the talk goes back and forth

It is surprising how often we simply react to what someone else has said or done. Two people will often fall into a pattern of discourse that resembles a negotiation but really has no such purpose whatsoever. They disagree with each other over some issue, and the talk goes back and forth as though they were seeking agreement. In fact, the argument is being carried on as a ritual, or simply a pastime. Each is engaged in scoring points against the other or in gathering evidence to confirm views about the other that have long been held and are not about to change. Neither party is seeking agreement or is even trying to influence the other.

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton 

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard Negotiation Project). Penguin. 2011. P.54

invent solutions

One lawyer we know attributes his success directly to his ability to invent solutions advantageous to both his client and the other side. He expands the pie before dividing it. Skill at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have.

Yet all too often negotiators end up like the proverbial children who quarreled over an orange. After they finally agreed to divide the orange in half, the first child took one half, ate the fruit, and threw away the peel, while the other threw away the fruit and used the peel from the second half in baking a cake. All too often negotiators “leave money on the table” – they fail to reach agreement when they might have, or the agreement they do reach could have been better for each side. Too many negotiations end up with half an orange for each side instead of the whole fruit for one and the whole peel for the other. Why? 

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton 

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard NegotiationProject). Penguin. 2011. P.58, 59

the assumption of a fixed pie

[A] major block to creative problem-solving lies in the assumption of a fixed pie: the less for you, the more for me. Rarely if ever is this assumption true. First of all, both sides can always be worse off than they are now. Chess looks like a zero-sum game if one loses, the other wins – until a dog trots by and knocks over the table, spills the beer, and leaves you both worse off than before. 

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton 

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard NegotiationProject). Penguin. 2011. P.72

when buffett fires people

Warren famously invests in management, specifically to avoid firing people. He does not enter companies where a management change is part of the plan.

“One thing I don’t like is when I have to make a change in management, when I have to tell somebody I think somebody else can do a better job.”

That’s an interesting way to phrase it — that someone else could do a better job. Not that the manager is bad or incompetent or doing anything wrong — simply that there is room for improvement and he has a duty to make that improvement. That doesn’t make it easy for him though:

“It’s pure agony, and I usually postpone it and suck my thumb and do all kinds of other things before I finally carry it out.”

It seems like most people are the same way — firing may be the most-procrastinated task in the business world. No one wants to pull the trigger.

When the firing decision is not based on performance, but on infractions of ethical or moral grounds, things are much more clear cut. Here’s Buffett:

“Lose money for my firm and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm and I will be ruthless.”

 Eric Jorgenson

"How to Fire Someone: How to Decide, When to do it, and How to be Guilt-free" Medium. 5/17/2015

life is a storm

Life is a storm.. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes. 

Alexandre Dumas

The Count of Monte Cristo. 1844.