The Harvard Principles of Negotiation

[@hsetiono]

1. Separate the person from the issue. 2. Negotiate not position-focused, but interest-oriented. 3. Develop criteria that a solution must fulfill. 4. You should have different options to choose from.

[@rossy3lo]

Awesome mate!

[@niklas9948]

Thank you!!

[@fdja001]

Easier to read this than watching the guy talks.

[@uak007]

Thank you!

[@engrvarsi3774]

Thanks... You saved my time.

[@samahirrao]

If this was an Ad on KZbin videos, I won't skip it. This my friend is the highest honor on the internet. I give this to you.

[@philb4201]

Totally works! I couldn’t believe my eyes. Once I reframed the conversation, it worked like magic.

[@-Rishikesh]

play in 1.5x

[@CatsInHats-S.CrouchingTiger]

I never tried this feature before!😹

[@Shamallah]

Thankyou

[@hamzafox2000]

I have try it for the 1st time . thanks a lot

[@anviahuja5983]

You're a saviour

[@nkoli1904]

Thanks for this 🙌🏽

[@LotusITHub]

"Insightful breakdown of negotiation tactics, truly a masterclass in effective communication!"

[@MrGgraham76]

this sounds like a sensible approach, unfortunatley hostile situations don't allow for such well informed and rational decision making.

[@sweetn0thing681]

I agree, not everyone is interested in negotiations, that is when its best to learn when to walk away (for most scenarios)

[@GReid-ol5gk]

I feel ashamed that I'll be 30 in two years and have never known any of these principles of negotiation. I will work relentlessly until I master these concepts. What a wonderful video. Cheers.

[@raulramos1793]

I am almos 50, and I did not have a clue about it!

[@bijutoms9365]

You must remember the party sitting opposite also might have read the 4 principles

[@venkat2002]

I am 46 and doing a small business never heard of these business too, until now it is due to what my partner and wife has done I am surviving, this will give me more insight and take some more responsibility from now onwards

[@alistairlegge7225]

@@bijutoms9365 It is important that they also know these principles. This is not about ‘tricking’ people or parties to gain an advantage but seeking win wins. See also Covey’s 3rd Alternative or the various iterations of restorative justice in non judicial situations. BTW I may have misinterpreted your comment. If so I apologise.

[@kucharzow]

@@bijutoms9365 Then we are in win-win position ;)

[@specialandroid1603]

I had negotiation training (commercial contracts) some time ago. The way to win an otherwise tough negotiation point on a priority contract term was through mis-direction. Show little interest in it - in preference for another term that has low value to you. Negotiate hard if necessary to win the otherwise unwanted point but concede at the last minute in exchange for the first point. Did that several times and it nearly always worked. Often because the other party was not fully aware of value of the won point to one or both parties. That usually happened when the negotiating party was a commercial representative and not a lawyer.

[@loveheals582]

I have practice this a bunch in customer service and it works wonders... a ton is in the delivery of course... but it really works.

[@NeutralNetworkAI]

I appreciate Dr. Henschel's explanation of the Harvard Principles of Negotiation in this video. While negotiating skills are vital, it's essential to recognize that success in the real estate industry also depends on market analysis, sustainability, and adaptation to ever-changing market trends. It's important to celebrate the achievements of all professionals in the industry and appreciate their unique contributions in shaping the real estate landscape. This inclusive approach can inspire others to strive for excellence and create a positive, competitive environment for everyone involved. Let's give credit where it's due and acknowledge the collective effort behind the growth of the industry.

[@cocoarecords]

?

[@robbie6905]

Shit ai go away

[@luiseduardoleal310]

According to "getting to yes", from William Ury, the following are the four basis for negotiation: 1. Separate the people from the problem 2. focus on interests (objetctives), not positions 3. invent options for mutual gains 4. insist on using objective criteria

[@tamgaming9861]

Super cool explained. I make my MBA atm, and have to say this is an awesome presentation to understand it well and easy.

[@pro369]

Note this great phrase: principle, much more organic ,wide. Thanks for expanding our visions

[@rmelotto]

As an IT Supervisor, I agree with him, this is very practical. All the suppliers and different companies that visit you to offer a product/service, they go focused but youre in a superior position because you have the power to choose, so you can squeeze them to see how far they go. The other way, when something bad happens in your servers and you need help, youre in a bad position because you need something urgent and they know it and can ask for a higher price. In both situations, when you have advantage/disadvantage, this 4 principles he said in the video are basically the steps you must have clear in your mind before starting the negotiation. Your side and the opposite side ability to suggest/demand/concede will define if it will be a win-win situation. Or not.

[@artemiswu]

Brilliant! This is the most simple and understandable concept I have ever learned about the negotiation.

[@God-AllahLovesIsrael]

Getting a Yes - but how? Dr. Thomas Henschel explains 'The Harvard Approach' and how to get a Yes in every negotiation. 1. Separate the person from the issue. Don't take it to a negative personal level. 2. Do NOT Negotiate position-focused, but interest-oriented. 3. Carefully develop a set of criteria/requirements that a solution must fulfil, instead of rushing to a solution. 4. You should have several different options to choose from and evaluate them against the criteria.

[@glorgau]

Putin must go!

[@rizkyramdhany4549]

This is the REAL deal. I think this knowledge is very practical in real life situation use. Thanks for the knowledge

[@glorgau]

Nice! A set of principles for corporations to collude on dividing up markets by "negotiating".

[@saratuwakawa1958]

Thank you for this, very helpful. The video was recommended by my international law and art of negotiation lecturer. Glad I watched it.

[@maryellendeveau7402]

the examples were simplistic - and based upon dealing with sane caring people - there be many of us who have experienced family members who just want to bully their own interests and ways because they don't have any conscious to be sane or caring -- going through this much effort would actually require effort - - but yes -- for sure a good short video that proposes a sound approach ---

[@thedwightguy]

I'm in a country WAY TOO MANY people drag every work issue over into their personal space, and make too many issues personal attacks. I DID NOT find this as a young adult growing up on the US west coast. (maybe this doesn't apply TODAY to the USA, but I'm not there)>

[@jguitar23]

Good point. Working on creating consensus with other family members or concerned individuals away from the disordered person can really help manage crazy behaviors. Of course, this is not always possible & often not a quick process. You may probably be frustrated after being subjected to bullying or other extreme behaviors but it is important to keep a cool head while dealing with the disordered person, setting limits with as much help as possible. Often disordered people don't recognize your autonomy, understanding this can help.

[@alexandrumurzac7624]

Clear, concise, to the point!

[@bluetube8824]

This is a great general starting point. I suspect it will face difficulties in some situations, though. For example, with the first principle, suppose that the other party is unwilling to separate person from issue? If they are a rational, economic actor, this should not be the case, but humans are not rational economic actors; if the other person in the negotiation places more value on making you suffer than on actually getting what they want, then, for them, their interest (principle 2) might be "hurt my opponent, and get something out of it if possible." In such cases, it could be argued that separating person from issue is actively detrimental to your own cause, because the tactical mismatch can provide your negotiating partner with leverage for their own goals. Another common occurrence is that principle 2 allows for no common ground to be found; one could easily imagine in the pumpkin example that two of the people who wanted the pumpkin might want it for the same reason; maybe both want to make jack-o-lanterns for their front porch. In such situations, examining each other's interests beyond simple positions is still a good first step, but will ultimately discover that the interests are opposed too, not just the positions. Once this has been determined, it's not clear from these principles what the best approach is to resolve it. Zero-sum situations are less common than we usually perceive, but they are still common, and I'd like a framework that addresses them.

[@VishalSharma-mq7xn]

So wonderfully articulated. Such important points to come to a win win conclusion in negotiations 👍

[@KeithFitzgerald1]

A good attempt. The explanation on criteria here suggests that criteria are subjective lists of qualities they need in an outcome. That makes them function similar to positions (and the explanation given of the difference between criteria and positions is that positions are fixed on one "solution." At the Harvard Negotiation Project, we teach using criteria (standards) as a means to introduce fairness and/or legitimacy into a negotiation; particularly in evaluating options. Some criteria can, of course, be subjective, but objective criteria tend to be more effective; both in protecting yourself from unreasonable demands and in influencing counterparts. These "four principles" are certainly part of the "Harvard model;" but there is certainly more to it than that.

[@PRISCILLARAMONYANE]

You presented this summary so well. Thank you

[@lacdirk]

A more complicated real-world issue is that for many negotiations there simply isn't a win-win outcome. Example: something has happened that will hurt both sides, but a deal can reduce the pain. E.g. a divorce or a brexit. In this case, most of the initial groundwork could entail establishing exactly what happens when there is no deal, so both sides can start looking at the correct baseline when discussing whether a deal is a win. However, that process itself is exceedingly contentious. For instance, in a divorce, one partner can claim that they would win total custody of the kids, so that should be the reference point for winning. Or in a brexit, one side might claim that they would be able to keep all the fish, so that should be the reference point. The other side could see these as threats or unwarranted assertions, complicating the negotiations and making the whole concept of "winning" subjective. A different issue occurs when negotiating objectively limited resources or intrinsically incompatible goals. We could think of negotiations on water rights between countries on the same river, or custody disputes where one side considers the other an active threat to the well-being of the child. In this case a win-win solution isn't possible, and a compromise would really be a loss for one or both sides. So I guess I would like to see an introductory part that explains in which negotiations these principles would be useful. To me, they largely look like they are only useful in very limited commercial settings.

[@phoebexxlouise]

You're right, Harvard is a business school and these principles apply best to business. The main issue in the examples you mention, Divorce and Brexit, is that the people on opposing sides see each other as enemies. They refuse to compromise for emotional reasons as well as reasons of self protection, values, politics and a belief that their way is the right way. A win-win situation could only be possible if both parties were able to put feelings and beliefs aside to look at the facts without emotion. But the issue is complicated, and the communication methods for discussion on the topic are never free from emotion. UK politicians yell at each other and so do separated spouses. This is much easier to implement in a commercial setting.

[@lacdirk]

@@phoebexxlouise Sorry, but ascribing emotions to the EU is not reasonable. Its very raison d'etre is to remove any emotion from negotiations, so actual solutions can be found. There was no rational win possible for the UK in brexit, as the cultural, geopolitical and economic costs were bound to be large. That's why the UK government has defined the matter entirely irrationally and emotionally, even though that actually made the damage to the UK far worse than it needed to be. There was no win possible for the EU either, as losing the leading member was always going to be a real loss. It dealt with the referendum result by a long period of public mourning that ran well into 2017. At the same time the governments negotiated about their priorities, and set up a scale of options that the UK could chose from. By the time the UK got to the negotiating table, it found that May's public speeches had already precluded anything like the deal Leave promised. The UK political class continued to be irrational, grandiose, emotional, self-destructive, angry and bitter because it had no real alternatives. It's hard for Brits to appreciate just how little the EU member states have worried about brexit. They investigated the likely results, took what measures they could, and let the EU coordinate overall assessments, overall responses needed and - of course - handle the succession of emotional clowns that the UK sent to the negotiating table. The emotional war has played almost entirely within the UK, where it continues to destroy civil society and the Union itself.

[@kevins3646]

Amazing video. 8 min video and gives a good framework for negotiation.

[@stahir1878]

Nice to hear from MIT .Thank you

[@zapy422]

1- separate person from issue (the other party is my partner) 2 - orient toward interest not position 3 - define criteria for parties 4 - develop options fulfilling those criteria

[@EvelynAltman-u5x]

I feel like I’m finally getting the hang of this.

[@louisogbeifun8033]

Great insights and useful negotiation skills

[@vpr5562]

As a recruiter - these are spot on!

[@janiekajaggers]

Hooray! It's time to open this email super quickly!

[@tanjidulhassan2999]

Very useful ideas! Thank you sir.

[@acmalki]

Everytime he says Party B, I chuckle a little. Thanks Cardi...

[@Yan-rh7mj]

The wrong way : 1. Problem 2. Solution The right way : 1. Interests (A’s Goals + B’s Goals) 2. Diagnosis (A’s Criterias + B’s Criteria’s) 3. Design (Solutions enumeration) 4. Deal (A’s Criterias U B’s Criterias)

[@somanathpatil2116]

Excellent and Simple way to understand with Simple Examples of Pumpkin and restaurant , with multiple options criteria

[@wghost1]

As a man of principles that is correct but we should also keep in mind that rules can apply depending on the situation because as it's been said sometimes cooperation is not the right thing to do

[@Detaileddesignsautospa]

Here's a pro tip for #4: when presenting options... if you've done a quality discovery by asking your potential client the right questions, your options are not just cookie-cutter options. They are catered to be what is most likely to genuinely present the best fit and your "best fit" would really be best described as your professional recommendation as the most ideal fit for their needs. If you're good at what you do, you are seen as a resource, problem solver and ground zero for the best solution for their needs. Imho, when you're good at your craft/trade, communicate well and truly behave as their fiduciary, you will be very successful at earning their trust and business. Executing this should be natural and not forced. If it is forced, just accept all you care about is making a buck.

[@xubarney1326]

what's the point of the last sentence?

[@Detaileddesignsautospa]

@@xubarney1326 It calls it what it is. It's the opposite of acting as a client's fiduciary. It's an indication that all a vendor cares about is making money and it's nothing to do with being a resource for ones client.

[@xubarney1326]

@@Detaileddesignsautospa well...sure...

[@muhammadrazashahhash]

This is sooo true unfortunately in my country, pakistan we believe in aggressive bargaining, its gets very personal and emotional. Facts go out the window. My approach is very simple you cant force or nag a seller to lower his price, which most people do here. Rather better approach is to find a better seller and do you research. The simple truth is if you business is good you negotiation power will will higher naturally, you cant force yourself to increase your negotiation power while running a shit business

[@fiercefefe]

Grest information for coaching, development and leadership strategies

[@marisortiz273]

I wish he offered real life scenarios to better grasp these concepts.

[@fatweeb7471]

i can offer a bit on the first principle, "separate the person from the issue". so say there's this video that's not very informative, you could mention it "hey this is a bad video why didn't you mention this", or you could make up a character that makes similar mistakes in not making their video informative or applicable for example; "hey this teddy made this video about how to tell what type of bear is in your forest while hunting, but never mentions what behavior these bears do, because in a low light situation it would be very hard to tell what type of bear it is, so shouldn't teddy have mentioned their behavior?" and then if they agree with you saying something like "yes teddy should've mentioned that in their video" you can then follow it up with your point of view of the video, or make up another character cementing them in their position of how teddy,bob,sheryl,johanson,etc should've made their video.

[@kerrymoy5104]

Great video! Thanks for posting.

[@Stephen-zq2wf]

Principles Vs Rules = Great Place to Start

[@wernerbloemwagen6878]

A long, almost arduous explanation for what rugby players hear at every practice : "PLAY THE BALL AND NOT THE MAN"

[@santisiritheerajesd4018]

Thank you for the knowledge. Very useful.

[@TheHochschieber]

I‘ve spent three days on negotiation courses at business school… the whole learning can be condensed into 4 points, and you even don‘t have to listen to this whole video. Skip to 8:00 and safe your time for something different ;)

[@nightowl5475]

Never negotiate from a position of weakness. Then I would find out everything I can about the weaknesses of the company and how I can make a few of those weaknesses go away. If things start to turn against me, say there’s a biding war. Learn to walk away. Don’t get caught up in that. If things get way too out of control, just be polite with everyone and tell them, I’m out of this hand. Too rich for my blood fellows and walk. Changes are you’ll be able to plug up the holes with other people.

[@tondamhone3352]

This is mind blowing!

[@MariaRamirez-gq2bz]

this is very usefull for the day to day life, i really apreciate the time you take for share this

[@Vlogoosh]

Thank You so much for this video!

[@ranib.el-ayoubi6323]

Perfect Elaboration, Thank you

[@ministry_of_love]

Helped me immensely in my work. Thanks very much.

[@diamondmeeple]

Love the color usage.

[@navanjungrewal9853]

Very interesting discussion!

[@kristine6996]

I wonder How all the people on earth who didn't study in Harvard still do cooperate. It has to be a miracle!

[@juvent.h6699]

They somehow follow them using common sense. With the distractions of the world and the business of the mind, commonsense is sometimes lost; hence the need for principles. They make the process robotic and effective, be there commonsense or not. Thanks!

[@brynleytalbot778]

Truth be told, they don't if they reach "manager" positions. How do you think the 1% are so successful. They know there's a middle ground and don't see that as giving in or losing. Your manager just wants to be boss and obeyed. The miracle is that these people are growing exponentially in organisational hierarchies, and they go right to the senior positions. It's common sense, as noted above, but that's gone out of the window when stupid people are promoted on hierarchical support structure schemes of arse covering. They can't negotiate. They just obey each other.

[@mmmedia.43]

This video helps me understand the whole concept better than my tutor did lolll

[@natrajanramkrishna6346]

Brilliant!

[@irenenjogu1034]

i like the flow and clarity

[@barbaraguttman7422]

brilliant video!

[@khoivuong5044]

I'm a beginner in learning English and I'm watching this video to practice my listening skill. I found some mistakes of the speaker ( more wider, /s/ at the end of were). I wonder if it is normal for a native to make these mistakes. Grateful for your answers you guys.

[@atl-m1j]

I am pretty sure that he is not a native speaker, a native american would say were (wer, Pronunciation) The s is usually not that wide as the speaker said it

[@youseffarawila8125]

Fantastic!

[@danielvelez307]

excellent summary

[@sundeepsingh8745]

Very informative. Thank you.

[@augustayarteh7524]

Sound explanation to know how to full principles. Great video to know and to see. Seperation is good from the issues that will come up in the business or organizations. Sound one sir. Workers should be well orientated in the business. Nice video

[@keobunly1517]

Great for sharing

[@christophermoody1448]

How do you apply these principles when you are attempting to negotiate from a disadvantage?

[@lacdirk]

With disadvantage you presumably mean that you lose more than the other side in case the negotiations fail? It shouldn't matter for the principles of the negotiations, though. Perhaps you will be (even) more motivated to look for a win-win solution, as any compromise is likely to be biased against you. And I guess the biggest concern is that #1 is going to be even harder to achieve: if you are at a disadvantage, it may psychologically be harder to see the other side as a partner rather than an opponent.

[@LudwigSauerteig]

Good one. Harvard main is case.

[@Mr23021969]

Great negotiating advice 😏

[@samuel.pitanapi]

Great really Helpful..💕

[@donald-parker]

And 0) Agree on what the issue(s)/question(s)/decision(s) you are faced with is(are).

[@esq.m7076]

Objectivity ... Integrity of Interest ... Solution Based Criterion ... Alternative Bargaining Points ... Cooperatives never Bullets ... last one biting the bullets is the resolver 😄 ... 👍🏼❤️

[@jsk6346]

Thank you for this good video~.

[@KeenyNewton]

Excellent points and explanation. Just one Q. Who is this “Harvard people”?

[@worldofpoliticalscience9669]

People.: People and problem are treated separately. Interests:. Don't represent position s,but put intersts at the center. Option: before deciding, develop and range of option . Criteria: the results are built on objective pronciples of decision making .

[@Udin-]

Can someone please explain on how to 'separates people from the issue'? I don't really understand. Sorry for my bad english

[@rafaelludicanti2]

So lets assume my creteria forreward is having acces to what is driven to fulfill me. For example. What options do I have of what I would I want that wants me the most in for what I want to be wanted?

[@dougmcdaniel8869]

helpful, used in associate training on negotiating today - Thanks!

[@lowerlowerhk]

All these pinciples boils down to one rule (yes a rule not principle): identify the person's hierarchy of interests and provides solutions that serve his higher interest enough that he is willing to give up or change his lower interest that conflicts with yours. Using the pumpkin example as in the video, both you and the other guy wants a pumpkin but the other guy wants to use it as a seat. If you can offer him a seat he will be willing to give your the pumpkin. Here the desire for a seat is the higher interest and the seat is the lower interest. This rule is recursive. Let's say you have no seat to provide but you know that he wants a seat because he wants take a nap. If you happen to have a bedplace he will be willing to forget about the seat and the pumpkin altogether.

[@kucharzow]

This is like saying: "if know everything you will easily reach your goals". Scio me nihil scire. This sounds like narcism and treating people from above. May have misunderstood but you would have to be a friend of such a person you describe to know such things.

[@lowerlowerhk]

@@kucharzow Understanding others' interest doesn't conflict with building genuine friendship, but I will take that in mind.

[@alinuromer5876]

Great 👍 Teacher

[@khandcme]

Splendid solution to deal with difficult situations. Thank you very much.

[@Lemo-o3d]

So good!

[@tylerlynch2849]

Succint and well-explained!

[@abdulbasital-sufyani6828]

Thank you so much... extremely good

[@loaiabduh]

Negotiation Courses are not only for employees in the business arena. Governments leaders and politicians, from all around the world, should attend such courses as well, shouldn't they? We are at the end of the Year 2019, and it seems that the next one (i.e. the Year 2020) will be a twisting point for world countries. Let us wish for the best.

[@alesiomuriithi254]

Lol,prophet

[@anonymoussomething1256]

@@alesiomuriithi254 twist indeed 😭😭

[@democrazy7546]

Wow. nice explanation.

[@PiranhaJaw22]

now I can say I attended Harvard. thank you

[@AAhmed79]

wonderful !!!

[@aasavareekale6099]

Simply Excellent 👍

[@shotatoriumi7470]

these are very good.

[@Shfl99]

Where is his next video?

[@mariob.6418]

👌Thanks a lot for a kompressed Focus.

[@delightyoutube]

Hi sir, nicely explained. If all the three are asking for full plum? What principle has to be adopted?

[@joentell]

Are those the guys that Chris Voss talked about "schooling" in his book?

[@atulrank4240]

Excellent

[@namanpsinghal6824]

New drinking game: Drink every time he says Harvard people.

[@lordfnord5768]

Harvard? The losers who couldn't get into MIT.

[@jimbeam4736]

The keyword "Harvard" is the reason this video got that many views.

[@OmOmnath-l9n]

7:06 well i wouldnt say fulfill all criteria, but rather most of the criterias of both the parties.

[@marcalcober3672]

Lesson to be learned: dont think you can negotiate with some who has the means and motivation to annihilate you and profits from it.

[@chasehughesofficial]

It's amazing how Harvard studies behavior and humans - and still, every book and lecture is blander than the last.

[@sathsah1593]

hahaha

[@johnstonemulary4282]

Separate the person from the issue. 2. Negotiate not position-focused, but interest-oriented. 3. Develop criteria that a solution must fulfill. 4. You should have different options to choose from.

[@sameerkhullar25]

Very interesting!

[@patrickrojo7105]

1. Objetivos (interés) en común Objetivos A + Objetivos B 2. Diagnóstico Criterio A + Criterio B 3. Solución ATZ 4. Acuerdos Criterio A U Criterio B