Harvard Method: How to achieve win-win situations in negotiations and conflicts

The Harvard Method is an approach to fact-based negotiation. It is often referred to as the Harvard Concept, or more rarely as the Harvard Approach, Harvard Principle, Harvard Model or Harvard Technique. The Harvard Method has long since established itself as the standard model par excellence for successful negotiation and conflict resolution. The best thing about the Harvard Method: Both parties to the conflict benefit, because the goal is a constructive agreement, a win-win situation - without any lazy compromises. Conflicts that only end with satisfied parties - who doesn't want that?

The principles of the Harvard Method were formulated by the U.S. lawyer Roger Fisher in 1981 in his work "Getting to Yes," published with William Ury and Bruce Patton. The subject was the Harvard Negotiation Project as part of the "Program on Negotiation" at Harvard Law School of Harvard University. As part of this negotiation program, the Harvard Method was developed as an interest-oriented, constructive and peaceful conflict resolution strategy.

Disputes are decided within the framework of the Harvard principle according to meaning and factual content. The goal is to find out how a difference can be resolved efficiently and constructively. There is no haggling. Neither party to the conflict should be forced into a supplicant position. The method follows four basic principles, also known as the four pillars of the Harvard concept.

1. Discuss factually
2. Focusing interests
3. Develop decision options
4. Create objective decision criteria

In the sense of the Harvard method, it is important, similar to the iceberg model in communication, to strictly separate personal relationships and the factual level of the subject of discussion. If this is not done, it can easily happen that a factual statement by party A is perceived by party B as an insult. Personal relationships must first be neutralized or faded out in the sense of the Harvard method, so that a factual negotiation is possible in the first place.

The following aspects will help you to do this:

• Your counterpart is neither your friend nor your enemy. He is an important partner in your problem solving, since a result can only be achieved with the participation of both sides. Calmly tell your negotiating partner that you are convinced that you consider him to be the right person to reach a solution that is fair to both sides.
• Accusations or pointing out subjectively perceived misconduct on the part of the other party lead to a hardening of the fronts, are counterproductive and have no place.
• Articulate your emotions and problems, but do not place the question of guilt.
• State the substantive points/issues clearly and without judgment.
• Formulate your demands and justify them in a comprehensible way.
• Give your negotiating partner room to present his or her concerns in an equally free and well-founded manner. If your counterpart feels understood, he will be all the more willing to pay attention to your concerns.
• Listen and show empathy with your counterpart's position and descriptions.
• Always lead the discussion back to the substantive issues.

With this strategy, you cause a cognitive dissonance in your counterpart: Your negotiating partner contradicts you on the matter, but on the other hand your counterpart senses human respect, sympathy and trust. This contradiction will ensure that your counterpart is more inclined to accommodate you and also to allow concessions on the factual issue.

Behind every demand there is an interest. The demands are not decisive in the sense of the Harvard method. Rather, you should focus on your own interests and the interests of your conflict or negotiation partner. So first reflect on what your interests are and, if possible, also make a list of your interests before the negotiation.

But what are your interests? That always depends on the concrete individual case of the conflict or negotiation. Interests can basically be:

• Wishes
• Greed
• Fears
• Fears
• Worries

So the question is not "What are we/the other side demanding?" but "Why are we/the other side demanding this?".

Therefore, present your counterpart not only with your demand, but also with all your interests openly and objectively.

But that's not all: Consider in advance which interests your counterparty might represent. In the conversation itself, you should ask W-questions to learn more about the demands and the motivations/interests of the other party: "Why are you demanding this?" Positive side effect: Your counterpart will perceive your interest in a productive resolution of the conflict.

Now work together with your negotiating partner. Once both sides have identified and justified their interests, you can group them into different and common interests and list them against each other. This visualization within the framework of the Harvard method helps immensely, as it highlights commonalities and encourages you to specifically address the divergent interests. Good for your relationship management, because along the way you encourage collaboration on common goals.

An "either-or" decision is not known to the Harvard method. Instead, the Harvard concept suggests a "both/and" variant by looking at different options and achieving your negotiation goal through creativity and flexibility.

According to the fourth principle of the Harvard Method, you should use objective criteria in the sense of fairness when deciding on a solution path. If you jointly agree on a proposal, both parties involved will feel that they have actively contributed to the decision-making process and that their own interests have been safeguarded - acceptance will be higher.

Present your suggestions developed according to Principle #3 to your counterpart and discuss the pros and cons of the various options together. If your counterpart also submits proposals, you can explore where you have arrived at the same or similar approaches. Measure the various proposed solutions against criteria that are as objective and fair as possible, such as:

• Legal regulations
• Ethical standards/moral criteria
• Applicable quality standards
• Industry conventions
• Comparable cases
• Market value
• Cost
• Reciprocity
• Equal treatment/fairness

The following points should also be considered when making decisions according to the Harvard method:

• The good relations of both negotiating partners are preserved.
• The contents of the chosen decision must be practically implementable.
• Both sides leave the negotiation with at least their minimum goal. If both partners need the same thing, it is shared fairly.
• The negotiation takes place in a time-efficient manner. Positions are not insisted on or argued over.

At Projektron GmbH, we use the Harvard method in negotiations with our customers and service providers, but also to resolve conflicts that are unavoidable in everyday collaboration within the Projektron team.

Our negotiation with a customer specializing in logistics processes provides an example of the use of the Harvard concept. Before commissioning the offer, the customer asked for a negotiation meeting on the offer. In the process, we discussed the mutual interests: 

Knowing what the customer wanted, we subsequently prioritized features that we could train and configure on site in Hamburg.

Negotiating according to the Harvard method: 3 insights from practice

From my long experience from agreements on settlements, the following three insights are particularly important to me:

1. Effective when talking to the decision makers

The Harvard method is particularly effective when talking to the decision-makers, which in our case are mostly the managing directors of medium-sized companies. This is where the true or long-term interests of the customer are most likely to come to light:

Behind the desire to introduce the software quickly, there is often an interest in ensuring that there is no unrest in the company due to the introduction of time recording. In this case, however, a much more sensible strategy is not to bypass the employees, but to create acceptance through configuration workshops and training. We started introducing the vacation management module in a company with over 500 employees for this reason. Since the existing solution was not particularly popular in the company, the customer's employees were positive about the introduction of our software. The project planning was introduced many months later, much later than originally planned. The duration of the implementation was now no longer an issue.

2. Difficult in negotiations with buyers

Talking to buyers according to the Harvard method usually does not make sense, since they are primarily interested in the price, the payment conditions and the legal framework. Here, negotiating according to the Harvard method would only be useful if you know the advantages and disadvantages of certain regulations in the GTCS, GTPs, VAVs, your own contract documents and similar legal documents like the back of your hand. Then it could happen that the customer waives contractual penalties for missing milestones if he sees his conditions for using the software at subsidiary companies more strongly observed in return. However, such results can only be achieved with a lot of experience in the subject matter. Mere knowledge of the Harvard method is not enough to be successful here.

3. Not applicable for tenders

The Harvard method is usually not applicable to tenders, because there is no personal exchange with the customer. A negotiation according to Harvard would only be conceivable if the customer clearly expresses his interests in the tender documents beforehand or is approachable before the decision is made. Unfortunately, this almost never happens, which is understandable. The customer naturally does not want potential service providers to outdo each other with empty promises. The dilemma we have here is that you can buy materials with tenders, but not complex software that has to be customized.

In equal negotiation situations, the Harvard Method offers advantages:

• It is an excellent way to resolve conflicts in a structured manner.
• Both parties achieve negotiation success in the end.
• The relationship of both negotiating parties is strengthened by the practice.

Of course, the Harvard Method has disadvantages:

• It is complex and requires practice.
• It requires some preparation and situational adaptation to the specific conflict case.
• If, in an asymmetrical negotiation, one side has a clear advantage because it has more information or less to lose, the Harvard method cannot be applied meaningfully.

The Harvard method is less suitable for conflicts that arise spontaneously and spontaneous disputes in everyday life. The Harvard method is also not suitable for resolving grievance cases due to the asymmetrical starting situation. In this case, we use complaint management according to the EVA3 methodat Projektron.

Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to get to grips with the Harvard principles and internalize the methods. After all, empathy and a sober, factual and constructive attitude will serve you well in numerous everyday private and professional conflicts. Practice makes perfect: consciously prepare yourself for upcoming negotiations and apply the principles of the Harvard Method in a targeted manner. You will quickly notice that the method not only makes the negotiation climate more positive, but also leads to the desired success.