Harvard method of negotiation
Harvard method of negotiation was developed by
was developed by
famous consultants on conducting
negotiations Roger Fisher
William Ury and Breus
Patly this method they presented their books
Negotiations without defeat Harvard
method the most common form of
negotiations depends on the successive
occupation and surrender of a number of positions when the
participants in negotiations take
certain positions they find themselves
locked in them the more precisely you clarify
your position and the more clearly you defend it from the
attacks of the other side, the more firmly and and
defend the more actively you try to
convince the other side of the impossibility of
changing your position, the more difficult it
becomes for you to do and in fact yours
merges with your position you have a
new interest you need to
save face coordinate your future
actions with the positions taken in the past and
this significantly reduces the likelihood of
achieving a
reasonable agreement that meets the interests of
both parties excessively firm
defense of their positions turns into a
struggle of egos people recognize two
ways of conducting negotiations delicate and
tough choosing the first method a person
tries with all his might to avoid personal
conflicts and makes concessions in order to
achieve agree he wants to reach a
solution that would suit both
parties but as a result feels a
deceived person who has chosen a tough
negotiating style views
any emerging situation as a conflict of
egos in which
only the one who insists on his own can win he wants to
win but more often than not he runs into an even
tougher position this is exhausting
drains strength and resources spoils relations not
not
yes between the participants these are the so-called
positional negotiations they have too
many shortcomings there is a
third method combining the
features of the 2 previous one is the method of
principled negotiations
developed within the framework of the Harvard
negotiation project
this method takes into account the true interests of
both parties
they are reduced to a meaningless discussion of what
each of the participants is ready to do
and what they will not do under any circumstances the main
premise of the method is that the
participants strive with all their might to find a
mutually beneficial solution
and when a conflict of interests arises the
solution must be based on
fair standards independent of the
desires of the parties the
method of principled negotiations is tough
in relation to the issues being decided but
delicate towards people let's consider in more detail
positional and principled negotiations
most negotiations are held as
positional sentences when each of the
parties voices its position and
argues why its position is correct
example positional negotiations I believe
that the fair rent for my
apartment is 30 thousand rubles per month the
owners of the apartment voiced their position what are
you saying the rent for
your apartment is 20,000 rubles per month the
potential tenant also voiced
his position and then each party
begins to argue why its
position is more adequate
correct fair why the opponent's position is
inadequate incorrect unfair in order to
agree the parties are forced to make
concessions to each other changing their position
sometimes this allows you to reach an agreement
sometimes not disadvantages of positional
negotiations they are quite tough
because after announcing your positions there
is a desire to
firmly defend even if inside you
understand that you are not very good crossings
as a result negotiations are
longer with elements of deception and
manipulation they often spoil relationships
because when defending your position you are
forced to attack the position of your
negotiating partner which does not contribute to maintaining
maintaining
good relations as a result dissatisfaction with the
results of negotiations an agreement even
if it is reached often causes
dissatisfaction among both parties because they
were forced to abandon their
original position which they considered
adequate and fair in order to reach an agreement with the party in contrast to
positional negotiations principled
negotiations offer to concentrate
on the following principles now we will
consider them and so the basic task create a
constructive atmosphere for negotiations
take into account the human factor
technologies for resolving the conflict such
use three strategies for finding a
possible agreement through
satisfying interests
concentrate on interests they are on the
position through
objective criteria or principles
insist on using objective
criteria and third through comparing
options look study offer
different options
choose the most optimal one
talk in more detail about each of the
principles the good old truth says
most negotiations reach a dead end
dead end
because the relationship
between the negotiators did not work out that is between people
people
strives for warm friendly relations it is
not necessary this is not necessary besides it is not
always possible it is enough for the
relationship to be given the opportunity to calmly
jointly resolve the negotiation situation
what can help to establish business constructive
constructive
solutions try to understand the picture of the world of the
negotiating partner for you a
hamburger is a hamburger and yes as food in the
picture of the world of another person it can
be the murder of a living being and the one who
eats hamburgers for him is a murderer in the
picture of the world 3
it can be the murder of a sacred
animal deity with all the ensuing
consequences differences in pictures of the world
can give rise to strong and not understanding the
motives of the negotiating partner's actions
they understanding will lead to strengthening they
smoothing out the conflict do not blame the
other party accusations force the
opponent to defend himself no one wants to
feel guilty therefore by
accusing someone you will most likely cause the
other party to make counter accusations against you
you
develop a solution together they
offer your ready-made solutions
I thought about it without you and came up with a good
solution to the conflict even if you came up with
something good you will most likely run into an
objection therefore ideally you need to
create a feeling in your partner that it was he who
came to this decision that it was he who
came up with it formulate your thoughts politically correctly
politically correctly
help save the face of your
negotiating partner a person may be glad to make
concessions but if this is associated with a
loss of face
then he will defend himself to the last
therefore it is important to be as diplomatic as possible
correctly conduct negotiations and
formulate the proposed solution
so as not to hurt the self-esteem of the negotiating parties the
following control emotions if
necessary give your negotiating partner the opportunity to let off
steam by splashing out
emotions he may then begin to behave
more calmly compared to the
situation when emotions are recorded
inside him and burst out do not
react to the emotional outbursts of
others it is natural to respond to an emotional blow with an
emotional blow, but
self-control in this situation will be more useful
useful
listen actively let your partner know
that you hear and understand him
repeat key words
then paraphrase clarify details
if your opponent gets the
feeling that you are not listening and not
hearing him then this is unlikely to
contribute to good relations and
also establishing good relations is
largely an
element of art they are technology sometimes
just a smile or a well-timed compliment
compliment
turns out to be that very magic
element that establishes constructive communication it is
communication it is
necessary to learn this art you need to
try to negotiate softly
so that both you and the subscribers feel
comfortable in a joint search for a solution to the
conflict in order to find a solution to the conflict that
suits both parties the
Harvard method recommends
using three key strategies
concentrate on interests they are in
positions here is the first strategy an example let's
consider from the book negotiations without
defeats two people are sitting in a library
one wants to open a window the other
prefers that it remain
closed they begin to argue about
how much they can open the window make a
small crack open it halfway and
three-quarters not open it at all neither
solution satisfies the disputant enters the library
library
he asks one of the disputants why
he wants to open the window so that there
is fresh air in the room then he asks the
other why he does not want to open the
window so that there is no draft after thinking for
a minute the librarian opens the window in the
next room thus the
room becomes fresh but at the same
time there is no draft positions
positions
rice to open the window or
leave it open and interests were
reduced to fresh air and the absence of a draft
draft
thus positions and interests are
different things more important interests arguing at the
level of positions it is difficult to find a solution
sometimes impossible when moving to the level of
level of
interests the solution is often found easily
and quickly but also not always
since this technique is not a panacea another
example from the book negotiations without defeats
after the six-day war of 1967
israel occupied the sinai peninsula
belonging to egypt in 1978 egypt
israel sat down at the negotiating table to
make peace their positions at that time
seemed insoluble israel insisted
on keeping sinai for itself egypt from
its country demanded the full
return of the territory of the sinai
peninsula an analysis of genuine interests
revealed that israel's interests lay in security the
security the
Israelis simply did not want
Egyptian tanks to be stationed right on their
border ready to enter the battle at any moment
and Egypt was interested in keeping
those lands that had been part of the state since the time of the pharaohs
pharaohs
and the territories as a result they
developed a plan according to which the Sinai
Peninsula was returned to Egypt but Egypt
took on the obligation not to station
its military forces on it thus
Israel got what it wanted
security Egyptian tanks were
several hundred kilometers from their border and
Egypt also got what it
wanted to preserve the territorial
also find out the interests of the other side
if the position is usually presented
clearly specifically openly and that and the interests are
often not clear veiled concealed and unconscious
unconscious
to clarify the interests of the other side you
can use the following techniques
first ask if there is a good relationship you
can ask directly and openly why it is
important to you why you insist on it
for what you would like to
get it for what is important for yourself you
expect to get under these conditions
and often you get information about the other
side and in its interests that are
hidden behind the position second take the
position of the other side because sometimes it is
difficult to ask but psychologically flexible a
person can easily imagine himself in the
position of another person and think
if I were my opponent in
negotiations I would insist on these conditions then what is the
reason that I do this what
interests push me to do this
and such putting yourself in the place of another
person sometimes helps to see the world through the
eyes of a negotiating partner and a little
better understand his motives for behavior
3 try to guess while asking the
question do I understand correctly that you
insist on this position because it is
important for you and so on if you guessed right
then good the partner gets
the feeling that you understand him that you are
sincerely interested in what is important for him
if you did not guess also not very
scary often in response it does not sound quite like that
I insist on this position
because it is important for me and here he reveals
his interest and the truth and fourthly
tell about your interests
yourself often there is no problem in
openly telling the
other side your interests that are
hidden behind your position this can
push opponents to the fact that they in
response and also move on to sincerely
disclosing their own interests
or at least the opponent thinks about
finding solutions that correspond to
your interests when you identify the
interests of your partner in negotiations and
understand your interests, it will be easier for you to come
up with a solution
Chrome Extension