problem solving negotiation strategy example

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What’s Your Negotiation Strategy?

• Jonathan Hughes
• Danny Ertel

Many people don’t tackle negotiations in a proactive way; instead, they simply react to moves the other side makes. While that approach may work in a lot of instances, complex deals demand a much more strategic approach.

The best negotiators look beyond their immediate counterparts to see if other constituencies have a stake in the deal’s outcome or value to contribute; rethink the scope and timing of talks; and search for connections across multiple deals. They also get creative about the process and framing of negotiations, ditching the binary thinking that can lock negotiators into unproductive zero-sum postures.

Applying such strategic techniques will allow dealmakers to find novel sources of leverage, realize bigger opportunities, and achieve outcomes that maximize value for both sides.

Here’s how to avoid reactive dealmaking

Idea in Brief

The challenge.

Negotiators often mainly react to the other side’s moves. But for complex deals, a proactive approach is needed.

The Strategy

Strategic negotiators look beyond their immediate counterpart for stakeholders who can influence the deal. They intentionally control the scope and timing of talks, search for novel sources of leverage, and seek connections across multiple deals.

Tactical negotiating can lock parties into a zero-sum posture, in which the goal is to capture as much value from the other side as possible. Well-thought-out strategies suppress the urge to react to moves or to take preemptive action based on fears about the other side’s intentions. They lead to deals that maximize value for both sides.

When we advise our clients on negotiations, we often ask them how they intend to formulate a negotiation strategy. Most reply that they’ll do some planning before engaging with their counterparts—for instance, by identifying each side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) or by researching the other party’s key interests. But beyond that, they feel limited in how well they can prepare. What we hear most often is “It depends on what the other side does.”

• JH Jonathan Hughes is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global consultancy specializing in strategic partnerships and complex negotiations.
• Danny Ertel is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global consultancy specializing in strategic partnerships and complex negotiations.

Partner Center

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

How to Prepare for a Negotiation

• 27 Jun 2023

Preparing for expected and unexpected outcomes is essential to negotiating effectively. Negotiations can be unpredictable and challenging—it's difficult to know how the other party will react to your proposition. Planning can make the difference between success and failure.

If you need to prepare for a difficult negotiation, here are seven steps to achieving the best outcome.

Access your free e-book today.

7 Steps to Preparing for a Negotiation

1. build a relationship.

Building a relationship with your counterpart is vital. If possible, get to know them and establish a rapport before the negotiation begins.

You can build trust during the negotiation, too. Be open to their thoughts and opinions, and engage in active listening. Doing so can facilitate open communication and productive problem-solving. It can also provide insight into their motivations and priorities, enabling you to personalize your approach.

2. Set Clear Goals

Setting clear goals is one of the most important negotiation tactics . Ensure you know what you're aiming for, and set a stretch goal—one that's unlikely but possible.

Understanding your values, boundaries, and non-negotiables is just as crucial as having specific, tangible goals when entering the negotiation.

“You should define your values clearly before you negotiate," says Harvard Business School Professor Michael Wheeler in the online course Negotiation Mastery . "These are important decisions. Making them on the fly could cause you later regret.”

Be aware that your counterpart may hold different values. Recognize and anticipate that scenario while upholding your principles.

3. Know Your BATNA

Before approaching the bargaining table, you need to know the negotiation’s conditions. While you'll ideally find common ground with your counterpart, you possibly won’t, preventing you from achieving your desired outcome.

“It may seem odd, but the first thing to consider in preparation is what you’ll do if you're not able to reach an agreement,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery .

The unfortunate truth is that your counterpart may not agree to your terms. If you can't resolve your differences, consider your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) , the course you'll take if the negotiation doesn't go how you want.

4. Strategize

Developing an effective negotiation strategy is critical to your preparation. Consider various factors, including your desired outcome, priorities and interests, assessment of the other party's goals and objectives, and any leverage or alternatives you have.

Determine the following:

• Your motivation for pursuing the negotiation
• The other party’s motivation for engaging with you
• How to create value for your counterpart

A well-developed negotiation strategy can help you stay focused and confident and make tactical decisions at the bargaining table. By thinking through potential scenarios and anticipating the other party's reactions and counterproposals, you'll be more prepared to respond in a manner that advances your interests.

“Put yourself in your counterpart's shoes," Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . "Think about what conditions might exist that would make them especially eager to deal with you.”

Related: 4 Examples of Business Negotiation Strategies

5. Be Ready to Improvise

The reality of negotiation is that it's unpredictable. Being prepared is key, but you must also be flexible and adaptable.

Anticipate various situations so you’re ready to think on your feet . Consider negotiating with friends or colleagues to practice improvising on the spot.

Remember: The more thoroughly you prepare, the better you'll be to handle the other party’s responses. Think through the best and worst outcomes and how you'll respond to each. Know what you’ll do if your counterpart is unwilling to listen to your thoughts, misunderstands your intentions, or even stereotypes you .

6. Develop Your Negotiation Skills

Have a variety of negotiation skills in your toolkit and take steps to develop them.

“Enhancing your negotiation skills has an enormous payoff,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . “It allows you to reach agreements that might otherwise slip through your fingers.”

Focus on improving skills like emotional intelligence , which can help you effectively empathize with others, communicate, and manage conflict in negotiations and business endeavors.

Check out the video below to learn more about essential negotiation skills you should develop, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

7. Know What Not to Do

There are several mistakes to avoid during the negotiation process that can hurt your reputation with your counterpart or even cause them to outright reject your proposal.

Refrain from the following:

• Forgetting to shake hands: It's crucial to start the conversation on the right note. Something as simple as forgetting to shake your counterpart's hand can decrease your chances of success.
• Allowing stress and anxiety to impact your demeanor: Feeling anxious is a natural part of negotiating. Instead of letting your anxiety negatively impact the conversation, channel it into excitement and use your emotions to your advantage .
• Not having an open mind: Listen to what the other party has to say. You might reach a mutually beneficial arrangement you hadn't previously considered.
• Negotiating against yourself: Don't start with the lowest offer you're willing to accept hoping it'll increase your chances of success. Be confident and assertive, and negotiate for what you want.
• Being aggressive or accusatory: While confidence is important, rudeness can result in a failed negotiation. Be polite, and don't be afraid to take a break or pause before speaking if you get frustrated.
• Immediately giving in to ultimatums: Misunderstandings can lead to hard stances. If you're faced with an ultimatum, don't immediately walk away from the negotiation. Continuing the conversation could help your counterpart gain clarity.

More importantly, don't sacrifice your integrity.

“Make sure that there's a clear understanding about how far you're willing to go when you're negotiating on behalf of other people or your organization," Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . "The people you're negotiating for deserve to know what lines you won't cross.”

Avoiding these mistakes is vital to becoming a good negotiator and achieving your desired outcomes.

Maximize Your Negotiation Success with an Online Course

If you want to improve your negotiation skills, remember that negotiations occur in both your personal and professional life.

Keep track of everyday negotiations—like resolving family conflicts or asking for favors—and reflect on them to learn what did and didn’t work. You can apply those lessons to business negotiations and better understand your strengths and weaknesses.

Another effective way to prepare for the bargaining table is through online negotiation training . For instance, Negotiation Mastery can equip you with the knowledge and skills to succeed in a range of situations, such as securing a business deal, advancing your career , or increasing your salary . It also provides simulations that enable you to gain practical experience with peers.

The time and effort you invest into preparing for a negotiation can pay dividends. If you're hoping for the best possible outcome, don't forget to plan ahead—you'll be glad you did over the long term.

Are you ready to take the next steps in developing your negotiation skills and furthering your career? Explore our online course Negotiation Mastery —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to become a more effective leader.

About the Author

Negotiation Strategy: Types, Techniques & Examples

A negotiation strategy is a planned approach to reaching a mutually beneficial agreement between two or more parties involved in a negotiation. It involves identifying and analyzing the issues being negotiated, setting priorities, determining the desired outcomes, and preparing a plan of action to achieve those outcomes.

Effective negotiation strategies require careful planning, good communication skills, and an understanding of the interests and motivations of all parties involved.

Some common negotiation strategies include distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation, cooperative negotiation, competitive negotiation, and compromise. It’s important to note that each negotiation situation is unique, and the best strategy will depend on the specific circumstances and goals of the negotiation.

Ultimately, the success of a negotiation strategy depends on the ability of all parties involved to communicate effectively, build trust, and work collaboratively to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

Types or Techniques of Negotiation Strategies

Distributive negotiation: .

Distributive negotiation is a strategy where two parties negotiate to divide a fixed amount of resources, usually money or goods. This strategy is also known as “win-lose” negotiation, where each party tries to maximize its share of the resources at the other party’s expense.

For example, when negotiating a salary, the employee may ask for a higher salary, while the employer may offer a lower salary. The goal is to find a compromise that is acceptable to both parties. The following are some key characteristics of the distributive negotiation strategy:

• Fixed pie: In a distributive negotiation, the resources to be divided are perceived as a fixed pie, and any gain by one party must come at the expense of the other party.
• Zero-sum game: Distributive negotiation is a zero-sum game where the gains and losses of the other party mirror the gains and losses of one party.
• Competitive approach: Each party is focused on achieving its goals and maximizing its share of the resources rather than trying to find a mutually beneficial solution.
• Limited information sharing: In a distributive negotiation, each party may try to keep information about their priorities and preferences confidential to gain an advantage.
• Short-term perspective: The parties are focused on the immediate outcome of the negotiation rather than considering the long-term relationship between them.

The distributive negotiation strategy can be effective when the parties have conflicting interests and limited options for creating value. However, it can also lead to a breakdown in communication and a lack of trust between the parties if they perceive the negotiation as unfair or coercive.

Integrative or Collaborative negotiation: 

Integrative or collaborative negotiation is a strategy for both parties to create a mutually beneficial agreement. The goal of integrative negotiation is to maximize the value of the negotiation by finding ways for both parties to achieve their goals. This is also known as a “win-win” negotiation.

For example, when negotiating a contract, both parties may agree on the terms and conditions that benefit both parties. The goal is to create a win-win situation. The following are some key elements of an integrative negotiation strategy:

• Focus on interests: Instead of focusing on positions or demands, focus on both parties’ underlying interests and needs. Understanding each other’s interests allows you to find creative solutions that benefit both parties.
• Generate options: Brainstorm possible solutions that meet the needs of both parties. Be open to new and creative ideas, and avoid being too attached to any particular solution.
• Share information: Be transparent and share as much information as possible. This helps build trust and can lead to more creative solutions.
• Build relationships: Develop a positive relationship with the other party. This can help create a collaborative atmosphere and make it easier to find common ground.
• Use objective criteria: Use objective criteria to evaluate possible solutions. This helps avoid a situation where one party feels like losing or being taken advantage of.
• Be willing to compromise: In integrative negotiation, both parties must compromise. Be ready to give up something to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement.

Overall, an integrative or collaborative negotiation strategy involves a mindset of collaboration and focusing on finding solutions that benefit both parties. It can be more effective than a competitive or adversarial negotiation strategy, especially when the parties have ongoing relationships they want to preserve.

Competitive negotiation: 

A competitive negotiation strategy involves a win-lose mentality where one party seeks to gain the upper hand over the other party. This negotiation approach is typically used when the parties have conflicting interests, or one party has more power or leverage than the other.

For example, when negotiating a sale, the buyer may try to negotiate a lower price by threatening to buy from a competitor. Here are some key strategies to consider when engaging in a competitive negotiation:

• Set aggressive goals: Establish ambitious goals that push the other party to make concessions and move towards your preferred outcome.
• Use anchoring: Start with an extreme opening offer or anchor to establish a favorable negotiation starting point.
• Make small concessions: Make small concessions early on to gain momentum and build trust. This can help establish a positive tone for the negotiation and encourage the other party to reciprocate.
• Use power effectively: Leverage any power you have, whether expertise, resources, or relationships, to gain an advantage in negotiations.
• Focus on outcomes, not relationships: Prioritize achieving your desired outcome over maintaining a positive relationship with the other party.
• Use deadlines to your advantage: Establish deadlines that create a sense of urgency and compel the other party to make concessions.
• Be willing to walk away: Know your bottom line and be prepared to walk away if you cannot reach an acceptable agreement.

It’s worth noting that a competitive negotiation approach can lead to strained relationships and can sometimes result in a suboptimal outcome for both parties. It’s important to weigh a competitive strategy’s potential risks and benefits before deciding whether it’s the right approach for your negotiation.

Compromising negotiation: 

A compromising negotiation strategy involves both parties in a negotiation giving up something in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. It is also known as a “middle-ground” approach, where each party makes concessions to reach a resolution.

For example, when negotiating a contract, both parties may compromise on certain terms and conditions to reach an agreement. The goal is to find an acceptable middle ground for both parties. Here are some tips on how to use a compromising negotiation strategy effectively:

• Identify common ground: Find areas where both parties can agree and build the negotiation.
• Prioritize objectives: Determine which are most important and which can be compromised.
• Offer and request concessions: Propose a compromise that both parties can accept. Offer to concede if the other party is also willing to make a concession.
• Be flexible: Be willing to modify your position if it leads to a mutually acceptable agreement.
• Maintain a positive attitude: Keep a constructive tone and focus on finding solutions rather than engaging in a win-lose mentality.
• Know your limits: Understand what concessions you can make and what would be a deal-breaker.

By using a compromising negotiation strategy, both parties can walk away from the negotiation feeling like they have achieved some of their objectives and have reached a fair agreement that works for both sides.

Power-based Negotiations

Power-based negotiation strategy is a type of negotiation where one party uses their power, status, or influence to gain an advantage over the other party. This type of negotiation can be effective when the two parties have unequal power, or one party has a clear advantage over the other.

For example, when negotiating a contract, one party may use their power and influence to force the other party to agree to their terms. The goal is to use power to gain an advantage in the negotiation. Some common power-based negotiation strategies include:

• Threats: A party can threaten to take certain actions if the other party does not agree to its terms. This can include threats of legal action, termination of a contract, or other consequences.
• Ultimatums: An ultimatum demands that the other party comply with or face negative consequences. This is often used when one party has a clear advantage over another.
• Use of Authority: A party can use authority to push for its desired outcome. This can include using their position or title to influence the other party.
• Control of Resources: A party can use its control over resources, such as money or information, to gain an advantage in the negotiation.

While power-based negotiation can be effective in some situations, it can also harm the long-term relationship between the parties. It is vital to approach negotiations with a balance of power and to seek mutually beneficial solutions whenever possible.

Related Posts

Business Performance Analysis

Demand Based Pricing: Meaning | Examples | Types

B2B2C: Meaning | Examples | Business Model | Marketing

Inventory Management Techniques

How do you design the strategy of your PowerPoint?

The Art of Persuasion: Techniques for Influencing Buying Decisions

Organizational Culture: Defining | Improving | Examples

Organizational Restructuring: Meaning | Process | Examples

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

• Browse Topics
• Executive Committee
• Affiliated Faculty
• Harvard Negotiation Project
• Great Negotiator
• American Secretaries of State Project
• Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
• Negotiation Programs
• Mediation Programs
• One-Day Programs
• In-House Training and Custom Programs
• In-Person Programs
• Online Programs
• Advanced Materials Search
• Contact Information
• The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Negotiation Journal
• Harvard Negotiation Law Review
• Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Event Series
• Our Mission
• Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

10 Real-World Negotiation Examples

Real-world negotiation examples—whether successes, failures, or somewhere in between—often offer useful lessons for those involved in business negotiations. here’s an overview of what we can learn from some recent real-world negotiation examples..

By PON Staff — on February 15th, 2024 / Negotiation Skills

Real-world negotiation examples can help us learn from the past and avoid repeating others’ mistakes.

Here’s a recap of 10 real-world negotiation examples across government and industry that provide negotiation lessons for all business negotiators .

10. The Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement In early February 2012, following months of difficult negotiations, the attorneys general of 49 states and the Obama administration reached a settlement agreement with five of the nation’s largest banks aimed at stabilizing the U.S. housing market and punishing the banks for foreclosure abuses. Some analysts cheered the agreement as a positive sign that the country was moving on from the housing crisis, while others criticized it for helping only a fraction of affected homeowners. This reflects the difficulty of balancing multiple goals in complex multiparty negotiations—a challenge that stronger communication and negotiation could help to resolve.

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator , from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

8. Salary Negotiation Laws On August 1, 2016, a new law was passed in Massachusetts to prevent employers from asking prospective workers to provide their salary history. The law also allows employees to discuss their salaries with their colleagues without facing retribution from their employers. Like similar laws recently passed in other states, the measure marks a step toward more equitable and rational job negotiations.

7. Wins for U.S. Women’s Hockey and Soccer  The U.S. national women’s hockey and soccer teams convinced their sports’ governing federations to fundamentally restructure their labor contracts in 2017. The teams followed different playbooks in demonstrating characteristics of win-win negotiation. Having historically worked for almost no pay, the women’s hockey team negotiated for a living wage and benefits by publicizing their treatment on social media and threatening to boycott their championship tournament. Meanwhile, U.S. women’s soccer team members took greater control over their negotiation and tried a more collaborative approach.

6. Amazon’s HQ2 Stunt Amazon drummed up plenty of PR when it enticed more than 200 North American cities and regions to compete to host its second headquarters, dubbed HQ2. But in November 2018, some of that PR turned negative when Amazon revealed it had decided to split HQ2 between New York City and Arlington, VA , where it already has a strong presence. Many called the auction a farce aimed at attracting privileged data from applicants, and the $2 billion in tax breaks promised by New York and Virginia also left local politicians and residents crying foul. As the story shows, negotiation stunts often backfire.

5. The Chaotic Quest for PPE As Covid-19 descended on the United States in 2020, state governors and Congress urged the White House to put the Federal Emergency Management Agency in charge of securing and distributing much-needed personal protective equipment (PPE), coronavirus tests, and ventilators. But then-President Donald Trump encouraged the states to try to buy and distribute supplies themselves instead. The quest for desperately needed supplies and equipment turned into a chaotic free-for-all —a deadly and devastating illustration of destructive competition in negotiation.

4. Brexit, Finally In the final days of 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom agreed to terms for a post-Brexit future after four years of bitter government negotiations and impasse. To close the deal, then-U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson had to make significant concessions, including on state aid to businesses and European fishing rights. But the agreement brought widespread relief at the prospect of heading off a possible “no-deal Brexit.”

3. Rivals Team Up for Vaccine Production After pharmaceutical company Merck failed to develop an effective Covid-19 vaccine in early 2021, U.S. officials asked the company to help competitor Johnson & Johnson bring its vaccine to the public. Merck agreed to take the plunge after the government offered more than $250 million toward the effort. Also in 2021, Swiss pharmaceutical firm Novartis and French drugmaker Sanofi helped Pfizer and BioNTech produce their highly effective Covid-19 vaccine. As these stories show, crisis negotiations can harness rivals’ complementary capabilities.

2. Covid-19 and Broken Contracts As a result of the pandemic, many deals in progress became inadvisable or impossible to carry out. Corporate buyout firm Sycamore Partners tried to renege on buying struggling lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret. The parties ultimately abandoned the acquisition . And Japanese conglomerate SoftBank pulled out of a deal to buy $3 billion of stock from investors and employees of WeWork, whose office-leasing business model disintegrated during the pandemic. The crisis highlights the need to prepare for the worst when it’s time to negotiate business contracts.

1. The West Unites on Russia Sanctions Just days after Russia attacked Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the European Union, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced they would unleash the most punishing sanctions package ever deployed against a single country—the result of feverish negotiations that caused the Russian ruble to collapse. The determination and tenacity of the Ukrainian people and their leader, President Volodymyr Zelensky, inspired parties in the West to come together.

What lessons have you learned from these and other real-world negotiation examples?

Related Posts

• Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground
• Influence Tactics in Negotiation
• What Is Distributive Negotiation?
• Negotiation Team Strategy
• Negotiation Techniques To Get New Business Partnerships Off on the Right Foot

No Responses to “10 Real-World Negotiation Examples”

One response to “10 real-world negotiation examples”.

Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilm looks like an interesting read as I thought Lucasfilm would never sell as this was an obvious sign that new Star Wars films were in Disney’s horizon which would upset a lot of fans.

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Make the Most of Online Negotiations
• Managing Multiparty Negotiations
• Getting the Deal Done
• Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

• Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

• Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
• For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
• BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
• Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
• Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
• The Process of Business Negotiation
• Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
• Sales Negotiation Techniques
• M&A Negotiation Strategy: Missed Opportunities in Musk’s Twitter Deal
• How to Negotiate in Good Faith
• Value Conflict: What It Is and How to Resolve It
• Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts: Hostage Negotiation Tips for Business Negotiators
• Negotiating the Good Friday Agreement
• Communication and Conflict Management: Responding to Tough Questions
• How to Maintain Your Power While Engaging in Conflict Resolution
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
• Crisis Negotiation Skills: The Hostage Negotiator’s Drill
• Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
• Managing Difficult Employees, and Those Who Just Seem Difficult
• How to Deal with Difficult Customers
• Negotiating with Difficult Personalities and “Dark” Personality Traits
• Consensus-Building Techniques
• Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• Writing the Negotiated Agreement
• The Winner’s Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions
• Understanding Exclusive Negotiation Periods in Business Negotiations
• Negotiation Case Studies: Google’s Approach to Dispute Resolution
• What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Examples: Restorative Justice
• Choose the Right Dispute Resolution Process
• Union Strikes and Dispute Resolution Strategies
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
• Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
• Government Negotiations: The Brittney Griner Case
• The Pros and Cons of Back-Channel Negotiations
• Managing Cultural Differences in Negotiation
• How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
• Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
• The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
• Servant Leadership and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
• The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
• Negotiations and Logrolling: Discover Opportunities to Generate Mutual Gains
• Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
• Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
• 10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
• Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
• How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
• Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
• How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
• Camp Lemonnier: Negotiating a Lease Agreement for a Key Military Base in Africa
• New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
• New Simulation: International Business Acquisition Negotiated Online
• Teach Your Students to Take Their Mediation Skills to the Next Level
• Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation
• Labor Negotiation Strategies

PON Publications

• Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
• New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
• Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
• Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
• Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
• Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.

24 Conflict and Negotiation

Learning Objectives

• Define conflict
• Differentiate between functional and dysfunctional conflict
• Recognize various types of conflict in groups
• Describe the conflict process
• Identify and apply strategies for preventing or reducing conflict in groups

Definitions of Conflict

Hocker and Wilmot (2001) defined conflict as an expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient. Let’s examine the ingredients in their definition.

First of all, conflict must be expressed. If two members of a group dislike each other or disagree with each other’s viewpoints but never show those sentiments, there’s no conflict.

Second, conflict takes place between or among parties who are interdependent—that is, who need each other to accomplish something. If they can get what they want without each other, they may differ in how they do so, but they won’t come into conflict.

Finally, conflict involves clashes over what people want or over the means for them to achieve it. Party A wants X, whereas party B wants Y. If they either can’t both have what they want at all, or they can’t each have what they want to the degree that they would prefer to, conflict will arise.

The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict

There are some circumstances in which a moderate amount of conflict can be helpful. For example, conflict can stimulate innovation and change. Conflict can help individuals and group members grow and develop self-identities. As noted by Coser (1956):

Conflict, which aims at a resolution of tension between antagonists, is likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the relationship. By permitting immediate and direct expression of rival claims, such social systems are able to readjust their structures by eliminating their sources of dissatisfaction. The multiple conflicts which they experience may serve to eliminate the causes for dissociation and to re-establish unity. These systems avail themselves, through the toleration and institutionalization of conflict, of an important stabilizing mechanism.

Conflict can have negative consequences when people divert energies away from performance and goal attainment and direct them toward resolving the conflict. Continued conflict can take a heavy toll in terms of psychological well-being. Conflict has a major influence on stress and the psychophysical consequences of stress. Finally, continued conflict can also affect the social climate of the group and inhibit group cohesiveness.

Thus, conflict can be either functional or dysfunctional depending upon the nature of the conflict, its intensity, and its duration. Indeed, both too much and too little conflict can lead to a variety of negative outcomes, as discussed above. This is shown in Figure 1 . In such circumstances, a moderate amount of conflict may be the best course of action. The issue for groups, therefore, is not how to eliminate conflict but rather how to manage and resolve it when it occurs.

Types of Conflict

Group conflicts may deal with many topics, needs, and elements. Kelly (2006) identified the following five types of conflict:

First, there are conflicts of substance . These conflicts, which relate to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts. If Terry thinks the biology assignment requires an annotated bibliography but Robin believes a simple list of readings will suffice, they’re in a conflict of substance. Another term for this kind of conflict is “intrinsic conflict.”

Conflicts of value are those in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order. The famous sociologist Milton Rokeach (1979), for instance, found that freedom and equality constitute values in the four major political systems of the past 100 years—communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism. What differentiated the systems, however, was the degree to which proponents of each system ranked those two key values. According to Rokeach’s analysis, socialism holds both values highly; fascism holds them in low regard; communism values equality over freedom, and capitalism values freedom over equality. As we all know, conflict among proponents of these four political systems preoccupied people and governments for the better part of the twentieth century.

Conflicts of process arise when people differ over how to reach goals or pursue values which they share. How closely should they stick to rules and timelines, for instance, and when should they let their hair down and simply brainstorm new ideas? What about when multiple topics and challenges are intertwined; how and when should the group deal with each one? Another term for these disputes is “task conflicts.”

Conflicts of misperceived differences come up when people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously. You can probably think of several times in your life when you first thought you disagreed with other people but later found out that you’d just misunderstood something they said and that you actually shared a perspective with them. Or perhaps you attributed a different motive to them than what really underlay their actions. One misconception about conflict, however, is that it always arises from misunderstandings. This isn’t the case, however. Robert Doolittle (1976) noted that “some of the most serious conflicts occur among individuals and groups who understand each other very well but who strongly disagree.”

The first four kinds of conflict may interact with each other over time, either reinforcing or weakening each other’s impact. They may also ebb and flow according to the topics and conditions a group confronts. Even if they’re dealt with well, however, further emotional and personal kinds of conflict can occur in a group. Relationship conflicts , also known as personality clashes, often involve people’s egos and sense of self-worth. Relationship conflicts tend to be particularly difficult to cope with since they frequently aren’t admitted for what they are. Many times, they arise in a struggle for superiority or status.

A Model of the Conflict Process

The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas (1976). This model consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.

Stage 1: Frustration

As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration  in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.

Stage 2: Conceptualization

In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.

Stage 3: Behavior

The third stage in Thomas’s model is actual  behavior . As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution: (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating (see Table 1 ).

The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party  (see Figure 2 ). According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns—called assertiveness —and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent’s concerns—called  cooperativeness . Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.

Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns—either consciously or unconsciously—the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen (see the upper left-hand corner of Figure 2 ). On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management’s concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the figure).

What is interesting in this process is the assumptions people make about their own modes compared to their opponents’. For example, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents as using a competitive mode almost exclusively (Thomas & Pondy, 1967). In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents’ concerns as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute.

Stage 4: Outcome. Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict, as shown in the preceding figure. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.

RECOGNIZING YOUR EMOTIONS

Have you ever seen red, or perceived a situation through rage, anger, or frustration? Then you know that you cannot see or think clearly when you are experiencing strong emotions. There will be times in groups and teams when emotions run high, and your awareness of them can help you clear your mind and choose to wait until the moment has passed to tackle the challenge. This is an example of a time when avoiding can be a useful strategy, at least temporarily.

Emotions can be contagious, and fear of the unknown can influence people to act in irrational ways. The wise communicator can recognize when emotions are on edge in themselves or others, and choose to wait to communicate, problem-solve, or negotiate until after the moment has passed.

Bach and Wyden (1968) discuss gunnysacking (or backpacking) as the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time. Holding onto the way things used to be can be like a stone in your gunnysack, and influence how you interpret your current context.

People may be aware of similar issues but might not know your history, and cannot see your backpack or its contents. For example, if you are used to things one way, and a group member handles them differently, this may cause you some degree of stress and frustration. Bottling up your frustrations only hurts you and can cause your relationships within the group to suffer. By addressing, or unpacking, the stones you carry, you can better assess the current situation with the current patterns and variables.

Preventing and Reducing Conflict

There are many things group members can do to reduce or actually solve dysfunctional conflict when it occurs. These generally fall into two categories: actions directed at conflict prevention  and actions directed at conflict  reduction.

Strategies for Conflict Prevention

We shall start by examining conflict prevention techniques because preventing conflict is often easier than reducing it once it begins. These include:

• Emphasizing group goals and effectiveness. Focusing on group goals and objectives should prevent goal conflict. If larger goals are emphasized, group members are more likely to see the big picture and work together to achieve corporate goals.
• Providing stable, well-structured tasks. When work activities are clearly defined, understood, and accepted, conflict should be less likely to occur. Conflict is most likely to occur when task uncertainty is high; specifying or structuring roles and tasks minimizes ambiguity.
• Facilitating dialogue. Misperception of the abilities, goals, and motivations of others often leads to conflict, so efforts to increase the dialogue among group members and to share information should help eliminate conflict. As group members come to know more about one another, suspicions often diminish, and greater intergroup teamwork becomes possible.
• Avoiding win-lose situations. If win-lose situations are avoided, less potential for conflict exists.

Strategies for Conflict Reduction

Where dysfunctional conflict already exists, something must be done, and you may pursue one of at least two general approaches: you can try to change attitudes, or you can try to behaviors . If you change behavior, open conflict is often reduced, but group members may still dislike one another; the conflict simply becomes less visible. Changing attitudes, on the other hand, often leads to fundamental changes in the ways that groups get along. However, it also takes considerably longer to accomplish than behavior change because it requires a fundamental change in social perceptions.

Nine conflict reduction strategies are discussed below. The techniques should be viewed as a continuum, ranging from strategies that focus on changing behaviors near the top of the scale to strategies that focus on changing attitudes near the bottom of the scale.

• Physical separation. The quickest and easiest solution to conflict is physical separation. Separation is useful when conflicting individuals or groups are not working on a joint task or do not need a high degree of interaction. Though this approach does not encourage members to change their attitudes, it does provide time to seek a better accommodation.
• Use of rules and regulations. Conflict can also be reduced through the increasing specification of rules, regulations, and procedures. Again, however, basic attitudes are not modified.
• Limiting intergroup interaction. Another approach to reducing conflict is to limit intergroup interaction to issues involving common goals. Where groups agree on a goal, cooperation becomes easier.
• Use of integrators. Integrators are individuals who are assigned a boundary-spanning role between two people or groups. To be trusted, integrators must be perceived by both groups as legitimate and knowledgeable. The integrator often takes the “shuttle diplomacy” approach, moving from one person or group to another, identifying areas of agreement, and attempting to find areas of future cooperation.
• Confrontation and negotiation.  In this approach, competing parties are brought together face-to-face to discuss their basic areas of disagreement. The hope is that through open discussion and  negotiation , means can be found to work out problems. Contract negotiations between unions and management represent one such example. If a “win-win” solution can be identified through these negotiations, the chances of an acceptable resolution of the conflict increase.
• Third-party consultation.  In some cases, it is helpful to bring in outside consultants for  third-party consultation who understand human behavior and can facilitate a resolution. A third-party consultant not only serves as a go-between but can speak more directly to the issues because she is not a member of the group.
• Rotation of members.  By rotating from one group to another, individuals come to understand the frames of reference, values, and attitudes of other members; communication is thus increased. When those rotated are accepted by the receiving groups, change in attitudes as well as behavior becomes possible. This is clearly a long-term technique, as it takes time to develop good interpersonal relations and understanding among group members.
• Identification of interdependent tasks and superordinate goals. A further strategy is to establish goals that require groups to work together to achieve overall success.
• Use of training. The final technique on the continuum is training. Outside training experts are retained on a long-term basis to help groups develop relatively permanent mechanisms for working together. Structured workshops and training programs can help forge more favorable intergroup attitudes and, as a result, more constructive group behavior.

Review & Reflection Questions

• Is conflict in groups good or bad? Why?
• Identify the types of conflict and provide examples of each.
• What modes of conflict resolution do you find yourself using when faced with a conflict in a group? What modes have you observed at work in your current group?
• What strategies could you use to prevent or reduce conflict in your group?
• Bach, G., & Wyden, P. (1968). The intimacy enemy. Avon.
• Brown, D. L. (1986). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
• Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Free Press.
• Doolittle, R.J. (1976). Orientations to communication and conflict. Science Research Associates.
• Hocker, J.L., & Wilmot, W.W. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6 th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Kelly, M.S. (2006). Communication @ work: Ethical, effective, and expressive communication in the workplace . Pearson.
• Neilsen, E.H. (1972). Understanding and managing conflict. In J. Lorsch & P. Lawrence (Eds.), Managing group and intergroup relations. Irwin.
• Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. The Free Press.
• Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational behavior. Wiley.
• Thomas, K., & Pondy, L. (1967). Toward an intent model of conflict management among principal parties. Human Relations, 30, 1089–1102.

Authors & Attribution

The sections “The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict,” “A Model of the Conflict Process,” and “Managing Conflict in Groups” are adapted from Black, J.S., & Bright, D.S. (2019). Organizational behavior. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/ . Access the full chapter for free here . The content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 license .

The sections “Definitions of Conflict,” “Types of Conflict” and “Recognizing Emotion” are adapted from is adapted from “ Managing Conflict ” from An Introduction To Group Communication . This content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) License without attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensor.

This remix comes from Dr. Jasmine Linabary at Emporia State University. This chapter is also available in her book:  Small Group Communication: Forming and Sustaining Teams.

an expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient.

conflicts related to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts

Conflicts in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order

Conflicts about how to reach goals or pursue values which they share

hen people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously.

Personality-driven conflicts which involve personal attributes or characteristics and which challenge people's egos or self-worth

the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time leading to frustration and influencing how we interpret actions

Problem Solving in Teams and Groups Copyright © 2021 by Cameron W. Piercy, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

A Guide To Successful Principled Negotiation | Examples in 2024 with Best Strategy

Jane Ng • 07 Dec 2023 • 6 min read

Negotiation is not all about images of tough, win-lose battles, leaving one party triumphant and the other feeling defeated. It’s a better way called principled negotiation , where fairness and cooperation take center stage. 

In this blog post, we’ll introduce you to the world of principled negotiation, breaking down what it means, the four fundamental principles that guide it, its pros and cons, and its examples. So, if you’re ready to sharpen your negotiation skills and build stronger relationships, keep reading!

Table Of Contents 

What is principled negotiation.

• What Are The Four Principles Of Principled Negotiation

The Advantages and Disadvantages Of Principled Negotiation

Principled negotiation examples, exploring principled negotiation strategy, key takeaways.

Tips for Better Engagement

• Types of Negotiation
• Contract negotitation
• Distributive bargaining

Interact Better In Your Presentation!

Instead of a boring session, be a creative funny host by mixing quizzes and games altogether! All they need is a phone to make any hangout, meeting or lesson more engaging!

A principled negotiation, also known as interest-based negotiation, is a cooperative approach to resolving conflicts and making deals. Instead of focusing on winning or losing, it emphasizes fairness and mutual benefit. 

It was developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury at the Harvard Negotiation Project in the 1980s. They outlined this approach in their influential book “ Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In ,” first published in 1981.

Principled negotiation is particularly effective in situations where parties want to preserve relationships, reach lasting agreements, and avoid the adversarial dynamics often associated with traditional, competitive negotiations.

What Are The Four Principles Of Principled Negotiation?

Here are 4 principles of this type of negotiation:

1/ Separate People from the Problem: 

In principled negotiation, the focus is on the issue at hand, not on attacking or blaming individuals. It encourages respectful communication and understanding of each party’s perspective.

2/ Focus on Interests, Not Positions: 

Rather than sticking to fixed demands or positions, principled negotiators explore the underlying interests and needs of all parties. By identifying what truly matters to each side, they can find creative solutions that satisfy everyone.

3/ Invent Options for Mutual Gain: 

Principled negotiation encourages brainstorming multiple possible solutions. This approach generates more choices and opportunities for agreements that benefit all parties involved.

4/ Insist on Using Objective Criteria: 

Instead of relying on power plays, like who is stronger or louder, principled negotiation uses fair and impartial standards to evaluate proposals and make decisions. This ensures that outcomes are based on reason and fairness.

Advantages of Principled Negotiation:

• Fair and Ethical: Principled negotiation emphasizes fairness and ethical behavior, fostering justice in the negotiation process.
• Preserve Relationships: It helps maintain or improve relationships between parties by focusing on collaboration rather than competition.
• Creative Problem Solving : By exploring interests and brainstorming options, this negotiation encourages creative solutions that can benefit all parties.
• Reduces Conflict: It addresses underlying issues and interests, reducing the likelihood of conflicts escalating.
• Long-Term Agreements: Principled negotiation often results in more durable agreements because they are based on mutual understanding and fairness.
• Builds Trust: Trust is cultivated through open communication and a commitment to fairness, which can lead to more successful negotiations.
• Win-Win Outcomes: It seeks solutions where all parties gain something, creating a sense of satisfaction for everyone involved.

Disadvantages of Principled Negotiation:

• Time-Consuming: The process can be time-consuming, as it involves a thorough exploration of interests and options.
• Not Suitable for All Situations: In highly competitive or adversarial situations, principled negotiation may not be as effective as more assertive approaches.
• Requires Cooperation: Success depends on the willingness of all parties to cooperate and engage in a constructive dialogue.
• Possible Imbalance of Power: In some situations, one party has significantly more power, so principled negotiation may not level the playing field.
• Not Always Achieving Win-Win: Despite best efforts, achieving a true win-win outcome may not always be possible, depending on the circumstances and parties involved.

Here are a few simple examples of this negotiation in action:

1. Business Partnership:

Two entrepreneurs, Sarah and David, want to start a business together. They both have different ideas about the name and logo. Instead of arguing, they use principled negotiation. 

• They discuss their interests, which include brand recognition and personal attachment. 
• They decide to create a unique name that combines elements from both their ideas and design a logo that reflects both of their visions. 
• This way, they reach a compromise that satisfies both parties and sets a positive tone for their partnership.

2. Workplace Disagreement:

In a workplace, two coworkers, Emily and Mike, disagree about how to divide tasks on a project. Instead of getting into a heated argument, they apply principled negotiation. 

• They talk about their interests, such as a fair workload and project success. 
• They decide to delegate tasks based on each person’s strengths and interests, creating a balanced and effective division of labor.
•  This approach reduces tension and leads to a more productive working relationship.

Here’s a simplified strategy you can follow to resolve disputes and reach agreements in various situations.

1/ Preparation:

• Understand Interests: Before starting the negotiation, take time to understand your interests and the interests of the other party. What do you both really want out of this negotiation?
• Gather Information: Collect relevant facts and data to support your position. The more information you have, the stronger your case will be.
• Define BATNA: Determine your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). This is your backup plan if the negotiation doesn’t succeed. Knowing your BATNA strengthens your position.

2/ The Four Principles Of Principled Negotiation

After preparation, you can apply The Four Principles Of Principled Negotiation mentioned above:

• Separate People from the Problem
• Focus on Interests, Not Positions
• Generate Options for Mutual Gain
• Insist on Using Objective Criteria

3/ Communication:

Both parties share their perspectives and interests, laying the foundation for the negotiation.

• Active Listening: You could say something like, “I hear you saying that you are concerned about the price. Can you tell me more about that?”
• Ask Questions: You could ask, “What are the most important things to you in this negotiation?”
• Expressing Your Interests: You could say, “I am interested in getting this project done on time and within budget. I am also concerned about the quality of the work.”

4/ Negotiation:

• Create Value: Try to expand the pie by finding ways to make the deal more beneficial for both sides.
• Trade-offs: Be willing to make concessions on less important issues in exchange for gains on more critical matters.
• Avoid Unnecessary Confrontation: Keep the negotiation process as amicable as possible. Don’t make personal attacks or threats.

5/ Agreement:

• Document the Agreement: Put the agreement in writing, outlining all the terms and conditions.
• Review and Confirm: Ensure both parties fully understand and agree to the terms before finalizing the agreement.

6/ Implementation and Follow-Up:

• Act on the Agreement: Both parties should fulfill their commitments as agreed. 
• Evaluate: Periodically review the agreement to ensure it’s still meeting the interests of both parties.

Principled Negotiation promotes fairness and collaboration, making it an effective approach in various situations. To enhance your negotiation process and present your ideas effectively, consider using AhaSlides . Our interactive features and templates are valuable tools for engaging with the other party, fostering understanding, and reaching mutually beneficial agreements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 4 principles of principled negotiation.

Separate People from the Problem; Focus on Interests, Not Positions; Generate Options for Mutual Gain; Insist on Using Objective Criteria

What are the 5 stages of principled negotiation?

Preparation, Communication, Problem-Solving, Negotiation, Closure and Implementation.

Why is principled negotiation important?

It promotes fairness, preserves relationships, and fosters creative problem-solving, leading to better outcomes and reduced conflicts.

Is BATNA part of principled negotiation?

Yes, BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) is an essential part of this negotiation, helping you assess your options and make informed decisions.

Ref: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School | Working Scholars  

A writer who wants to create practical and valuable content for the audience

More from AhaSlides

• About our Courses
• Sales Negotiation Training
• Procurement Negotiation Training
• Essential Negotiator
• Negotiation Simulation Game
• Advanced Negotiation Training
• Customized Negotiation Training
• Open Enrolment Calendar
• Course Comparison
• All Resources
• Case Studies
• Definitions

Home » Resources » Case Studies » Creative Problem-Solving in Negotiations

Creative Problem-Solving in Negotiations

A study that shows how effective creative problem-solving can benefit any negotiation.

Creative Problem-Solving

All too often, negotiators can become bound as they commit to taking a competitive approach to their negotiation. As a result, they don’t allow themselves to be flexible or to consider a creative approach. Taking a versatile approach with outside-the-box thinking can generate more value from the negotiations.

On the other hand, a common error committed by those who believe they are taking the win-win approach to their talks is to overcompensate their need to find agreement by making unwise compromises. A compromise invariably means that both resources and money will likely be left on the table, unclaimed by either party.

Here’s how two west coast energy producers created a joint partnership through creative problem-solving whereby each side met its objectives. Southern California Edison Co. and Bonneville Power Administration were the negotiating sides. 

Find Effective Solutions

In 1991, the two sides conceived of a way to help the Columbia River salmon in the Pacific Northwest. At the same time, their idea would improve the polluted air of southern California. They managed this feat without spending any money in the process!

Here’s a précis of this unique and imaginative problem-solving that illustrates the powerful benefits of the creative process at work, as taught on the best negotiating training courses . During the summer months, Bonneville Power would increase the flow of water into the Columbia River. This would automatically increase the amount of hydroelectric power generated by California Edison.

The increased flow of water allowed the young salmon to swim through the channels more easily. It also increased their survival rate. This is because a weaker current made them more vulnerable to becoming lost or being devoured by predators.

Later, in the fall and winter months, California Edison returned the power that it had borrowed during the preceding summer months back to Bonneville Power Administration. As a result, Bonneville had very little need to run its coal-fired and oil plants during the summer months.

The Power of a True Win-Win

This was truly a win-win negotiated agreement. The exchange of power, roughly equivalent to about 100,000 households, improved the migration of the salmon. It thereby increasing their survival rates and expanding the fish population.

Additionally, there was a significant reduction in air pollution. This was because Bonneville didn’t have to resort to smog-producing plants during the stifling and oft smoggy summer months. What was the impact? It’s been estimated the saving was about equivalent to taking about 5,000 cars off the highways. The best part of all was that absolutely no money exchanged hands in the entire process. Pretty smart example of creative problem-solving, eh?

Creativity is so important in negotiations. This example is beautiful.

Share your Feedback Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Newsletter Signup

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Business negotiation tactics to use in everyday life

Marielle Segarra

Negotiation skills aren't just for high-stakes situations like job offers and pay raises. They can be used in daily life, like figuring out where you and your friends should go on vacation or what you and your partner should cook for dinner tonight.

They can also help you get what you want and make decisions with more confidence, says Joan Moon , a career coach and the head of negotiation coaching at the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Collaboratory at the Harvard Kennedy School. "They can improve your satisfaction with your situation and give you a sense that you are making intentional choices."

Moon explains four classic negotiation tactics often used in business environments — and how they can be applied in everyday circumstances.

Oops, I messed up! 7 common public speaking issues — and how to fix them

The tactic: benchmarking.

This strategy allows you to gather the information you need to make a fair decision. It's when you compare an offer to market standards and best practices, "then figure out where you lie within that range" to get an optimal deal. People often use benchmarking in salary negotiations to ensure they're being paid equitably, says Moon.

How to use it in everyday life: Use this tactic when making big consumer choices, says Moon — like hiring a contractor to renovate your kitchen or buying a car. "What you're doing is researching good information and an appropriate price point for this purchase" to align your budget and the industry standards.

The tactic: Win-win strategy

This helps different parties find one solution that's in everyone's interest. You might see this in business contracts or labor agreements, for example. Parties won't sign until the terms are mutually beneficial.

How to use it in everyday life: Try this when you want the other party to not just agree with your decision, but feel good about it. Moon shares a recent personal experience. Her phone line was down so she called her phone company to get reconnected — but the customer service agents were unhelpful. She could feel herself getting upset, so she decided to reframe her request using a win-win strategy. She said: "Listen, I've been with this company for ten years and I would like to keep doing so for another ten years. Can we focus on a solution?"

3 common thinking traps and how to avoid them, according to a Yale psychologist

The approach worked, she says. The company didn't want to lose a loyal customer — and Moon wanted her phone fixed.

The tactic: A menu of options

This approach avoids requests that result in a simple yes or no answer. People often use this tactic when negotiating the benefits of a job offer, says Moon. For example, instead of asking for more flexibility at a new job and getting a flat-out no, you might propose a couple of options: working three days remote or a four-day workweek, expanding the possibility of a favorable outcome.

How to use it in everyday life: Offer "a menu of options" to someone if they think only one solution is possible. Let's say you're upset with your roommate for being messy, says Moon. Instead of asking them to clean up (which they haven't been doing), give them choices: hire a housekeeper, change the breakdown of responsibilities at home or adjust the cleaning schedule. "When you present options, it signals to the other person: let's solve this problem together," says Moon.

The rules of improv can make you funnier. They can also make you more confident.

The tactic: best alternative to negotiated agreement.

Negotiators use BATNA to come up with a backup plan when their desired outcome isn't possible. It helps avoid a total win-lose situation and shows the person you're negotiating with that you have a strong alternative, which can increase your leverage in a situation. You might use BATNA when comparing job offers with unfavorable conditions. For example, one job requires you to relocate your family to another state, while the other job pays less but is local. Your BATNA might be to tell both jobs that you will stay at your current gig and unless they can offer something better.

How to use it in everyday life: You can use BATNA for the smallest decisions, like figuring out what to eat for dinner. Let's say your partner wants to stay in and cook tacos but you're not craving it. But never fear, you tell them: you have a backup idea, your BATNA — you'll go out for a burger instead. Yes, you'll have to leave the house, but you won't need to cook or clean up the kitchen.

The digital story was written by Malaka Gharib and edited by Margaret Cirino and Meghan Keane. The visual editor is Beck Harlan. We'd love to hear from you. Leave us a voicemail at 202-216-9823, or email us at [email protected].

Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify , and sign up for our newsletter .

• negotiators
• Life Kit: Life Skills
• everyday life

• Model UN Guide
• Sample Documents

Research Resources

• Publications
• Secretary-General’s Message
• Competitive Bargaining vs. Cooperative problem solving
• Overview of this Guide
• How Decisions are Made at the UN
• How a State Becomes a UN Member
• UN Emblem and Flag
• UN Structure
• The 4 pillars of the United Nations
• UN Family of Organizations
• History of the United Nations
• Agenda, Workplan, Documents and Rules of Procedure
• Leadership Positions in the GA
• Leadership Positions in the Secretariat
• Leadership Positions in the Security Council
• Selecting Candidates for Leadership Positions
• Oversight of the Conference - Things to Consider
• Roles and Responsibilities of Elected Officials
• Delegate Preparation
• Pre-Conference
• During the Conference
• Action Phase: Making Decisions
• Adoption of Agenda and Work Programme
• Discussion Phase -- General Debate
• Opening and Closing of Plenary
• Plenary vs. Committee Meetings
• Differences Between GA Rules and some Model UN Rules of Procedure
• Significance of Groups
• The Purpose of Consultations
• General Considerations and Denationalization
• Procedural Roles of the Chairman: A Step-by-Step
• Substantive Role of the Chair
• The Chair's Activities in Guiding the Work of a Committee
• Drafting Resolutions
• Characteristics of Winning Proposals
• Fundamentals of Negotiation
• Making Consultations Happen
• The Process of Negotiation
• Groups of Member States
• Changing Audience and Cultural Sensitivity
• Engaging the Audience
• Forms of Address
• Preparation, Purpose and Structure
• General Information about the United Nations
• United Nations General Assembly
• United Nations Security Council
• United Nations Documents
• Other Online Resources

Competitive Bargaining vs. Cooperative Problem-Solving

One of the biggest challenges of negotiation is that there are two different approaches that call for opposite strategies: competitive bargaining and cooperative problem-solving. This section gives an overview of both approaches and provides a rationale for why only one of them is appropriate for international conferences.

Competitive Bargaining

Historically, the word negotiation means “business,” and negotiation has a major role in business transactions.

The crudest form of negotiation in an international conference resembles crude commercial negotiations, for example, when you are trying to buy or sell a second-hand car and the only point at issue is the price. In that case, the buyer wants to pay as little as possible, while the seller wants to receive as much as possible. A gain by one party means an equal loss by the other. This type of negotiation is sometimes referred to as “competitive bargaining.” It has been extensively studied over the centuries by traders everywhere and, more recently, in business schools.

You probably already understand this form of negotiation. The essential feature is that each party receives something that they accept as the outcome of the negotiation. At the simplest, they would receive equal shares; but the issues before international conferences are generally far too complex for that and the needs and capabilities of the nations concerned are too varied for any simple equilibrium. Instead, at the international level, the balance to be found is between trade-offs, in which not only the quantity but also the nature of what different parties receive is different.

Each party is concerned primarily to maximize its own gains and minimize the cost to themselves.

Then some important tactical principles come to the fore:

• Always ask for more than you expect to get. Think of some of the things asked for as “negotiating coin” that you can trade away in order to achieve your aim. You can also assume that the other party does not expect to get everything they ask for and that some of their requests are only negotiating coin.
• You might even start by demanding things you do not really hope to achieve, but which you know other parties strongly oppose. By doing so, you may hope that the other parties will make concessions to you just to refrain from pressing such demands.
• Always hide your “bottom line.” Because the other party’s aim is to concede to you as little as possible, you may get more if they are not aware of how little is acceptable to you.
• Take early and give late. Negotiators often undervalue whatever is decided in the early part of the negotiation and place excessive weight on whatever is agreed towards the end of the negotiation.
• As the negotiation progresses, carefully manage the “concession rate.” If you “concede” things to the other party too slowly, they many lose hope of achieving a satisfactory agreement; but if you “concede” too fast, they could end up with more than you needed to give them.
• The points at issue are seen as having the same worth for both sides—although they rarely do.

Precepts of this kind can readily generate a competitive or even combative spirit and encourage negotiators to consider a loss by their counterparts as a gain for themselves. It should be evident that such sentiments at the international level are harmful to relations and thus to the prospects of cooperation and mutual tolerance.

Cooperative Problem-Solving

An entirely different style of negotiation is more common in international conferences than “competitive bargaining,” both because it is generally more productive and is widely seen as more appropriate in dealings between representatives of sovereign States. This style of negotiation starts from the premise that you both have an interest in reaching agreement and therefore an interest in making proposals that the other is likely to agree to. In other words, each has an interest in the other(s) also being satisfied.

Achieving your objective requires that you also work to achieve the objectives of the other party (or parties)—to the extent that such effort is compatible with your objectives. The same applies to your counterpart(s): it is in their interest to satisfy you to the maximum extent possible. This makes negotiation a cooperative effort to find an outcome that is attractive to all parties.

To succeed in this type of negotiation, principles apply which are quite contrary to those that apply in “competitive bargaining,” namely:

• It is important not to request concessions from the other side that you know are impossible for them. If you do so, they will find it difficult to believe that you are genuinely working for an agreement.
• It is in your interest that the other party should understand your position. Indeed, perhaps they should even know your “bottom line.” If they understand how close they are to that “bottom line” on one point, they will also understand the necessity to include other elements that you value to give you an incentive to agree.
• Sometimes it is in your interest to “give” a lot to the other side early in the negotiation process to give them a strong incentive to conclude the negotiation and therefore “give” you what you need to be able to reach agreement.
• The “concession rate” may not be important.
• There is a premium on understanding that the same points have different values for different negotiators and on finding additional points on which to satisfy them.
• The Chair's Activities in Guiding the Work of a Committee
• ‹ Negotiation
• Characteristics of Winning Proposals ›

Model United Nations

• How to Organize a MUN Conference
• Get the Model UN Guide Book
• Frequently Asked Questions

Updates from the UN

• Security Council
• General Assembly
• Sustainable Development
• Human Rights
• UN Member States
• UN Documents
• UN iLibrary
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library

Youth Opportunities

• Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• UN Volunteers
• United Nations Academic Impact

And the big paperback book

• Self-Paced, Online Courses

The Importance of a Problem Solving Attitude in Negotiations

When things get uncomfortable during negotiations, sometimes our tendency is to dig in our heels and hold on to our position. That can be completely appropriate at times – the challenge is to do it in a way that is professional and consistent with your organization’s values. A problem solving attitude can help.

A problem solving attitude doesn’t mean that you give in or instantly compromise every time you disagree with the client. What it means is that you demonstrate open-mindedness. In other words, you consistently let them know you are open to hearing about different ways to approach the situation and reach a mutually acceptable solution.

We believe in the Synectics® Inc. simple yet elegant approach to showing open-mindedness. It consists of two specific actions:

• Paraphrasing what was suggested
• Finding value in that suggestion

Additionally, don’t forget to acknowledge the client’s objections before starting to negotiate. Let them know you heard them and find something positive to say about their point of view. Then respond as honestly as possible. Let them know you understand their position and at some level you can see value in what they said.

So for example, if a client wants to change the terms associated with a recommendation, say something like this:

“I can understand why you would like to change the terms. Specifically I heard you say that you would prefer to spread out the fee into installments. If we did that I see how it would improve your cash flow. Let me explain our position and why that would be difficult for us…”

Don’t forget in all this that you have an agenda to fulfill, just like the client. You don’t want to embarrass or criticize them, but you do want them to know that you hope to reach that mutually acceptable solution. A problem solving mindset will help you accomplish this, and in the long run, help you close more deals.

How else do you show your clients that you are open to negotiating and finding a solution that benefits them just as much as you? Leave a comment and let us know.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share via Email

Virtual Presence Guide: How to Help Virtual Teams Create Authentic Connections

Download this guide to discover tips and best practices to help your teams be productive and engaged when working virtually.

Ariel develops powerful and authentic communication skills to drive better performance for leaders and their teams. Whether you need to develop your next generation of leaders, connect global teams, build trusted relationships, or keep your workforce engaged and motivated, Ariel can tackle your most pressing business challenges. We ensure that everyone, from senior leaders to early career professionals, can write, speak, present, and build trusted relationships with every interaction.

Related Posts