On 22 October, Moscow School of Management SKOLKOVO will kick off Negotiations in Action – a three-day practical course in which lecturers of Harvard University’s Davis Center will train participants to solve business problems and close deals in difficult scenarios. On the eve of the programme’s launch, Professor of Business Practice and Co-founder of the Centre for Negotiation and Network Studies Marat Atnashev discussed with Harvard University staff Alexandra Vacroux, Arvid Bell, and Matt Kokkinos some of the features and advantages of the Harvard approach to negotiation.
What is the essence of the Harvard Method?
The Harvard Negotiation Project was developed back in the 1970s, and became almost the first project of its kind in world practice. In the subsequent years, the approaches developed at the university made a huge contribution to the resolution of both business and international conflicts. The Harvard Method is based on the desire to achieve a mutually beneficial result for both sides, the so-called win-win. All parties to the negotiation come out satisfied with its outcome, and no one feels they have lost or been given the short end of the stick. However, all this is easier said than done. The pressing question is: How do parties to a deal achieve mutual gain in practice?
According to Davis Center Coordinator Matt Kokkinos, the Harvard Method is primarily based on four principles that make up a strategy dubbed "Getting to Yes", formulated in a book of the same title.
The first principle is to separate people from problems. Here, it is important for the negotiator to be relatively soft on people but tough on problems. The second principle is to focus on interests, not positions. This allows finding common ground even with those counterparties with whom one has diametrically opposite views on a given problem. The third principle involves searching for diverse options leading to mutual benefit. According to the Harvard experts, it is better not just to try to snatch the bigger piece of the pie for yourself, but to try to make the pie itself much bigger, such that all parties to the negotiations will get their share. Finally, the final, fourth principle is using objective criteria. It is important for negotiations to remain focused and not go beyond the given discussion topic. Negotiators are advised to always bring a fallback solution with them to the table, known as the NAOS — the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
All things considered, as Kokkinos summarised, it is not worth trying to win the negotiations. People who adhere to such a strategy do not consider additional options, and may miss a win-win solution. It is more reasonable to proceed from a partner position and be determined to negotiate with the other side, as this helps build a more trusting relationship and opens the way to a deeper mutual understanding, which forms the basis of successful negotiations.
Create something new, but keep your own
As Atnashev noted, negotiators themselves may not fully understand their interests or the motives behind their actions and aspirations. People are not always guided solely by rationality, and their decisions are also influenced by values, origin, and their belonging to a specific culture and religion. The world, and with it – people, is becoming increasingly complex. As a result, negotiations are also increasingly requiring an integrated approach to the parties and the subject matter.
Davis Center Director Alexandra Vacroux emphasised that being able to work out a solution does not necessary require parties to agree on all matters, but that it is important to fully grasp a counterparty’s views. Under the Get to the Yes strategy, the other side’s views and worldview are discussed. Harvard experts uncover the secondary aspects of the problem layer by layer, and thereby get to the very root, which is sometimes not voiced and which needs to be studied closely.
Vacroux cited the problems of anti-COVID-19 vaccination as an example: one part of American society claims that everyone needs to be vaccinated immediately, while the other is convinced that vaccination is part of a government conspiracy. With such polarisation, it is difficult to find a common area from which to proceed. Therefore, when deliberating, it is important to go beyond the declared positions and understand what is really important to both people. It will be quite possible to find common ground using this approach.
Professor Arvid Bell also stressed that there is a difference between positions and interests. Many people believe themselves to be great negotiators when they are in fact just good at haggling like in the good old days. Meanwhile, interest-based negotiations are held based on a completely different principle than bargaining. Negotiators who apply the Harvard Method are much less interested in what lies on the surface, but deal with deep underlying viewpoints and predispositions. Under this approach, it is advisable not so much to "bring down the price" as to clarify with the counterparty why they set that price and why they consider it fair. Before dwelling on the essence of the subject matter, it is recommended to agree on the basic principles of collaboration. A sharing of views will stabilise negotiations more and boost mutual trust.
A successful negotiation strategy consists of a combination of two elements: value creation and value demand. The first implies joint action to create a common good, for example, the creation of a joint venture or a dual programme of partner universities. The second focuses on goal achievement. Negotiators often focus on one thing, and thereby miss promising options. Once you put too much pressure on your counterparty, you may lose the opportunity to achieve win-win. In turn, if you are too kind, the other side may decide that the negotiator is weak and their interests may simply be ignored. The ideal negotiator constantly reconciles how to create value, how to earn, and how not to lose what they highly value. The webinar participants compared the negotiation process with a "dangerous dance" in which one wrong move could lead to a catastrophic fall.
Try the Harvard Method in practice
In the final part of the webinar, the Harvard lecturers spoke about the programme of a three-day course they developed for SKOLKOVO Business School. Training participants will experience a deep simulation of a realistic business environment and life scenarios within which they will need to make complex decisions quickly. A distinctive feature of the course is the almost complete absence of the lecture part — the emphasis in training is on negotiation exercises. Participants will try on the roles of company executives, lawyers, and officials. Each player’s goal is to make a deal on their own terms.
On the first day of the course, participants will be divided into teams. Thereafter, Harvard lecturers will give them a briefing during which they will explain the introductory conditions for their companies, and give them instructions and scenarios. Later, the teams will hold strategic sessions to develop their negotiation strategies and launch bilateral and multilateral negotiations with partners and competitors. The second day of the training will also be fully devoted to negotiations. The participants will record the results achieved and, ideally, conclude the final deal. On the third day, professors from Harvard University and SKOLKOVO Business School will analyse the results of all teams. In addition to the final deal, all negotiation scenarios will be analysed.
The Negotiations in Action course is unique for Russia and Eurasia. Harvard professors will for the first time reproduce in Moscow the game models they use to train negotiators. Working in conditions as close as possible to real scenarios will allow entrepreneurs to gain invaluable experience in concluding deals and finding win-win solutions in a dynamic and competitive environment.
Negotiation in Action: A Hands-on Approach to Negotiation from Harvard University's Davis Center
