Principled Negotiation (The Harvard Method)
Hard on the merits, soft on the people
Principled negotiation is a third way to negotiate that is neither hard nor soft but both. Developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project, the method decides issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won't do. It replaces positional bargaining, where each side takes a position and makes concessions, with a four-part method: separate the people from the problem, focus on interests rather than positions, generate options for mutual gain, and insist on objective criteria.
The method works because positional bargaining has three fundamental flaws. First, arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes because egos become identified with positions and the real interests get ignored. Second, it is inefficient because extreme opening positions and small concessions waste time. Third, it endangers ongoing relationships by turning negotiation into a contest of will.
Principled negotiation operates at three stages: analysis (diagnosing the situation), planning (generating ideas and deciding what to do), and discussion (communicating back and forth toward agreement). At each stage, the same four elements apply. The method is hard on the merits and soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness. If the other side also learns the method, it becomes easier to use, not harder.
- Separate the people from the problem: Disentangle relationship issues from substantive issues and deal with each on its own merits
- Focus on interests, not positions: Look beneath stated positions to discover the underlying needs, desires, concerns, and fears that motivate them
- Invent options for mutual gain: Before trying to reach agreement, generate a wide range of possible solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests
- Insist on using objective criteria: When interests conflict directly, insist that the result be based on fair standards independent of the will of either side
- Be hard on the problem, soft on the people: Attack the problem vigorously while giving positive support to the human beings on the other side
- Negotiators are people first: Every negotiator has two kinds of interests, in the substance and in the relationship, and both must be addressed
- Separate the People from the ProblemDisentangle the people from the problem by addressing perception, emotion, and communication issues directly and separately from the substance. Negotiators are human beings with emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds. The relationship tends to become entangled with the problem, so you must address people issues on their own. Put yourself in their shoes, do not deduce their intentions from your fears, do not blame them for your problem, discuss each other's perceptions, and give them a stake in the outcome by involving them in the process.Pro tipGive the other side positive support equal in strength to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem. This combination creates cognitive dissonance that tempts them to dissociate from the problem and join you in solving it.WarningDo not interpret 'separate' as meaning 'ignore people issues.' It means addressing relationship and substantive issues independently. As the book says, 'Negotiators are people first.'
- Focus on Interests, Not PositionsLook behind stated positions to identify the underlying interests that motivate them. A negotiating position often obscures what you really want. Ask 'Why?' and 'Why not?' to uncover interests. Make your interests come alive with specific concrete details. Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. Put the problem before your answer by giving your reasoning first and your proposal later. Look forward, not back. Be concrete but flexible, using 'illustrative specificity' rather than rigid demands.Pro tipThe most powerful interests are basic human needs: security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one's life. Even in seemingly monetary disputes, these deeper needs often drive positions.WarningDo not confuse interests with positions. A position is something you have decided upon. An interest is what caused you to decide. The key question is always 'Why?' not 'What do you want?'
- Invent Options for Mutual GainGenerate a wide variety of options before deciding what to do. Four obstacles inhibit option invention: premature judgment, searching for the single answer, the assumption of a fixed pie, and thinking that solving their problem is their problem. Overcome these by separating inventing from deciding, broadening options rather than looking for a single answer, searching for mutual gains, and making their decision easy. Use brainstorming sessions with a no-criticism rule. Use the Circle Chart to shuttle between the specific and the general. Look for differences in interests, priorities, beliefs, forecasts, and risk aversion to dovetail.Pro tipLook for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa. Differences in interests, priorities, beliefs, forecasts, and attitudes toward risk all make dovetailing possible. As the authors say, 'Vive la difference!'WarningDo not negotiate with your final position in mind. Invent first, decide later. Having a lot at stake inhibits creativity, so set aside designated time for generating options outside the negotiating session.
- Insist on Using Objective CriteriaWhen interests conflict directly, insist that the agreement be based on some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side. Develop objective criteria before negotiating. Fair standards include market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, court decisions, moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, and reciprocity. Also develop fair procedures such as taking turns, drawing lots, or letting someone else decide. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.Pro tipBe open to reason but closed to threats. If the other side pressures you, reframe: 'Let's look at the problem on its merits. What standards should we use?' This is not a contest of will; it is a joint search for a fair answer.WarningDo not insist that the terms must be based on the specific standard you select. Insist only that some fair standard be used. Be open to which standard is most appropriate.
Developed by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton at the Harvard Negotiation Project beginning in the late 1970s. The method emerged from the observation that people typically see only two choices in negotiation: being soft to preserve the relationship or being hard to win. Fisher and Ury proposed a third way that could be both. The book was first published in 1981 and has sold over two million copies worldwide in over twenty languages. The approach was validated in high-stakes settings including the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, the Law of the Sea negotiations, and the South African constitutional process that ended apartheid.