There are several negotiation strategies.

One of them is the Harvard Method, which is explained

in the book “Getting a Yes” from Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton.

Another perspective is from Richard Shell, from Wharton School, and it can be read on the book
“Bargaining for advantage”.

The book “Difficult Conversations” from Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen, has the
focus on human behavior. Negotiations are developed by people, so it is important to understand
their behavior.

This article is focused on the Harvard Method, the MIT Negotiations Course, and the Harvard
Negotiation Project.

The method is framed on four basic aspects: people, interests, options and standards (objective
criteria).

The premise is that negotiations should be based on principles, which means that each negotiator
should focus on objective criteria and legitimacy.

Before start a negotiation, some work must be done. Analyze yours and other parties’ interests.
Align both interests, develop options for mutual gains. Be prepared to avoid bargain positioning
and to return to principles, and objective criteria.

When evaluating options, observe the quality of information, do not overestimate choices, have a
broad knowledge of the context and market, and avoid emotional or subjective evaluations.

Now, returning to people, interests, options and standards (objective criteria), Let us analyze
each one.

People:

Separate people from problems. Be aware that the valuable incentives may diverge from one
party to another. What is fair allows different interpretations. Develop mutual understanding,
trust and respect, and sustain the negotiation within the reason field. Avoid emotions.

Avoid fixed positioning. If some divergence comes up, try to revise opinions, share information,
and clarify some points by understanding the other party, making questions or asking for help.
Sustain the focus on objective criteria and principles.

Experienced negotiators are prepared for people issues, analyze emotional traps, have strategies
to deal with emotions, have active listening and empathic actions.

Interests:

Interests are what we want to achieve. Positioning is what we decided according to the interests.
For each interest we have different positioning.

We negotiate to attend interests, and negotiation is the use of power, time and information,
though, they should be optimized.
To accomplish it, we need to be accurate on the negotiable issues, must recognize the interests of
the other party and demonstrate it, maintain the process strictly on objective criteria, standards
and principles. However, we should be affable, polite, with a constructive spirit and a facilitator.

In the case of impediments to develop further the negotiation, try to identify the reasons, suggest
alternatives by asking “why not”, discuss other options with a “if we”, and try to involve the
other party with some question like: “why should we do that way?”.

Options:

Before start the negotiation, some options (alternatives) should be already planned. All involved
must be attended on their interests, or, at least, close to. The objective is to have a balanced
negotiation and, at the end, have all parties satisfied, without hard feelings or a feeling of
frustration.

What makes harder the search of options, with mutual gain, is the vision of a unique answer to
the problem, or a premature judgment, or to keep the focus on the interests of only one party, or
still believe in zero-sum games, when someone wins and someone loses.

The unique solution tends the negotiation to the impasse, because the absence of options. With a
premature judgment, alternatives are eliminated without the correct evaluation. Observing only
one party interest will provoke difficulties and delays. The zero sum-games perspective diverges
from the vision of mutual benefits.

Standards (Objective Criteria):

The definition of objective criteria is fundamental to be able to use the Harvard Method, because
the method is based on principles, clear values and impartiality.

A common feeling is that, what is on the table, it is not fair. So, all issues must be clear and don’t
have any doubts. The best is to have transparency, impartiality and that the standards (objective
criteria) are accepted by all, that they are easily understood and applicable.

When defining them, must have in mind the balance of mutual interests and impartiality, be open
to different perspectives, and not give up under pressure, when the matter is about principles and
objective criteria.

If the objective criteria are clear and impartial, the negotiation is facilitated, the stress is reduced,
the relationship is preserved and it will be opened the possibility of new businesses in the future.

Final considerations:

Experienced negotiators know that, when one party leaves the negotiation in disadvantage, the
repercussion of that deal can have a multiplier effect, provoke futures damages to the business,
region, or country in future negotiations.

Experienced negotiators plan to avoid people issues, analyze emotional traps; have strategies to
deal with emotions, have active listening and empathic actions.

None method is perfect or unique to accomplish all necessities or varieties of negotiations, and,
above all, when we deal with human beings.
Because of that, it was mentioned, at the beginning, other possibilities and books, and tools to
improve negotiations skills. It is also important to know a little more about the human behavior,
understand emotions, empathy, synergy, and subjectivity and conflict resolutions.

There are other aspects to study, like the BATNA, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, to
know the gap between the best and the worst agreement, to know when to leave, pause or stop a
negotiation, to ask to change the negotiator, if possible, to understand the possibility of unveiled
interests, to understand the possible existence of an hidden power or stakeholder, and so on.

But these aspects are for future articles.