There is a lot of useful information in this book. There are plenty of words in this book that add no value. It was almost as if the authors were trying to fill space. I had only wished that they had filled the space with more practical examples and some more detail about technique. With all of that said, it is still a very good introductory book on this subject.

This book was definitely helpful, since I work in the purchasing professional. In the profession you have to know when to be aggressive and when to back off shaded deals. This book read broaden my perspective when it comes to getting my organization the best deal for a reasonable price. Just recently I had to negotiate a bid for a couple million and some of the book points definitely kept me on the look out. In addition, the read made me aware of other points like; body languages. When in the past I never even consider observing what the seller was really telling me.

I definitely agreed with one of your other reviewers that quoted "
This 72-word paragraph is awkward. In reality, it is two run-on paragraphs. A better rewrite, using 43 words, could be:

"Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by six criteria:
* Meets the legitimate interests of each side
* Resolves conflicting interests fairly
* Is durable
* Takes community interests into account.
* Is efficient.
* Improves the relationship between the parties."

The bullets points are easily defined and clear; where as the long complex paragraph makes it too wordy". In referencing to page 4, a fair deal for both parties are to come to a common place; a win - win both parties can live with in their decision. Before reading this book, I had just completed the "Foundation to Negotiation" and find that this book was right on the dime.

Few books stand up from the crowd when we talk about conflict and negotiation. This book does and it serves companies a great deal to make it a required reading for professionals. When I recommend this book to trainees in all my training seminars people think I am getting paid commission from the publisher :) hmmmmm may be I should. Combine this book with 48 laws of power and turn your engine of influence on. Add NLP on top of it and guarantee winning every reasonable deal.Conflict, Power and Influence is it !

First, a testimonial. When I was three-quarters of the way through, I had a whammy of a week. On Monday I negotiated in a job interview, Tuesday I negotiated with my landlady, and Wednesday I negotiated with my manager over new job routines (the cause of my activities on Monday). I found the methods, strategies, approaches and techniques in the book IMMEDIATELY helpful in these situations.

This is a helpful book, and groundbreaking. I say groundbreaking, because after the ground is broken, it needs to harrowed, hoed, watered, and planted. There is much work to do in this field.

The book is wisely divided into two halves. The first half (parts I and II) is negotiation with friendlies, the second half (III-V) is for adversaries and potential friendlies. In some way, it may be better to read the second half first, where you have the techniques that break ground for the "real" negotiation.

The content of this book is sound; however, there are deeper issues with prose and organization. I think the worst offender is this one paragraph:

"Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.)" (p. 4)

This 72-word paragraph is awkward. In reality, it is two run-on paragraphs. A better rewrite, using 43 words, could be:

"Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by six criteria:
* Meets the legitimate interests of each side
* Resolves conflicting interests fairly
* Is durable
* Takes community interests into account.
* Is efficient.
* Improves the relationship between the parties."

The problem is that the phrase "wise agreement" is too big for a bullet point and too small to get the job done. Furthermore I dropped the qualifiers--it is understood that no agreement will be platonically perfect. "A living dog is better than a dead lion." (Ecclesiastes 9:4). Since discussion about wise agreements comes later on (83-85), the paragraph could also be rewritten with 39 words:

"Negotiations should be wise. This involves meeting the legitimate interests of each side, resolving interests fairly, being durable, and considering community interests. Additionally, it should be efficient and it should improve (or at least not damage) the parties' relationship."

Another drawback is repetition. Chapter 2 focuses on the people problem in negation, but in chapter 3, which deals with redefining interests, the authors say be hard on problem, soft on people. This material was already covered in the previous chapter, and is redundant.

I don't think this is an editorial problem. Rather, it is one of conceptualization. I think it would be helpful to have a theoretician, logician, or a philosopher to go over the book, with the objective of reconstructing the book. The problem is in organizing the parts into a coherent whole. Right now, it is a semi-coherent hole.

this book was boring at first but the real meat is close to the end. I think this book not only be used on business but also with friends. I've tried using it to talk w/ people and it works. A good read and good asset!