benefit
Oscar Pérez de la Fuente
Carlos III University of Madrid
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X
Abstract
This article examines the third rule of the Harvard Negotiation Method, developed by [Roger Fisher]() and [William Ury](), which urges negotiators to invent options for mutual benefit rather than bargain over fixed positions. The text explains that effective negotiation requires both identifying common interests and exploring creative possibilities before deciding among alternatives. It analyses four major obstacles that usually hinder this process: premature judgment, the search for a single answer, the assumption of a fixed pie, and the belief that solving the other side’s problem is irrelevant. In response, the article highlights the importance of separating invention from evaluation and presents brainstorming as a practical technique for generating multiple possible solutions in a climate free from criticism. It also emphasizes that negotiation is not only a process of managing conflict but also of recognizing cooperation, since parties often share interests that remain implicit. At the same time, differing interests can be strategically valuable, especially when one issue matters more to one side than to the other. Overall, the article argues that good negotiation depends on creativity, cooperation, and the explicit search for agreements that improve outcomes for both parties.
Keywords: principled negotiation, interests, positions, creativity
In the third rule of the Harvard Negotiation Method, Fisher and Ury propose, on the one hand, exploring the various possibilities that may arise and, on the other hand, making the common interests explicit. The authors’ first piece of advice is to “expand the pie before dividing it”.
In the face of this rule that demands “inventing options for mutual benefit,” some obstacles in the form of attitudes or inertia inhibit the creative process of inventing multiple options. The first is premature judgment when negotiators with tunnel vision focus on specific options. The second is the search for a single answer, where it is taken for granted that each situation has only one possible solution. The third is to assume that the pie is fixed and the only variable is to share it when there may be situations where the pie increases to benefit both parties. The fourth is to think that “solving your problem is your problem”, where the issue is that the negotiation is approached from a competitive view between the parties and the cooperative aspects are forgotten. It is possible to increase mutual benefit from the cooperative approach by analysing the various options (Fisher, Ury, 1988, 59-62).
Faced with this scenario, in which the various possibilities of negotiations are not taken advantage of, Fisher and Ury propose multiple solutions. The main approach is to consider that negotiations have a creative component where the act of inventing options has to be separated from the act of judging them. This can be achieved by brainstorming, a process where the parties meet and openly and uninhibitedly put forward all possible options. It is a process where creativity counts and where there is a rule of non-criticism. Afterwards, it is necessary to evaluate and decide whether to incorporate the multiple options into the negotiation.
By following these steps, negotiation is transformed into a creative and cooperative process of finding the best mutually beneficial solutions. Ways must be invented to make the decision easy for both parties. It is sometimes forgotten that negotiations occur because the parties have common interests. Most of the time, these common interests remain implicit. The Harvard Negotiation Method states that these common interests must be made explicit and insists upon as a productive basis for negotiation.
On the other hand, the differences in interests of the parties have great strategic power for the smooth course of negotiations. In particular, there may be situations where an issue is of great interest to you and of little importance to the other party or vice versa. This can lead to a compromise agreement. It is precisely the exploration of differing interests that can be the key to a successful negotiation.
Negotiations occur in scenarios of cooperation and conflict between human beings. One party wants something from the other and vice versa. One way to approach negotiation is as a competition between adversaries who are jockeying for positions. Fisher and Ury propose a method for seeking intelligent agreements through a creative process of inventing multiple options for mutual benefit. Parties may have partly common and partly divergent interests. Insisting on shared interests and creatively managing differing interests is the best way to find an agreement that is best for both parties. Negotiating well also means being creative.
References
© 2024 – 2026, webphilosophia. All rights reserved.