Harvard University implements techniques. Negotiation as an alternative means to resolve conflicts

If we begin trying to define the term “negotiation”, we should mention that it is an alternative self-composition mechanism for resolving conflicts, consisting of an informal and flexible process that is carried out without the intervention of a third party, the objective of which is to seek a consensual agreement between the parties in conflict to achieve satisfying their interests in the best way possible.

Dr. David Kueckie, college professor at Harvard University, defines negotiation as "the science and art of ensuring an agreement between two or more parties interdependent of each other that wish to maximize their own results, it being understood that they will have more profits if they work together than if they are confronted."

However, Professor Roger Fisher developed several years ago the Negotiation Project of the Harvard University which bases the negotiation on terms of "hard" or "soft", by adopting instead the negotiation based on interests.

Bargaining. A negotiation based on bargaining positions often causes the "bargainer” to be locked into his position and increasingly identifies with his position, to the point that changing it would be a lost concession which would let him in a bad position before his counterparty, his surroundings, his friends ... which makes it more difficult for the parties to agree since there already exists a personal issue in the negotiation.

However, a negotiation based on the interests tries to discover what each of the parties pursues that goes beyond their position and, based on those interests, attempting to conciliate in the best way possible so that both parties feel satisfied to reach an agreement.

The classic example of a negotiation based on positions appears in the book Getting to yes, negotiating agrement without giving in, by Roger Fisher and William Ury: Two children have a dispute for an orange without reaching into an agreement. The mother intervenes and by opting for a Solomonic decision she decides to cut the orange in half and give one part to each child. However, by choosing this alternative she has not inquired on the interest of each child in the orange.

One child wanted to eat the orange pulp and the other one wanted to use the orange peel in a scientific experiment in his school. Having discovered the interest of each party, the orange would have been peeled and both children would have obtained a fifty percent of profit in the negotiation.

Egypt. Another classic example of a negotiation based on the interests of the parties is the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1978. Peace negotiations were stalled regarding the Sinai Peninsula, territory occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War (1967) and which was not willing to return.

Egypt, in turn, would not give up its sovereignty over that territory, so that the possibility of reaching into a final agreement between both nations seemed remote. However, by deepening in both parties it was discovered that the interest of Israel was its safety and would not give up that territory because of the danger that involved the existence of Egyptian tanks and other weapons on its border.

On the contrary, Egypt had interest in maintaining its sovereignty over the Sinai Peninsula, which historically had belonged to it since the time of the pharaohs. When the interests of both parties were well-defined, the Egyptian president Sadat and the Israeli Prime Minister Begin reached into an agreement whereby the occupied territory of Sinai was returned to Egypt, and Israel's security would be ensured by means of the demilitarization of the border areas of the Sinai Peninsula with Israel.

Roger Fisher said that negotiation, according to principles of the project in this respect of the Harvard University, is based on four basic points; a) Separating the people from the problem (to be "hard" with the problem and "soft" with the people); b) Focusing on interests but not on the positions; c) Generating a variety of possibilities (options) before making a decision; d) Basing the agreement on some objective criteria, which will give it legitimacy.

Usually it is necessary to first identify the negotiator with the problem, concluding beforehand that the problem is just the counterparty, which hinders the development of the negotiation from the beginning. People must be separated from the problem, to this end we should resort to different trading strategies, being even helpful the use psychological techniques.

Tactics. The negotiator should focus on perceptions and emotions of both parties. To this end, he should have the ability to "take the place of another person", whereby it will be much easier to identify his emotions and perceptions and thus maintain a clearer and more effective communication. 

The best way to consolidate an agreement is that it had been based on an objective criterion (i.e., on an aspect that does not depend on the will of either party) which will give legitimacy to the agreement.

A good strategy is the previous preparation of the negotiation. Professor Roque Calvano says: "one must understand the dynamics of conflict and try to establish a priori the importance of the problem for each of the involved parties.”

Interests. It is important to know the underlying interests of both parties, as well as to know beforehand the negotiator and his power of decision. Most of the binding options of possible solutions that meet interests of both parties have been generated in advance. At this stage, the creativity and originality of negotiator will be very helpful, in order to establish objective criteria of legitimacy and to have very clear the existing alternatives in case no agreement is reached.

In a negotiation we can find a more powerful counterpart, against which we are at a great disadvantage. To counteract we should know exactly our Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

BATNA IS OUR BEST CHOICE IF NO AGREEMENT IS REACHED. As Howard Raiffa says, "it is our lower limit or reserve value." No solution can be reached if it is more advantageous to abandon negotiations and choose our best alternative, so it will only be possible to reach an agreement if this surpasses our best alternative.

In conclusion, we should take into account that a good negotiation requires previous preparation, proper communication between the parties, including verbal and non-verbal language, speaking clearly and listening actively, as well as the use of techniques such as paraphrasing and strategic questions; termination of the interests of the parties and the generation of the largest amount of mutually beneficial actions, always taking into account the best alternative to the negotiated agreement.