The Harvard Principles of Negotiation

Getting a Yes – but how?
Dr. Thomas Henschel (Academy of Mediation in Berlin) explains 'The Harvard Approach' and how to get a Yes in every negotiation.

This is an excerpt of our e-training 'The Art of Negotiation'.
Do you want to learn more? Find more information right here:

[hsetiono]

1. Separate the person from the issue.
2. Negotiate not position-focused, but interest-oriented.
3. Develop criteria that a solution must fulfill.
4. You should have different options to choose from.

[specialandroid]

I had negotiation training (commercial contracts) some time ago. The way to win an otherwise tough negotiation point on a priority contract term was through mis-direction. Show little interest in it - in preference for another term that has low value to you. Negotiate hard if necessary to win the otherwise unwanted point but concede at the last minute in exchange for the first point. Did that several times and it nearly always worked. Often because the other party was not fully aware of value of the won point to one or both parties. That usually happened when the negotiating party was a commercial representative and not a lawyer.

[GReid-olgk]

I feel ashamed that I'll be 30 in two years and have never known any of these principles of negotiation. I will work relentlessly until I master these concepts. What a wonderful video. Cheers.

[Yan-rhmj]

The wrong way :
1. Problem
2. Solution

The right way :
1. Interests (A’s Goals + B’s Goals)
2. Diagnosis (A’s Criterias + B’s Criteria’s)
3. Design (Solutions enumeration)
4. Deal (A’s Criterias U B’s Criterias)

[MrGgraham]

this sounds like a sensible approach, unfortunatley hostile situations don't allow for such well informed and rational decision making.

[loveheals]

I have practice this a bunch in customer service and it works wonders... a ton is in the delivery of course... but it really works.

[tamgaming]

Super cool explained. I make my MBA atm, and have to say this is an awesome presentation to understand it well and easy.

[rmelotto]

As an IT Supervisor, I agree with him, this is very practical.


All the suppliers and different companies that visit you to offer a product/service, they go focused but youre in a superior position because you have the power to choose, so you can squeeze them to see how far they go.


The other way, when something bad happens in your servers and you need help, youre in a bad position because you need something urgent and they know it and can ask for a higher price.


In both situations, when you have advantage/disadvantage, this 4 principles he said in the video are basically the steps you must have clear in your mind before starting the negotiation.


Your side and the opposite side ability to suggest/demand/concede will define if it will be a win-win situation. Or not.

[God-AllahLovesIsrael]

Getting a Yes – but how?
Dr. Thomas Henschel explains 'The Harvard Approach' and how to get a Yes in every negotiation.
1. Separate the person from the issue. Don't take it to a negative personal level.
2. Do NOT Negotiate position-focused, but interest-oriented.
3. Carefully develop a set of criteria/requirements that a solution must fulfil, instead of rushing to a solution.
4. You should have several different options to choose from and evaluate them against the criteria.

[luiseduardoleal]

According to "getting to yes", from William Ury, the following are the four basis for negotiation:
1. Separate the people from the problem
2. focus on interests (objetctives), not positions
3. invent options for mutual gains
4. insist on using objective criteria

[samahirrao]

If this was an Ad on YouTube videos, I won't skip it. This my friend is the highest honor on the internet. I give this to you.

[marisortiz]

I wish he offered real life scenarios to better grasp these concepts.

[philb]

Totally works! I couldn’t believe my eyes. Once I reframed the conversation, it worked like magic.

[bluetube]

This is a great general starting point. I suspect it will face difficulties in some situations, though. For example, with the first principle, suppose that the other party is unwilling to separate person from issue? If they are a rational, economic actor, this should not be the case, but humans are not rational economic actors; if the other person in the negotiation places more value on making you suffer than on actually getting what they want, then, for them, their interest (principle 2) might be "hurt my opponent, and get something out of it if possible." In such cases, it could be argued that separating person from issue is actively detrimental to your own cause, because the tactical mismatch can provide your negotiating partner with leverage for their own goals.

Another common occurrence is that principle 2 allows for no common ground to be found; one could easily imagine in the pumpkin example that two of the people who wanted the pumpkin might want it for the same reason; maybe both want to make jack-o-lanterns for their front porch. In such situations, examining each other's interests beyond simple positions is still a good first step, but will ultimately discover that the interests are opposed too, not just the positions. Once this has been determined, it's not clear from these principles what the best approach is to resolve it. Zero-sum situations are less common than we usually perceive, but they are still common, and I'd like a framework that addresses them.

[lacdirk]

A more complicated real-world issue is that for many negotiations there simply isn't a win-win outcome.
Example: something has happened that will hurt both sides, but a deal can reduce the pain. E.g. a divorce or a brexit. In this case, most of the initial groundwork could entail establishing exactly what happens when there is no deal, so both sides can start looking at the correct baseline when discussing whether a deal is a win.
However, that process itself is exceedingly contentious. For instance, in a divorce, one partner can claim that they would win total custody of the kids, so that should be the reference point for winning. Or in a brexit, one side might claim that they would be able to keep all the fish, so that should be the reference point. The other side could see these as threats or unwarranted assertions, complicating the negotiations and making the whole concept of "winning" subjective.
A different issue occurs when negotiating objectively limited resources or intrinsically incompatible goals. We could think of negotiations on water rights between countries on the same river, or custody disputes where one side considers the other an active threat to the well-being of the child. In this case a win-win solution isn't possible, and a compromise would really be a loss for one or both sides.

So I guess I would like to see an introductory part that explains in which negotiations these principles would be useful. To me, they largely look like they are only useful in very limited commercial settings.

[wghost]

As a man of principles that is correct but we should also keep in mind that rules can apply depending on the situation because as it's been said sometimes cooperation is not the right thing to do

[Detaileddesignsautospa]

Here's a pro tip for #4: when presenting options... if you've done a quality discovery by asking your potential client the right questions, your options are not just cookie-cutter options. They are catered to be what is most likely to genuinely present the best fit and your "best fit" would really be best described as your professional recommendation as the most ideal fit for their needs.

If you're good at what you do, you are seen as a resource, problem solver and ground zero for the best solution for their needs. Imho, when you're good at your craft/trade, communicate well and truly behave as their fiduciary, you will be very successful at earning their trust and business. Executing this should be natural and not forced. If it is forced, just accept all you care about is making a buck.

[pro]

Note this great phrase: principle, much more organic, wide. Thanks for expanding our visions

[NeutralNetworkAI]

I appreciate Dr. Henschel's explanation of the Harvard Principles of Negotiation in this video. While negotiating skills are vital, it's essential to recognize that success in the real estate industry also depends on market analysis, sustainability, and adaptation to ever-changing market trends. It's important to celebrate the achievements of all professionals in the industry and appreciate their unique contributions in shaping the real estate landscape. This inclusive approach can inspire others to strive for excellence and create a positive, competitive environment for everyone involved. Let's give credit where it's due and acknowledge the collective effort behind the growth of the industry.

[KeithFitzgerald]

A good attempt. The explanation on criteria here suggests that criteria are subjective lists of qualities they need in an outcome. That makes them function similar to positions (and the explanation given of the difference between criteria and positions is that positions are fixed on one "solution." At the Harvard Negotiation Project, we teach using criteria (standards) as a means to introduce fairness and/or legitimacy into a negotiation; particularly in evaluating options. Some criteria can, of course, be subjective, but objective criteria tend to be more effective; both in protecting yourself from unreasonable demands and in influencing counterparts.

These "four principles" are certainly part of the "Harvard model;" but there is certainly more to it than that.