Harvard negotiating

[Bruce Wayne]

Thought this might be of interest here. I've been reading about the Harvard negotiating group and in particular their philosophy of negotiating on merit. It breaks down into four sections:

1. People – separate people from the problem
2. Interests – focus on interests, not positions
3. Options – generate a wide variety of options before deciding on a course of action
4. Criteria – insist the result be based on some objective criteria

Of particular interest is the first one because it emphasises removing people from the problem, ie regarding both sides as working together to solve the problem rather than as enemies.

This latter approach also encourages the fostering of positions, ie for/against Kirkby and people then inherently defend their positions rather than looking for the best solution.

 

[Whitebootman]

Thought this might be of interest here. I've been reading about the Harvard negotiating group and in particular their philosophy of negotiating on merit. It breaks down into four sections:

1. People – separate people from the problem
2. Interests – focus on interests, not positions
3. Options – generate a wide variety of options before deciding on a course of action
4. Criteria – insist the result be based on some objective criteria

Of particular interest is the first one because it emphasises removing people from the problem, ie regarding both sides as working together to solve the problem rather than as enemies.

This latter approach also encourages the fostering of positions, ie for/against Kirkby and people then inherently defend their positions rather than looking for the best solution.

Get your spoon out then Bruce.

 

[neonleon]

Thought this might be of interest here. I've been reading about the Harvard negotiating group and in particular their philosophy of negotiating on merit. It breaks down into four sections:

1. People – separate people from the problem
2. Interests – focus on interests, not positions
3. Options – generate a wide variety of options before deciding on a course of action
4. Criteria – insist the result be based on some objective criteria

Of particular interest is the first one because it emphasises removing people from the problem, ie regarding both sides as working together to solve the problem rather than as enemies.

This latter approach also encourages the fostering of positions, ie for/against Kirkby and people then inherently defend their positions rather than looking for the best solution.

Its not a million miles away from the Nemawashi concept you introduced to us earlier this week is it?

this makes sense for many reasons - people identify with certain issues and then their ego becomes attached to one side of the debate and then conflict arises - and once a conflict starts the lowest denomination seem to win out, and it becomes a slanging match or worse and anyone attempting anything like rational discourse is aggressively factored out of the equation - and these people become polarised.

Unfortunately, whilst this approach could solve many problems it does not take into consideration culture, identity, lifestyle and beliefs - and removing the people from the argument still leaves serious issues to be addressed.

Problems such as the one in Israel/Palestine could be solved in this manner - if only the two sides could attempt any form of communication and sense of mutual destiny - this has ultimately been scarred by identities, religions and cultural beliefs that seek the annihilation of each other. A sense of humanity and shared destiny amongst peoples always seems to be among the first casualties of war.

What this illustrates though, is the speed with which we make our minds up about issues (usually with less than a full complement of education, background knowledge of the issue, reasoning, debate, research and study) and how rapidly we become dogmatic in defending that position faced with new conflicting information and people of opposing views.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes, they're very similar. Both approaches rely on involving all parties in discussions from the beginning so that they all feel a sense of ownership over the problem.