The fundamentals
The Harvard method: principled negotiation
It is the most widely taught framework in the world. Set out by Roger Fisher and William Ury in Getting to Yes (1981), it proposes to negotiate on the merits: neither soft (giving in) nor hard (imposing), but principled.
The four principles
Deal with the disagreement without attacking the person. You can be hard on the substance and respectful in the form: protecting the relationship is what lets you defend your interests.
Behind what each side demands (the position) sit real needs (the interests). Looking for them uncovers agreements that positional bargaining made impossible.
Widen the range of solutions before choosing. Separate the time for creating (imagining) from the time for deciding, so you do not lock in too early.
Base the agreement on references that are independent of either side's will (market price, precedent, expert opinion, law). You do not yield to pressure, you yield to principle.
Why it works
The strength of the method is that it breaks out of a pure power contest. By moving the discussion from positions to interests and criteria, it makes the agreement more efficient, more durable, and far less costly for the relationship. It is the backbone of the integrative approach: create value before you share it.
Facing a hard bargainer
The classic objection: « the method is elegant, but my counterpart won't play along ». Ury devoted a whole book to it, Getting Past No. The answer fits in one idea: don't fight back on the other side's terms. Meeting pressure with pressure is agreeing to negotiate on their ground.
The sequence he proposes is counter-intuitive. First, don't react: buy a moment, « go to the balcony », so you don't decide in the grip of emotion. Then step to their side: listen, acknowledge the point, disarm them where they expect a counter-attack. Next, reframe: treat every demand as a contribution to the problem, asking « why », « why not », « what makes that fair ». Finally, build them a golden bridge: make the yes easy, leaving the other side a victory they can tell. The firmness stays on the substance; the form stays impeccable.
Common misconceptions
The method is not about giving in. It is demanding on the substance: you defend your interests firmly, refuse to yield to pressure, and accept only what criteria can justify.
Understanding the other side's needs does not require exposing all of your own constraints. You can be open about your interests and discreet about your limits.
Several legitimate references often coexist (market, precedent, cost, custom). The negotiation then turns on which criterion applies, which is far healthier than a test of wills.
Exploring a solution does not commit you to it. Explicitly separating exploration from decision frees creativity without weakening your position.
What the method leaves out
Principled negotiation does not abolish the distributive moment: once value is created, it still has to be shared, and that sharing pits opposed interests against each other. The four principles frame that moment, they do not make it disappear. Likewise, the method assumes serious preparation: without a worked-out BATNA or criteria gathered in advance, « negotiating on principles » stays a wish. It is a framework, not a talisman: its power depends on what you bring to it.
Sources
- Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (1981).
- William Ury, Getting Past No (1991), on negotiating through deadlock.
- The Harvard Negotiation Project, the programme that founded principled negotiation.