What is principled negotiation?

Interviewer: What approach to negotiation is the most popular, widely used in your opinion?

Well the most popular approach to negotiation has become Getting To Yes. Getting To Yes is essentially based on four principles, is the so-called Harvard Negotiation Model. The core principles of getting to yes are essentially people, interests, options and criteria. So the way it works more or less as fellows. The authors of getting to yes tell us that you should always separate the people from the problem. One of the examples I tend to use is for example, when we have compensation conversation, when we are trying to negotiate.

If I say to you, for example, the problem is that you don't understand what I am trying to say, rather than look, perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly, that will make a huge impact for the purposes of having a meaningful conversation. The second principle is that when we negotiate, we should focus on the party's interests and not on the party's positions. So what does that mean? So for example, in the context of a damages claim for Libel, what's really at stake is actually one of the party's reputation, and not a compensation, not a monetary award.

The third principle that you should, when it comes to making decisions, you should try to generate as many options as you possibly can before deciding what to do. The fourth principle is that when it comes to making decisions, you should always rely on an objective criteria. And that has a lot to do with the durability of negotiated agreements. Why has the Harvard approach become so popular? You know, Harvard approach has become really popular because Getting To Yes, is an easy to read text, it has been written for the general public, translated into many different languages that literally hundreds and hundreds of people from all around the world have been making use of it.

I remember when I came across Getting To Yes, that must've been maybe around 20 years ago, I read it and I thought, well, this sounds like an interesting approach. So I am actually going to try that next time I get into negotiation tables. And that really works because it's a very simple approach. It is primarily a matter of common sense. And when you put Getting To Yes, into practise, you are very likely to achieve meaningful results.

Interviewer: There's a lot of focus in negotiation on the difference between interests and positions. How does this influence practise?

I think knowing where parties stand can be helpful, and knowing that you have representation, but you can't negotiate people's positions on an issue, you can really only negotiate what their interests are in it. And those are the tangible items of conversation. A position on something just shows you where they stand, it doesn't show you where they can move to. So it's just a marker in the sand, whereas interests get into the guts of it and allows you to progress a conversation, and maybe meet some of those goals.

Interviewer: What approach to negotiation or negotiation theory is most popular in your experience?

Ury and Fisher's book "Getting to Yes" is a favourite of anybody who's teaching in this field. And it's got some great stuff in it. For me, I particularly like the teaching around putting interests before positions and finding interests. Sometimes they're not obvious, in fact often they're not obvious. But, I strongly believe that these theories about how parties can negotiate commercially and trade issues for issues, and points for points are theories, and they're great to teach from. But in practise, they often don't work and you need something more.

And the reason they don't work is that people in disputes have emotional reactions to what's going on. And we are emotional beings, and we are driven by our emotions, particularly when we're in a conflict situation, and as soon as the emotions kick in, reason goes out the window. So the idea that you can do, a Ury and Fisher "Getting to Yes" negotiation just, it's not going to work, you need something more. I actually much prefer Ury and Fisher's work on "Getting to Past No".

Because for me that's where parties really, really struggle, that's where as a mediator you really start to work, that's where you bring all of your experience of being in this position many, many times comes into play. And frankly, when I'm in that position as a mediator I never know how it's going to resolve, I never know what tools I'm going to use, you just have to be there in the moment, experiencing what's going on with the particular individuals at a particular situation, and find a way of continuing the conversation and moving the parties into the right direction.

So what I'm talking about is impasse, and impasse is something which people who are not experienced with it are frightened of. And often the reaction to impasse is for parties to put on their coats, close their papers, stand up and walk out. And I always think that's perfectly understandable, but actually you're never going to get to yes until you've got to no. So one of the first things is to understand in most negotiations, you are going to get to no, you are going to get to impasse, and that's fine.

You are never going to settle this problem unless you got to no, 'cause you've got to get beyond no. So, and this always throws the parties when we get to no, when we get to impasse and I go. (claps) "Fantastic, this is wonderful." They look at me and think I'm mad. But you know, when I explain to them they understand this is part of the process, you have got to go through this, if you don't go through it you are never going to get this resolved.

So, just see it for what it is and understand that everything is still possible. You may think it's looking very pessimistic, but actually you should be optimistic. And one of the weirdest things about today is that actually after a short while, and the parties have got used to the fact that, actually we have reached no, we have got an impasse, they start thinking about how are we going to get beyond it? And then you can start raising issues that previously they would never have countenance, and that they would not have allowed you to discuss and air.

So it's a wonderful process, getting to yes has its uses it will get you up to impasse, but it won't get you past impasse.

Interviewer: Does it work?

I think generally it does. And I think the reverence towards it is justified for the most part. I think it does create a sense of trust and maybe the Harvard name does at least give it a bit of gravitas that people feel as if it's been studied enough and that it must be a successful method. There are always outliers to any of these processes. With this one, separating people from the problem, sometimes it is, people are the problem. And what if you're the problem?

And in those cases, you're not going to negotiate your way out of that. That is a different process altogether, but in general it creates some guidelines and it has enough success within the corporate world, within the political sector. And they have so many examples on their website and from their history, that I think that the nod to it as an accepted method, maybe even a primary method, is justified.

Interviewer: So aside from getting to yes, what other theories are used in negotiation?

Well, there are many different theories. I think Professor Weingart in particular, she's an American academic, has neatly summarised the key approaches. So when it comes to negotiating, you will have first the individualistic approach, people who will show no regard whatsoever for someone else's interest. Then you will have the co-operative approach, negotiators who will essentially show equal regard towards one another when it comes to negotiating. Third, you will have the competitive approach. And we are talking about negotiators who will have partial regard for someone else's interests.

However, they do see negotiation as a zero sum game. And therefore, if I give you more, I gain less and the other way around. And finally, we will have the altruistic approach, which is very rare in practise, but you will find sometimes altruistic negotiators and essentially they have complete disregard for their own interests.