Harvard concept as a sign of constructive communication: negotiating with understanding and attitude
Objective, constructive, solution-oriented - this is how a good negotiation should proceed. The Harvard concept shows how clear principles and empathetic communication can lead to viable agreements even in difficult situations. The practical implementation of the four basic principles of the Harvard model shows why communication skills make the difference between escalation and agreement.
From Prof. Dr. Patrick PetersProfessor for Communication and sustainability and Vice-Rector for Research and Teaching Material Development at the Allensbach University
Negotiations are part of everyday life - in business, in politics, in private life. But all too often they are confrontational, emotionally charged and inefficient. The idea that there must always be winners and losers still characterizes many negotiation styles. The Harvard concept The "zero-sum" approach counters this zero-sum thinking with an alternative model: it assumes that a balance of interests is possible without one party falling by the wayside. The concept was developed in the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, largely by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 2011). Their basic conviction is that successful negotiations are based on factual orientation, not on positional thinking - and can only succeed with clear, respectful communication.
Separation of person and problem
One of the cornerstones of the Harvard concept is the consistent separation of factual and interpersonal levels. In traditional negotiations, personal differences are often mixed with factual content - a dangerous mistake that causes conflicts to escalate. The Harvard model, on the other hand, calls for the relationship level to be actively cultivated while at the same time dealing with the factual problem objectively and analytically. In practice, this means that even if the other party makes a demand that you reject, this must not lead to devaluation, defensiveness or even hostility. Instead, communication should remain empathetic and solution-oriented. This also means understanding the other party's point of view, respecting their motives and clarifying misunderstandings through active listening. The challenge is not to direct criticism at people, but to formulate it in a way that enables de-escalation and cooperation. Good communication strategies - such as "I" messages, mirroring or metacommunicative elements - are essential here.
Focus on interests, not positions
Negotiating parties often enter talks with fixed demands that are seemingly irreconcilable. The Harvard concept suggests avoiding this pitfall by not stopping at positions, but by asking about the underlying interests. Interests are the actual motives that explain why a position is taken. By revealing these, a deeper understanding of the other side's situation is created - and thus the potential for joint solutions. In communication, this means asking specific questions such as: "What is particularly important to you?" or "What goals are you pursuing with this?" Questions like these strengthen the relationship and open up room for maneuver in terms of content. For professional negotiators, the ability to conduct empathetic discussions is therefore key: Those who recognize and identify interests - including their own - are better able to communicate why certain outcomes make sense and engage in constructive dialogue instead of relying on confrontation.
Development of mutually beneficial decision-making options
Instead of immediately insisting on the implementation of a favored solution, the Harvard model recommends first developing options - ideally together with the other party. The difference to a compromise lies in the fact that it is not simply "shared", but that creative, newly conceived solutions emerge. This cooperative approach requires the ability to change perspectives and break down boundaries. The method of brainstorming without commitment helps to initially engage with possible scenarios in an unbiased way. In communication practice, this requires an atmosphere of psychological safety in which all participants can contribute ideas without being immediately judged or criticized. For managers, mediators or purchasers, this means not only thinking rationally, but also actively creating a space for discussion that enables creativity. In doing so, it is helpful to constantly reflect on the interests of both sides in order to identify viable solutions that offer real added value.
Orientation towards objective decision criteria
The fourth principle calls for decisions to be based on objective, comprehensible and mutually acceptable standards. These can be market data, legal norms, benchmarks or technical standards. The advantage of this approach is obvious: objective criteria create legitimacy. They take the personal edge off negotiations because it is no longer individual positions of power or acts of will that are decisive, but generally accepted standards. In communication, the aim is to make these criteria understandable, to introduce them transparently into the dialog and to explain why they make sense. For example, if you want to defend a certain price, you can anchor it in arguments based on comparable market conditions or industry standards. The ability to structure information, present it clearly and convey it in a comprehensible way is essential here. Those who communicate convincingly come across as confident and strengthen the negotiation as a whole.
Practical example: Supplier meeting with negotiating potential
How these principles work in reality can be seen in the case of an industrial company that has to negotiate new conditions with a long-standing supplier. The supplier demands a price increase of 15 percent. Instead of reacting reflexively with rejection, the buyer follows the Harvard model. She begins with a clear and objective invitation to talk: "I really value our cooperation. Let's examine together how we can respond to the current changes." In the subsequent analysis of interests, it becomes clear that increased energy costs are the main cause - although these only affect some of the components supplied. Both sides develop options in an open discussion: a temporary price adjustment, volume discounts from certain purchase quantities and the testing of alternative materials. The decision is made in favor of a combination of these measures - based on current market indices and production data. The contract is adjusted on this basis. Neither side loses face, both gain trust. Communication at eye level makes the difference.
Communicative consequences: language as a bridge between interests and solutions
The Harvard concept is more than just a methodical framework for rational negotiations. It is a communication model that focuses on respect, clarity and the ability to engage in dialog. If you want to negotiate successfully, you not only have to deliver arguments, but also create an atmosphere in which mutual understanding can develop. This requires practice, emotional intelligence and the willingness to see communication as an active tool. The principles of the Harvard model can be applied in a wide variety of contexts - from corporate management and collective bargaining to intercultural diplomacy. In all cases, good communication is the key. Because only those who understand how to negotiate can achieve what they really want.
Bibliography
- Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). The Harvard concept: The classic of negotiation techniques (17th ). Campus Verlag.
- Ury, W. (1993). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam Books.
- Körber, M. (2020). Successful negotiation with the Harvard concept. Springer Gabler.
