Resolving disputes
The Harvard method
Neither hard nor soft but focused on the matter: four principles meant to turn a contest of wills into a shared task
In numbers
4
principles
person, interests, options, standards
1
question before negotiating
what is my best alternative without a deal
2
outcomes count as success
an agreement or a deliberate non-agreement
- Origin
- Developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project, published by Roger Fisher and William Ury
- Where it is used
- Negotiations of every kind, from pay talks to a neighbourhood dispute
- What it takes
- Preparation decides; the conversation itself can be short
- Third party
- No third person needed, one side can bring the method in
What is the Harvard method?
The Harvard method is an approach to principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project and made widely known by the book of Roger Fisher and William Ury. It describes a third way between hard and yielding negotiation.
The starting point is an observation: whoever negotiates hard may win the matter and damage the relationship; whoever yields keeps the relationship and loses the matter. Both treat negotiation as a contest of strength.
The alternative rests on four principles: treat people and problems separately, look at interests rather than positions, develop options for mutual gain, and settle the result by objective standards.
How does the Harvard method work in a conversation?
The most effective part comes before the negotiation. Preparation includes asking what your best alternative is if no agreement is reached. Knowing it tells you when an offer is worse than no deal, instead of having to guess.
In the conversation itself, moving from positions to interests is the actual work. It happens through questions, not explanations: why does this point matter to you, what would have to be met, what is this the solution to?
The last step relieves both sides. When a recognised standard decides, nobody has to give way because they are weaker. That takes the character of victory and defeat out of the result, and on that depends whether it is kept afterwards.
When does the Harvard method fit?
For anything that is negotiated where both sides go on dealing with each other: pay, a tenancy, the division of work in a club, cooperation between organisations.
It fits particularly where an agreement is possible but cannot be compelled. There the principle of standards works hardest, because it supplies a justification each side can defend to its own people.
It can also be used one-sidedly. Nobody has to consent to negotiating on the merits; asking why and pointing to a recognised standard work even when the other side has never heard of the method.
Where are the limits of the Harvard method?
The first limit is a strong imbalance. Whoever has a poor alternative and no time negotiates from a weak position, and the method changes little about that. It does help to see it early rather than notice it at the end.
The second limit is conflicts of values. Where the matter is conviction rather than divisible goods, there is no standard both recognise. Then it is no longer about agreement but about how to live alongside each other, and other procedures are responsible for that.
The third limit is the other side. Someone who deliberately deceives or uses pressure as a tool cannot be reached on the merits. Fisher and Ury treat that as its own case: then the negotiation is not about the matter but first about the rules of the game.
How do you start with the Harvard method?
Before the next conversation, write two lines: what is my position, and what is the interest behind it? The same two lines for the other side, as far as you can judge from the outside. That preparation takes ten minutes and changes the course.
Then determine the alternative: what will I do if we do not agree? Knowing the answer lets you stay calm without bluffing. Not knowing it talks people into deals under pressure.
And in the conversation, change one habit: do not answer the first demand with a counter-demand but with a question about why. For a start, nothing more is needed.
The core
Whoever knows what they have without a deal negotiates more calmly. The strongest position at the table is a good alternative away from it.
Sources
The steps
- Separate the people from the problemHard on the matter, soft on the person. Whoever makes an accusation then negotiates about the accusation. Whoever names the matter and leaves the person standing keeps both: the demand and the counterpart.
- Interests, not positionsA position is what somebody demands; an interest is why. Two positions can be mutually exclusive, two interests rarely are. Asking why opens the space in which there is anything to find.
- Develop optionsCollect first, judge later. Doing both at once produces fewer and worse options. What is sought are solutions that serve both sides, not a midpoint between two demands.
- Decide by standardsNot the stronger will decides but a criterion both recognise: market price, an expert opinion, an established rule. That takes from the result the character of a victory.
More in this series
- MediationFamily, workplace, neighbourhood, business, environmental and building projectsA third person guides the conversation and decides nothing. That is precisely why the result tends to hold afterwards
- Nonviolent CommunicationEveryday life, work, school, family, mediating between groupsFour steps that turn an accusation into a statement about your own situation. It sounds simple and is the hardest exercise in an argument
From a procedure to a mission of your own
Every one of these methods was developed by people who had a dispute in front of them and wanted to handle it differently. The same stance is what it takes on a small scale: in a neighbourhood, a school, a club.
Find your peace mission