Harvard method of negotiation

The book "Yes, I agree…" presents the negotiation scheme of the Harvard University Negotiation Team, in a simple and practical way and with widely proven results, as those people who have sat at a negotiating table will be able to demonstrate.

As its authors state, what is expressed here is not new and many people surely already knew it, however it is presented in a systematic way and collects the knowledge derived from the theories, research and experiences of studies on the subject.

Something that struck me powerfully is the assumption on which your entire scheme is centered:

“Principle bargaining shows you how to get your rights and be decent at the same time…

From time to time you will have to remind yourself that you are trying to get one. a better way to negotiate, a way that avoids having to choose between the satisfaction of getting what you deserve and being able to be decent. You can do both. "

I think it is a refreshing principle because it starts from the mutual respect that should encourage worker-employer relations, and that unfortunately many of the people who negotiate or who train negotiators have completely forgotten.

It seems that in our environment it was formed to see how the other is cheated or how we take advantage of their weaknesses, which constitutes an erroneous practice and of doubtful results in the medium and long term.

In our research we have been able to observe different styles of negotiation, and we dare to assert that this provides us with a wealth of lessons that, when analyzed in depth and conscientiously, will give us useful tools to perform adequately in this field. Finally, we cannot be misled If we think that theory develops our skills in this difficult art, then here practice is substantial.

2. What is negotiation

Negotiation is a basic means of achieving what we want from others. It is a two-way communication to reach an agreement when people share some common interests, but who also have some opposite interests.

The principled method of negotiation is about deciding issues on their merits, rather than deciding them through a bargaining process focused on what each party or what each party says it will or will not do. It suggests that mutual benefits be sought whenever possible and that when there is a conflict of interest it should be insisted that the result be based on some fair criterion, independent of the will of the parties. The method of negotiation according to the aforementioned principles is hard on arguments and soft on people, it does not use tricks or poses. Principle bargaining shows you how to get your rights while being decent. It allows him to be fair and at the same time protects him against those who would be willing to take advantage of his justice.

The method applies whether the other party has more or less experience, is a tough negotiator, or is friendly. It is a strategy that works for all cases, contrary to what happens with other strategies, if the other side discovers it, it is not more difficult to use it, but easier.

Don't trade based on positions

Any method of negotiation must be judged according to three criteria: It must lead to a sensible agreement, if agreement is possible; It must be efficient and, it must improve, or at least not deteriorate the relationship between the parties (A sensible agreement can be defined as one that satisfies the legitimate interests of both parties as far as possible, that resolves conflicts of interest fairly, that it is durable and takes into account the interests of the community).

Discussion of positions produces foolish agreements. When bargaining based on positions, negotiators tend to lock themselves within them. The more the negotiator clarifies his position and the more he defends it against attacks, the more he is committed to it. The more you try to convince the other of the impossibility of changing your initial position, that of the negotiator, the more difficult it will be to do so. Your ego identifies with your position; now she has an interest in “looking good”, in reconciling future actions with past positions, making it less and less likely that a sensible agreement will reconcile the original interests of the parties.

The more attention is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to satisfying the underlying interests and concerns of the parties. The agreement becomes more difficult, whatever is reached may reflect a mechanical distribution of the differences between the final positions, rather than a solution carefully designed to satisfy the legitimate interests of the parties. The result is often a less mutually satisfying deal than it might have been.

The negotiation on positions is inefficient because it creates incentives that delay the agreement; In this type of negotiation you try to improve the chances of reaching an agreement that is favorable to you, starting with an extreme position, stubbornly supporting it, misleading the other party regarding your true point of view and making small concessions only when it is necessary to continue the negotiation. The other party does the same, each of these factors tends to infer the purpose of an early agreement. The more extreme the starting positions and the smaller the concessions, the more time and effort it will take to discover whether a deal is possible or not.

Position-based negotiation becomes a clash of wills, the task of designing an acceptable solution together tends to become a battle, as each party tries to force the other to change their position through sheer force of will.

Anger and resentment often arise as one party is forced to give in to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate interests are set aside. In this way, this scheme often stresses the relationship between the parties and sometimes destroys it. The greater the number of people conducting a negotiation, the more serious the disadvantages of position-based negotiation.

Being nice is not the solution. Many people recognize the high costs of tough position-based negotiations, especially for the parties and their relationship, they hope they can avoid them through a gentler style of negotiation.

Instead of emphasizing the purpose of victory, they prefer to highlight the need for agreement. In a game of soft negotiation the usual moves are to make offers and concessions, trust each other, be friendly, and give in when necessary to avoid clashes.

Soft Negotiator Hard Negotiator

Participants are friends Participants are adversaries

The goal is to reach an agreement The goal is victory

Make concessions to cultivate the relationship Demand concessions as a condition

Be gentle on people and the problem Be tough on the problem and people

Trust the others Be suspicious of others

Change your position easily Maintain your position

Make offers Threaten Give in

to pressure Apply pressure

The soft bargaining game highlights the importance of building and maintaining a relationship, but it may not be prudent, as any negotiation that is primarily relationship-oriented runs the risk of ending in an unbalanced agreement. Using a soft and friendly form in position-based negotiation makes someone who faces someone who plays the tough version vulnerable, as in this kind of negotiation the hard game dominates the soft one.

However, there is no need to choose between the hard and soft version, it is better to play based on negotiation by principles, that is, based on merits. (See attached table to establish the differences).