Negotiations: From Positional Bargaining to Interests

Harvard Negotiation Method

Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" (1981) — possibly the most influential book on negotiations. Its central idea: positional bargaining (I want X, you want Y, we settle at X+Y/2) is a suboptimal strategy. The best — “principled negotiation”.

Four principles: (1) Separate the people from the problem: negotiate with the problem, not with the person. Set aside emotions and relationships; put facts and interests at the center. (2) Focus on interests, not positions: position — “I want 60,000”. Interest — “I need to provide for my family, cover my mortgage, and have resources for development.” If you know the interests, you can find solutions that satisfy both parties better than a compromise of positions.

(3) Create options before deciding: brainstorming before and during negotiations — the more options considered, the better the final decision. (4) Use objective criteria: not “because I want it”, but “the market price of a similar asset is...”, “industry standard...”, “independent appraisal...”.

BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

Your BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement) is what you will do if negotiations fail. It is the source of your strength: the better your BATNA, the stronger your position. Before any negotiation: determine your BATNA and try to learn the BATNA of your opponent.

If your BATNA is weak — improve it before negotiations: find an alternative buyer, get another job offer, prepare a plan B.

ZOPA (Zone Of Possible Agreement): the range in which agreement is possible — from your side’s minimum acceptance to the maximum acceptance of the other. If ZOPA exists, agreement is theoretically achievable. If not — negotiations waste time.

Negotiation Psychology

Anchor: the first number named disproportionately influences the outcome. Whoever names the price first sets the anchor. Strategy: if you are the stronger side — speak first. If weaker and you don’t know the market — provoke the opponent to speak first.

Reciprocity Principle (Cialdini): if you give something — the opponent feels obliged to give back. In negotiations: small concessions on nonessential items create pressure for reciprocity in key items.

Loss framing: “You will save 200,000” vs “You will lose 200,000 if you don’t accept this offer” — the second frame is more convincing, since losses psychologically weigh heavier than gains.

Question for reflection: Recall negotiations you consider successful and unsuccessful. In which case did you focus on interests (not positions)? Did you know your BATNA? What would conscious application of the Harvard method have changed?