The leader in me stephen covey pdf free download

There will also be opportunities for you to practice. Specifically, you will be introduced to strategies of reading namely: skimming, scanning, SQ3R, active reading, reading for comprehension. You will also be introduced to resources within a text such as graphics conventions, symbols, layout, punctuation, figures, diagrams, tables, pictures and word roots in sciences.

Then the chapter will also discuss some barriers or obstacles to effective reading. A good way of getting started on developing your reading skills is to think about how you read a text or passage. There are three main reading techniques that you can use: scanning, skimming, and focused reading. Let's discuss each in turn. Scanning5 The technique of scanning is a useful one to use if you want to get an overview of the text you are reading as a whole — its shape, the focus of each section, the topics or key issues that are dealt with, and so on.

In order to scan a piece of text you might look for sub- headings or identify key words and phrases which give you clues about its focus. Another useful method is to read the first sentence or two of each paragraph in order to get the general gist of the discussion and the way that it progresses.

Run your eyes over the text looking for the specific piece of information you need. Use scanning on schedules, meeting plans, etc. If you see words or phrases that you don't understand, don't worry when scanning. Scanning is what you do to find an answer to a specific question. You may run your eyes quickly down the page in a zigzag or winding S pattern.

If you are looking for a name, you note capital letters. For a date, you look for numbers. Vocabulary words may be boldfaced or italicized.

When you scan for information, you read only what is needed. Run your eyes over the text, noting important information. Use skimming to quickly get up to speed on a current business situation.

It's not essential to understand each word when skimming. Skimming is covering the chapter to get some of the main ideas and a general overview of the material.

It is what you do first when reading a chapter assignment. As you skim, you could write down the main ideas and develop a chapter outline. However, the idea is to have an area of emphasis or focus. In other words, it is a purposeful kind of reading, during which you target a specific area of study. Let us examine how the two skills relate to and differ from each other. Use extensive reading skills to improve your general knowledge of business procedures.

Do not worry if you do not understand each word. It includes very close accurate reading for detail. Use intensive reading skills to grasp the details of a specific situation. In this case, it is important that you understand each word, number or fact. Discuss and justify your choice. Once you get the skimming, scanning and focussed reading down pat, you are ready to move on to the SQ3R reading method which employs each of these three techniques.

What is the SQ3R? SQ3R is a useful technique for understanding written information. It helps you to create a good mental framework of a subject, into which you can fit the right facts. It helps you to set study goals and prompts you to use review techniques that will help you to remember.

Survey S Scan the entire assignment to get an overview of the material. Read 52 4. Read the introductory paragraphs and the summary at the end of the chapter. Do not forget to look at the tables, pictures, etc. Remember, you are scanning the material and not actually reading every sentence.

Question Q Make questions that can be answered during the reading of the material. This will give a purpose to your reading. Take a heading and turn it into a question.

This is a careful reading, line by line. You may want to take notes or make flashcards. Recite R As you read, look away from your book and notes and try to answer your questions.

This checks your learning and helps put that information in your memory. Review R To check your memory, scan portions of the material or your notes to verify your answers. Review the material and note the main points under each heading. This review step helps you retain the material.

The SQ3R method is just one technique that can be used to retain information you collect while reading. Students learn in different ways. Therefore they should be aware of their learning styles. Knowing whether you are an Auditory learn by hearing , Visual learn by seeing or Kinaesthetic hands-on learner helps you to understand your best learning environment.

The SQ3R technique of reading can help to enhance your reading skills no matter what your style is. Scan Action Aids article below for the following key words and phrases. Now skim the article and see if this time you can also work out the meanings of the terms above using the context in which they are used. Also develop a set of questions for further investigation. Though you are familiar with content of the article, read it again, this time in a more focused way.

Think about each section of the text, breaking off at regular intervals and Droughts and floods are exposing the crisis in livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Malawi. In the past, nearby small-scale sugar and tea plantations were sources of employment for most people in Nsanje. However, farmers say that flood-induced migration means that there are now many more people seeking work on the plantations than there are jobs available. They also believe that the limited income opportunities in the face of increased floods and droughts have forced women to engage in unsafe sex practices, exposing them to greater risk of HIV.

In addition, the destruction of property and infrastructure places a huge burden on already strained health care systems. They are firm on position and soft on principle when it is better if you are hard on principle and soft on position. Your interests must be satisfied, but there is usually more than one position that will do the job. The reasons against positional bargaining are given in the bestselling text co-authored by Dr.

The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so.

Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in ttsaving facet' - in reconciling future action with past positions - making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the partiesr original interests. I believe that this 'locked in" effect occurred in the Canadian constitutional negotiations. It was therefore necessary to help the parties break free from fixed positions by inventing some new options.

Another major negotiation where the parties had been deadlocked for 40 years was a hydro dispute over the flooding of the sceenic Skagit Va11ey in the province of BC by the city of Seattle, Washington.

The city and the province had become addicted to positional bargaining where the negotiations had become a debating contest with each side scoring public bargaining points instead of listening and negotiating by principle. I joined the provincial bargaining team in and we tried a different approach.

British Columbia proposed that instead of trading positional missiles in a contest of public relations we would adopt the technique of the single text bargaining. Seattle agreed. Therefore, we stopped making offers and counter offers and started working from one text that framed our common positions as general principles.

Six months later an agreement was reached between seattle and BC that was turned into an International treaty between Canada and the United States in Principled bargaining helped in this success.

Likewise, I also believe that the locked-in effect of positional bargaining occurred in the vancouver bus strike. The parties were unable after 90 days of striking to break free from their fixed positions and invent another solution. The government had to intervene to break the deadlock. In prineipled bargaining the idea is to negotiate from the interest or principle which is more objective rather than from the position or demand which is more subjective. Treating Your Opponents with Respect Many negotiators think they are expected to be unprincipled and wily about the way they treat their opponents.

For some, being a shyster is slmonomous with being a negotiator. Deceit and taking unfair advantage are considered part of the game. Yet every highly successful negotiator takes the opposite view and believes that integrity in your personal conduct and respect for your opponent is absolutely imperative. Even in the sharpest negotiations the most experienced say "integrity is so obvious that no one is prepared to question itt'. The result is less conflict wi. Effective communication between opposing sides happens when people talk and listen to each other.

By contrast communication becomes very much more effective when you develop rapport with your opponent. How do you build relationships in the competitive environment of negotiation. The answer lies in the concept of respect through mutual aeceptance and pacing. Mutual acceptance means that despite fundamental differences each side accepts the other as a legitimate negotiating partner with genuine interests.

Pacing means that you identify with the point of view of your opponent by building on your common interests. But how is this done? The golden rule makes a lot of sense for negotiations. Therefore, treat your opponent with the same affirrnation, dignity and respect that you would like to have. How does this work when you meet hostility from your opponent?

This is so because the other person can only resist something youtre doing or saying. The tougher the confliet, the more important it is to build effective relationships by pacing with your opponents and giving them respect and dignity. An example of the dramatic effect that introducing more dignity and respect into negotiations can have is given by Wayne Alderson in his biography.

An ugly strike occurred in the coal mines of Pittsburgh involving 2, miners and lasting for days. Eventually it became the longest coal strike in the nationrs history. It had a positive effect. To value people is not a religious movement. Rather it is based on the fact that treating people right will be its own reward. Another advantage occurs when you bargain from interests rather than position, because both parties are able to be much more honest with each other. One reason is that you donrt know exactly how firm your position really is.

Being honest is also important in treating people right. Honesty is difficult in negotiations because there is always an element of poker or bluff. The parties are t'creating" an agreement. If they knew where the final outcome was they wouldn't be at the bargaining tab1e, but they do know more precisely what principle they are working towards.

Honesty is a virtue that has positive effeets on the success of bargaining. Honesty will disarm some of the natural hostility of your opponent to your bargaining position. When you succeed in improving the relationship between the parties you will also succeed in improving cormunication in negotiations.

Responding to Opposition with fntegration In traditi'onal bargaining the approach is basically an eye for an eye. If your opponent inflicts damage on you because you will not 7accept his position then you escalate the conflict by inflicting damage on him. In many negotiations both parties become blind from the retribution of the eonflict.

Under the alternative of principled bargaining the approach is different. When faced with opposition, you turn this problem into an opportunity to integrate, that is, by bargaining over interests or principles you frustrate the struggle of will that leads to so much damage. Bargaining becomes a more rational process. Ours is the age of integration.

Integrated bargaining means matching or co-ordination of the parties progress. It is achieved by timing the different phases in the process of bargaining so everyone is on the same step or phase.

Prenegotiation, 2. Formula 3. Crisis and settlement, 4. Detail and execution If you get all parties into the same phase at the same time this is integrated bargaining. For example if one side has no will to negotiate they are in phase one and the other side starts offering options for a formula they are in phase two.

This means the parties are not participating in integrated bargaining and as a result the negotiation often ends badly. By looking for a solution that provides higher benefits to each side you disarm your opponent positional push. When you counter his opposition with support for a solution that meets his interests you take the negotiations to a higher level. The tough side of integrated bargaining comes from the strategy of matching, to be employed once you have primed the pump with some co-ordinative behaviour.

Before integration is possible, the parties must clarify their interests. For example, in the Vancouver bus strike it was not possible to integrate the opposing positions of part-time drivers versus no part-time drivers because the parties did not clarify what interests or principle they were trying to achieve. Also, integration is a concept that helps a negotiator with the "inner game" of bargaining. There is an inner game of negotiations just there is an inner game of tennis.

This means that you believe what you say and what you believe. The strength of inner unity is best illustrated by perhaps the most successful negotiator of all time - Mohandas K. Gandhi, who won the independence of India from England by practising some very simple virtues.

Self-control was key to the power of his personality. Gandhi was a man without guiIe. Finding an Agreement Based Upon the Justice of the Situation Traditional adversarial bargaining is viewed as a power struggle between the parties with the most spoils going to the most powerful.

The notion of legitimacy or justice is often absent from positional bargaining. There is no judge of what is right or wrong and therefore anything goes. What the parties believe to be "fair" is the test of the justice of the situation. How does the idea of justice work in negotiations? I suggest that an important factor is that the "justice" of the new formula influenced the key players to consent to the dea1. I'Although it is not necessarily helpful to a successful outcome to make that aspect of the discussion explicit, it is useful for the parties to know what they are doing.

A further value of principled bargaining is that the parties will be able to address the justice of the situation more effectively than positional bargaining allows. This is true because the bargaining is focused on interests or principles that can be measured by standards or objective criteria. The Vancouver bus dispute offers another vivid example.

If the interest was to increase service during peak traffic periods, then this objective can be measured very precisely. How many more passengers are to be carried and on how many routes?

With this objective information in hand it is possible to assess whether there are options that satisfy the justice of the situation better than increasing the number of part-time drivers.

For example an option may be to negotiate a longer working week. Because an agreement may be frustrated unless it satisfies the partiesr basic needs it is important to be concerned about the quality of an agreement. By looking at the justice of the situation between the parties it is more likely that an agreement will be reached that will endure. Make Timely and Positive Commitments Many veteran negotiators state that timing is everything in bargaining.

Timing is very important to commitments. There is a basic need in negotiating to go through two distinct phases or seasons. The first phase is directed towards finding a formula. During this phase, the essential activity is inventing a variety of possible commitments. The next phase is directed towards making a deal based on the options available. During the second phase, the essential activity is deciding what commitments should be made.

The best advice is to invent first and to decide later. The result is misunderstanding. Making commitments is of critical importance in negotiations.

There are two kinds of conmitments: positive and negative. In traditional bargaining one of the problems is that too often commitments are negative. According to Dr. The principle, therefore, is to make positive rather than negative commitments. For example, in the Vancouver bus dispute the transit union made a negative commitment on the issue of part-time drivers. Their position was that they were opposed to this change that management wanted.

A preferred alternative would have been for the union to say what positive measure they would be prepared to support in order to resolve the problem, i. The result would have been to bring the bargaining back to the issue of principle. And so we must know not only when to generate alternative solutions to a given problem but also what form is best to express our commitments. Principled bargaining means that you treat your opponent in the same way that you would like to be treated.

Principled bargaining is therefore the golden rule of negotiating because it prescribes an approach based on the best practices of the veterans in this field of confliet resolution.

Principled bargaining is not a short cut or pat answer to complex problems. Being principled in bargaining does not mean being weak in the face of opposition. There will still be fighting when either party thinks it can win more by fighting rather than co-operating.

But the fighting will be more constructive and less damaging when the bargaining has been over principle and the justice of the situation. In other words there are fair fights and there are unfair fights that are destructive and principled bargaining makes the difference.

Do you use principled bargaining if your opponent does not? It will enhance your negotiating success if you work from interests and integrate and make timely and wise commitments.

Principled bargaining presents an opportunity to make a difference in the success of our negotiations by using the power of rationality. Notes I Dr. He co-authored, with Maureen R. Berman, the text The Practical Negotiator New Haven: Yale University Press, and is the only scholar to emphasize the value of "justice" in negotiations.

See also, for a useful overview of the conflict, Edward McWhinnev. He has a narrold bandwidth, a high noise 1evel, is expensive to maintain, and sleeps eight hours out of every twenty-four. Nierenberg and Henry H. Dean G. See also at p. Fisher and Fry, Getting to Yes, p. What about life and death crisis is negotiation smart for leaders in charge when every minute counts? Do you have a more optimistic or pessimitic temperament?

As Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman found, Optimistic individuals play a disproportionate role in shaping our lives. Their decisions make a difference; they are the inventors, the entrepreneurs, the political and military leaders — not average people. They got to where they are by seeking challenges and taking risks. They are talented and they have been lucky , almost certainly luckier than the acknowledge. Life in Manihiki was very primitive with no electricity, running water, sewer, roads, trucks and stores.

Our survival also depended on the infrequent interisland bringing supplies from Rarotonga. But in early , the boats did not arrive and no supplies of food and necessities came for 4 months. We ran out of everything, including flour, salt and baby food. We became very hungry. We decided to take action and seek new sustenance by reaching our to Rakahanga a much bigger atoll 25 miles away.

We divided the island into four and chose crews to sail four clumsy open boats. See the two atolls side by side. This humanitarian mission created an unnecessary tragedy and loss of life. The boat for my part of the island was a tiny sloop, not longer than 16 foot, with a huge sail.

It was barely seaworthy on the open ocean. Four of the seven died and Teehu Makimare my close friend is credited with saving the three remaining. He was selected from all the Commonwealth for showing the most courage and leadership of the highest order. The images following are from his book. Sadly the apparent reason is hunger but the real answer is leadership failure.

He decided to speak to Enoka again: "There, Enoka, I told you the others are sailing much closer to the wind. They are right, we are wrong, let us change course and follow them or we will be blown to the lee of Manihiki and have trouble getting in.

We were second into harbor on the outward journey: I know what I am doing. Get on with your job! Four men died of starvation. Three survived the terrible ordeal thanks to the heroic efforts of Teehu. Why did Enoka make this tragic mistake of leadership? Did his leadership of the boat suffer from overconfidence and an unwarranted optimism?

Recent research by Daniel Kahneman winning the Nobel Prize in economics offers a possible answer. Enoka likely was victim of his fast brain system and his cognitive and optimistic bias in the crisis moment. The book delineates cognitive biases associated with each type of thinking. From framing choices to people's tendency to substitute an easy-to-answer question for one that is harder.

Framing is also a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans. The book highlights several decades of academic research to suggest that people place too much confidence in human judgment.

This theory states that when the mind makes decisions, it deals primarily with Known Knowns, phenomena it has already observed. Finally it appears oblivious to the possibility of Unknown Unknowns, unknown phenomena of unknown relevance. He explains that humans fail to take into account complexity and that their understanding of the world consists of a small and necessarily un- representative set of observations.

Furthermore, the mind generally does not account for the role of chance and therefore falsely assumes that a future event will mirror a past event. A plausible explanation of the Manihiki tragedy is that Enoka was victim of the fast brain cognitive bias for optimism in crisis. Teehu and the crew on the other hand became concerned using their slow thinking system taking account of known unknowns — the storm and the overweight of food.

After my talk a student asked as optimists is there anything we can do to avoid the pitfalls of fast thinking? Can our cognitive illusions be overcome? Kahneman answers that question, Remember despite its flaws, our System 1 works wonderfully most of the time as in kicking the soccer ball or dancing etc. This is so important for leaders to understand that when you are captain it will be listening to your crew that is the only hope to prevent disaster from your fast brain mistakes! He said the book failed to describe the pain of nearly starving to death.

Everyday I am reminded of the tragedy when I was only 21 and four strong Polynesians friends died trying to help me and the villagers in Manihiki. The memory is poignant and spurs my resolve to make a difference in this crazy world so their sacrifice is not in vain. Here is a cartoon to remind you of how vulnerable you are to the cognitive bias of optimism.

Why such feckless leadership at this critical moment? Only later, as the ordeal drags on and it it necessary to maintain morale, do social leadership skills become important. Survival history shows in my opinion that crisis leadership demands a broad perspective thinking of all viable options.

Profound conservatism may be comforting but also disastrous as the fate of the Essex proved Tahiti would have been the much better destination. In the Heart of the Sea is an upcoming biographical thriller film directed by Ron Howard. It is based on Nathaniel Philbrick's non-fiction book of the same name, about the sinking of the whaleship Essex.

Because I lived on Manihiki at the time and Teehu was my good friend I have a passion for these tragic sea stories. Both styles ended in tragedy. I submit that Daniel Kahneman two types of thinking is relevant.

For Enoka he ignored the slow brain thinking of his crew resting on the lazy fast brain thinking that made him believe no change in course was needed. One wants the window open and the other wants it closed. They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three quarters of the way. No solution satisfies them both. Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants the window open: "To get some fresh air. Since the parties' problem appears to be a conflict of positions, and since their goal is to agree on a position, they naturally tend to think and talk about positions—and in the process often reach an impasse.

The librarian could not have invented the solution she did if she had focused only on the two men's stated positions of wanting the window open or closed. Instead she looked to their underlying interests of fresh air and no draft.

This difference between positions and interests is crucial. I am the reputed advocate in the negotiations for the innovative Notwithstanding clause or override offered in BC's single text that I authored with Mark Krasnick. The override became a key impasse breaking measure for the deal. PM Trudeau decided to make the issue his crowning achievement.

Our constitutional negotiations is a textbook illustration of why fundamental negotiation principles matter. At the Harvard Negotiation Project we have been developing an alternative to positional bargaining: a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. This method, called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits, can be boiled down to four basic points, These four points define a straightforward method of negotiation that can be used under almost any circumstance.

Each point deals with a basic element of negotiation, and suggests what you should do about it. People: Separate the people from the problem.

Interests: Focus on interests, not positions Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard. Like the 18th camel solution when you find the parties interest like the open library window behind their positions a resolution is possible.

The orange story shows that if you just cut the orange in half both sides lose. As time has gone by history has grudgingly been kinder to Premier Bennett and his role in the final negotiations. I told the Premier in early , I had decided to go back to my law.

He however made me an offer I could not refuse. I loved the opportunity and knew there would be transferable skills from many intensive negotiations experience as DM of labor.

I had not been long in the job when the premier asked my help find a new DM for his office who could keep him out of hot water with the national media as happened to Sterling Lyon the previous year.

Norman Spector — a fluently bilingual double PhD originally from Montreal. Norman turned out to be a great fit for Premier Bennett particularly on the constitution file. We worked well together.

My approach immediately was to connect with the other side in the conflict and see if their interests left room for compromise. I first met with an old federal friend Allan Gotlieb who had the ear of the PM. James Matkin, B. Matkin and Gotlieb knew each other from their former jobs — when Matkin was B. Goalie said yes. Roger Tasse, the federal deputy justice minister, was in town, and Richard Vogel, B. Matkin also hinted that Bennett could be moved on the charter.

Tasse, in turn, indicated that his political masters might compromise on the amending formula. Such talk could only kindle the flames of ardor in Ottawa. Tasse had hardly left town when Michael Kirby arrived, purportedly on some federal provincial matter to do with pensions. He met Matkin and went over the same ground that Tasse had, returning to Ottawa - briefly. In early September, he was back in Victoria, this time to arrange a private meeting between Trudeau and Bennett, who by now had become official spokesman for the premiers.

Premier Bennett told us a number of times that the constitutional debates were wasteful because the economy should be the priority. He saw the conflict as an unnecessary diversion. Unlike Lyon, Bennett analyzed the situation as if it were a business problem in need of a workable solution. He simply wanted to put an end to the constitutional bickering so that everyone could get back to dealing with the real problems of the economy.

To that end, he held Two one-on-one meetings with Trudeau in a search for common ground and beefed up his constitutional team-led by Mel Smith, a hard-nosed conservative - with a couple of younger, less confrontational advisers. Neither man was philosophically opposed to a charter of rights. Neither thought the April Accord was going to lead to success if the real goal was to reach a solution rather than simply to stonewall.

Though Matkin once slipped a confidential document to Allan Blakeney while they were riding in a hotel elevator in Montreal - like two spies trying to evade the eyes and ears of the government of Quebec - it was hardly a state secret that B. The press was full of stories about backroom meetings and trial balloons, and at a ministerial meeting in Toronto on October 27, , Claude Morin denounced Matkin and Spector for conspiring with Roy Romanow.

Many of the constitutional veterans dismissed Matkin and Spector as boy scouts or rogue warriors, sowing confusion and tension as they improvised their way through a complicated dossier they didn't fully comprehend. If the other premiers believed the B.

We were dismissed as dumbheads, but in fact, Trudeau did eventually compromise on the amending formula, which was all that really mattered to British Columbia. It was based on fundamental democratic values. Parliament passes the buck too easily he thought with binding judicial review.

His opposition was supported on similar grounds by Premier Blakney. About the relationships you had? What do you want them to say? Think about how your priorities would change if you only had 30 more days to live.

Start living by these priorities. Break down different roles in your life -- whether professional, personal, or community -- and list three to five goals you want to achieve for each. Define what scares you. Public speaking? Critical feedback after writing a book? Write down the worst-case scenario for your biggest fear, then visualize how you'll handle this situation. Write down exactly how you'll handle it. In order to manage ourselves effectively, we must put first things first.

We must have the discipline to prioritize our day-to-day actions based on what is most important, not what is most urgent. In Habit 2, we discussed the importance of determining our values and understanding what it is we are setting out to achieve.

Habit 3 is about actually going after these goals, and executing on our priorities on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis. In order to maintain the discipline and the focus to stay on track toward our goals, we need to have the willpower to do something when we don't want to do it. We need to act according to our values rather than our desires or impulses at any given moment.

All activities can be categorized based on two factors: Urgent and important. Take a look at this time management matrix:. We react to urgent matters. We spend our time doing things that are not important. That means that we neglect Quadrant II, which is the actually most crucial of them all. If we focus on Quadrant I and spend our time managing crises and problems, it keeps getting bigger and bigger until it consumes us.

This leads to stress, burnout, and constantly putting out fires. If we focus on Quadrant III , we spend most of our time reacting to matters that seem urgent, when the reality is their perceived urgency is based on the priorities and expectations of others.

This leads to short-term focus, feeling out of control, and shallow or broken relationships. If we focus on Quadrant IV, we are basically leading an irresponsible life.

This often leads to getting fired from jobs and being highly dependent on others. Quadrant II is at the heart of effective personal management. It deals with things like building relationships, long-term planning, exercising, preparation -- all things we know we need to do but somehow seldom get around to actually doing because they don't feel urgent. In order to focus our time in Quadrant II, we have to learn how to say "no" to other activities, sometimes ones that seem urgent.

We also need to be able to delegate effectively. Plus, when we focus on Quadrant II, it means we're thinking ahead, working on the roots, and preventing crises from happening in the first place!

We should always maintain a primary focus on relationships and results, and a secondary focus on time. Identify a Quadrant II activity you've been neglecting. Write it down and commit to implementing it. Create your own time management matrix to start prioritizing.

Estimate how much time you spend in each quadrant. Then log your time over 3 days. How accurate was your estimate? How much time did you spend in Quadrant II the most important quadrant? In order to establish effective interdependent relationships , we must commit to creating Win-Win situations that are mutually beneficial and satisfying to each party.

Win-Win: Both people win. Agreements or solutions are mutually beneficial and satisfying to both parties. Win-Lose: " If I win, you lose. Lose-Win: " I lose, you win. Lose-Lose: Both people lose. When two Win-Lose people get together -- that is, when two, determined, stubborn, ego-invested individuals interact -- the result will be Lose-Lose.

Win: People with the Win mentality don't necessarily want someone else to lose -- that's irrelevant. What matters is that they get what they want. Win-Win or No Deal: If you can't reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial, there is no deal. The best option is to create Win-Win situations. With Win-Lose, or Lose-Win, one person appears to get what he wants for the moment, but the results will negatively impact the relationship between those two people going forward.

The Win-Win or No Deal option is important to use as a backup. When we have No Deal as an option in our mind, it liberates us from needing to manipulate people and push our own agenda.

We can be open and really try to understand the underlying issues. In solving for Win-Win, we must consider two factors: Consideration and courage. Take a look at the following chart:. Another important factor in solving for Win-Win situations is maintaining an Abundance Mentality , or the belief that there's plenty out there for everyone. Most people operate with the Scarcity Mentality -- meaning they act as though everything is zero-sum in other words, if you get it, I don't.

People with the Scarcity Mentality have a very hard time sharing recognition or credit and find it difficult to be genuinely happy about other people's successes. When it comes to interpersonal leadership, the more genuine our character is, the higher our level of proactivity; the more committed we are to Win-Win, the more powerful our influence will be.

Lastly, the spirit of Win-Win can't survive in an environment of competition. Views Total views. Actions Shares. No notes for slide. Fossil fuels powerpoint 1. What are fossil fuels? What are different types of fossil Fuels? How is coal formed? The three main types of coal are anthracite, bituminous and lignite. Anthracite coal is the hardest and has more carbon.

Lignite is the softest and is low in carbon but high in hydrogen and oxygen content. Bituminous is in between anthracite and lignite.

Peatis a fibrous, soft, spongy substance in which plant remains are easily recognizable. It contains a large amount of water and must be dry before use. Ligniteis formed when peat is subjected to increased vertical pressure from accumulating sediments.

It crumbles with no trouble and should not be shipped or handled before use. Bituminous Coalis greatly used in industry as a source of heat energy. How is coal used as a fossil fuel? How is oil formed? They were buried under sediment and other rock. The rock squeezed diatoms and the energy in their bodies could not escape. Carbon eventually turned into oil under pressure and heat.

How is oil used as a fossil fuel? How is natural gas formed? Natural gas is mostly made up of methane. How is natural gas used as a fossil fuel?