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

Key points at a glance

The Harvard method describes principled negotiation, developed by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton.
It separates people from the problem, asks about interests instead of positions, looks for options and uses objective criteria.
Every negotiation starts with the question of the best alternative without an agreement, the BATNA.
Deliberately not agreeing can be a good outcome if the alternative is better.

In numbers

principles

person, interests, options, standards

question before negotiating

what is my best alternative without a deal

outcomes count as success

an agreement or a deliberate non-agreement

Before you negotiate with the Harvard conceptAfter the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

Clarify beforehand

Know your best alternative without an agreement, the BATNA.
Ask yourself which interest lies behind your demand.
Consider which interest the other side might have.
Look for standards both accept, such as market value, expert opinion or legal requirements.
Collect several options before you judge one.
Separate the issue from the person.

Negotiating hard, soft or on the meritsAfter the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

Hard

Stance: show toughness, hold the line
Aim: to win
Typical risk: the issue won, the relationship damaged

Soft

Stance: be friendly, accommodate
Aim: to keep the relationship
Typical risk: the relationship kept, the issue lost

On the merits

Stance: solve a problem together
Aim: a wise outcome, efficient and fair
Typical risk: needs preparation and patience

Position and interest in one exampleExample after the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

Sibling A

Position: The party is held at a restaurant.
Interest behind it: no time for preparation
Shared solution: an affordable restaurant

Sibling B

Position: The party is held at home.
Interest behind it: concern about the cost
Shared solution: an affordable restaurant

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
Author: Johannes Max Harms

Black and white photo of five men sitting side by side at a long wooden table, all looking at a sheet of paper spread out in front of them — Five men confer at a table over a sheet of paper spread out before them, year unknown.Photo by Yrjö Yli-Vakkuri, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0

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

All methods

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.

Frequently asked questions about the Harvard method

Is there a simple example of the Harvard method?

The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School tells one from family life. Two siblings are planning the party for their parents’ wedding anniversary. One insists on a restaurant, the other on a party at home. As long as both stick to their positions, nothing moves. Only asking about interests clarifies things: the one who wants the restaurant has no time for preparation, the one who wants to celebrate at home is worried about the cost. The solution is an affordable restaurant.

What does BATNA mean?

BATNA stands for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Put simply, it is what you will do if no agreement is reached. The term was introduced by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton in their book “Getting to Yes”. If you know your BATNA, you know when an offer is worse than walking away. A strong alternative lets you negotiate more calmly and turn down a poor offer without experiencing it as a defeat.

What is the difference between positions and interests?

A position is a fixed demand, such as “I need a ten percent raise” or “The party is at my place”. An interest is the reason behind it: a need, a concern, a motive. Positions often exclude each other, interests far less often. That is why the Harvard method does not first ask what someone wants but why. The Program on Negotiation calls this interest-based bargaining and sees it as the heart of the method, because only at this level do new solutions appear.

What are objective criteria in a negotiation?

Objective criteria are fair, independent standards that both sides agree on before they argue about the result. The Program on Negotiation gives market value, industry benchmarks, expert opinion, legal standards and professional norms as examples. What matters is that agreeing on the standard comes before agreeing on the content. Then the question of who prevails turns into a joint search for what is fair. Neither side has to give in; both follow a criterion.

What does the Harvard method have to do with mediation?

Both work with the same distinction. The German Federal Agency for Civic Education describes mediation as a procedure in which the parties clarify the interests and needs behind entrenched positions and work out solutions themselves. That is the idea of the Harvard method, only with a third person who guides the conversation. The difference: with the Harvard method the parties negotiate directly, and one side can bring the approach to the table on its own.

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