is unsustainable for the government to do everything. Doing everything will make the government's burden heavier and heavier, and eventually the national social security will be on the verge of bankruptcy.

Regrettably, in the reporter's pen, including punctuation marks, only the word 109 was used to introduce the Secretary-General's views on such an important social policy as "providing for the aged in China". No wonder the internet was suddenly booed.

Of course, the beauty of the phrase "China can't rely entirely on the government" lies in the word "all"-you can rely on it, but you can't help it. However, the people are still not at ease, because there always seems to be a trap behind this ambiguous sentence. In connection with other statements, "Western experience proves that it is unsustainable for the government to do everything" and "doing everything will make the government's burden heavier and heavier, and eventually make the national social security on the verge of bankruptcy". If this statement is understood as "unsustainable" of the existing social security system in western countries, it is "on the verge of bankruptcy", which is obviously a disaster for the people of China. Because the government of China is trying to learn from the experience of developed countries in social security, so as to further establish and improve the social security system in China which is suitable for the market economy, so as to cope with the aging process in which China has been deeply involved.

A European social policy scientist once asked me a question: Why does the speech of western right-wing economists seem to have more market in China than in the west? To tell the truth, the above evaluation of the western social security system seems to have no market even in the present western society. In the late 1970s, because of the sudden oil crisis in western countries, the economy fell into stagflation and depression, so social welfare was taken as a scapegoat, which led to the dark decade of "targeting the poor". In the 1990s, western countries reflected on this. Of course, the theory of "welfare state" is not perfect, so it is fashionable to seek a more active "third way". Now, after nearly 30 years, looking back, it is the unshirkable responsibility of the government to ensure the basic livelihood of citizens, the core content of the "welfare state" theory, and the general framework of the social security system has basically remained unchanged.

Social security theory regards the pension received by the elderly after retirement as the deferred use of their own wages. Therefore, on the issue of old-age insurance, there is no such thing as "counting on the government" or "relying on the government to buy social insurance". At working age, people pay part of their wages to the government, and then get the money back from the government when they retire-whether it is the "pay-as-you-go" model or the "reserve accumulation" model-the essence is the same. Some people may say, what about the part paid by the enterprise? In fact, "the wool is on the sheep" is also the laborer's own money. The endowment insurance premium paid by enterprises to employees is originally a part of wages. After paying the insurance premium, the salary will naturally be less, which often shows that the salary will not increase for a long time. Now the most obvious is from migrant workers.

So whether it is the old system or the new system, it is actually the same. During the planning period, it is necessary to say "necessary deduction". The state has "secretly" deducted the old-age insurance premium that should be paid, not blaming the people for not saving money. So in the final analysis, old-age security is the right of citizens and the responsibility of the government. This basic principle should be made clear.

Of course, the Secretary-General's words can also be understood as not "completely" counting on the government, that is, I hope that China people can plan and prepare their pension expenses through multiple channels before retirement. Of course, this is true, but it is not worth dragging the western countries, because people have already "three pillars" and "four pillars".

Long Yongtu's remarks about "Don't be held hostage by unruly people" are quite controversial.

Event review

On June 28th, Long Yongtu, Secretary General of Boao Forum for Asia, discussed Zengcheng's park strategy with many famous domestic experts, and proposed that Zengcheng should build thousands of parks within five years.

At the forum, almost all experts think that the park strategy is feasible in Zengcheng. Long Yongtu even sent a message to Zengcheng: "As Secretary Wang Yang said, you should boldly make your way out. Any great reform experience is not made according to the above instructions, but starts from the grassroots. "

When talking about the "best nail house" that appears from time to time, Long Yongtu thinks that we must negotiate on an equal footing, but we must not overcharge. In his view, some nail households charge too much, not only the house price is high, but also the land price is high, and the land is owned by the state. Therefore, the government should put people first, put the interests of the majority first, and not be the tail of the masses. Be hard on the unruly government and don't be held hostage by unruly people.

Long Yongtu's "unruly theory" is unpopular.

On "Nail Households": Be hard on the unruly government and don't be held hostage by unruly people.

When talking about the "best nail house" that appears from time to time, Long Yongtu thinks that we must negotiate on an equal footing, but we must not overcharge. In his view, some nail households charge too much, not only the house price is high, but also the land price is high, and the land is owned by the state. Therefore, the government should put people first, put the interests of the majority first, and not be the tail of the masses.