Negotiation is a fundamental part of life, from discussing a salary to deciding on a vacation destination with family. The process often feels like a battle of wills, where one side must win and the other must lose. This can lead to stress, damaged relationships, and outcomes that leave everyone feeling dissatisfied. A different approach can transform a confrontational ordeal into a collaborative problem-solving effort that is efficient and amicable.
Defining Principled Negotiation
Principled negotiation is an interest-based approach to resolving disputes designed to achieve a mutually beneficial, or “win-win,” outcome. This method was developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project and detailed in the book “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher and William Ury. The core idea is to move beyond haggling over positions and instead focus on the underlying interests of each party to produce wise agreements efficiently and amicably.
This approach encourages participants to act as joint problem-solvers rather than adversaries. It provides a framework for reaching agreements that meet the legitimate interests of each side to the greatest extent possible. The method is built upon four foundational principles that guide the entire process.
The Four Principles of Principled Negotiation
Separate the People from the Problem
A core tenet of principled negotiation is to distinguish the substantive issues from the personalities involved. People often become personally invested in their positions, causing them to view attacks on the issues as personal attacks. This principle advocates for being “soft on the people, hard on the problem,” allowing parties to address the core conflict without damaging their relationship. For instance, if a manager is frustrated with an employee’s tardiness, the focus should be on the impact of the lateness on team workflow and finding a solution, instead of labeling the employee as “irresponsible.”
Focus on Interests Not Positions
This principle requires looking beyond what people say they want (their position) to understand why they want it (their interest). Positions are concrete demands, while interests are the underlying motivations, needs, and concerns. A classic example involves two chefs arguing over the last orange. By exploring their interests, they discover one needs the peel for zest and the other needs the juice for a sauce, allowing both to get exactly what they need.
Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Once interests are understood, the next step is to brainstorm a wide range of possible solutions before committing to one. This phase separates the act of inventing options from judging them. The goal is to move beyond the idea of a single “right” answer and generate multiple possibilities that could satisfy the interests of both parties. For example, if two departments are competing for a limited budget, they could explore sharing resources, finding external funding for a joint project, or staggering their initiatives over time.
Insist on Using Objective Criteria
The final agreement should be based on fair and independent standards, not on the arbitrary will of either side. Objective criteria can include market value, scientific findings, professional standards, or legal precedent. This approach turns the negotiation from a contest of wills into a shared search for a fair standard. For example, when negotiating the price of a used car, both can agree to use the car’s valuation from an independent automotive guide as the basis for their discussion. This ensures the outcome feels fair and is not the result of pressure.
Key Differences from Other Negotiation Styles
Principled negotiation stands in contrast to traditional bargaining methods like hard and soft negotiation. Hard negotiation is an adversarial, “win-lose” approach where the goal is victory at any cost. Hard bargainers often use pressure tactics, make threats, and insist on their position, which can damage relationships and lead to hostile standoffs or agreements that one party resents.
On the other end of the spectrum is soft negotiation, where preserving the relationship is the top priority. Soft negotiators often avoid conflict by making concessions readily to reach an agreement. While this maintains harmony, it frequently leads to unfavorable outcomes where the soft bargainer feels taken advantage of. Principled negotiation offers a third way, creating a framework that is both firm and fair.
Benefits of Using Principled Negotiation
Adopting a principled approach yields significant advantages. One of the primary benefits is the creation of more durable agreements, as solutions are designed to satisfy the underlying interests of all parties. This method also helps preserve or even improve relationships by focusing on collaboration and avoiding the animosity of adversarial bargaining. This approach increases efficiency by sidestepping drawn-out battles of will, leading to faster resolutions. The process fosters creative solutions, and outcomes are often perceived as fairer because they are based on objective standards rather than pressure.
Understanding Your BATNA
An element in successful negotiation is knowing your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA. Coined in “Getting to Yes,” BATNA is your “walk-away” plan—the most advantageous course of action you can take if the current negotiations fail. It is not your bottom line, but your best option outside of the current negotiation. For example, if you are negotiating a job offer, your BATNA might be to accept another offer, stay in your current role, or go back to school.
Knowing your BATNA is a source of power in a negotiation. It provides a standard against which you can measure any proposed agreement. If the deal on the table is better than your BATNA, you have a good reason to accept it; if it is worse, you can confidently walk away. Developing a strong BATNA protects you from accepting an unfavorable agreement and empowers you to negotiate with greater confidence.