Speaker 1: As I said before, this Harvard model of negotiation is based on four principles. Before we go into these principles, we might want to reflect for a second why principles, why not rules? That's quite interesting that the Harvard people choose to go for principles and not for rules. Because if you have rules like in laws, chances are very high that that is too linear and too strict. And that people simply think if they follow these kind of rules, everything will be fine. Whereas if you have principles, it is much more organic, it's much more wider. Because you have lots of ways how to fulfill those principles. So it is important to realize that the Harvard people choose principles for cooperation and not rules. Because cooperation needs the freedom and the creativity. So let's go for these four principles. If you remember, when we talked about the five ways of how to deal in a negotiation, that we said, okay, we do have these high interest or low interest in relationship, and we have the high interest or low interest into the issue you want to have. And let's assume for a second you're negotiating with somebody you like and you find very sympathetic. Then it could be that you have a tendency to give in and to accommodate to the other person so that you have a tendency to play lose-win. Or on the other extreme, you actually don't like the other person. You might even hate the other person. And then it is possible that you have a tendency to play win-lose because you don't like the person, you don't care for the relationship. So the Harvard people said, okay, in order to avoid these risks, that the quality of relationship interferes with your interest in the issue, you should separate them at all. So the first principle is, and that's easy said and hard to achieve, separate the person from the issue. In real life, that would mean you can negotiate very hard, but you should never be hard on the person, unfriendly and so on and so forth, because it is in your own interest to understand the interests of the other people. And therefore, the other partner is not your enemy, it's actually your partner, otherwise you don't get what you want. Because otherwise, if you could simply order what you want, you wouldn't negotiate. So the other party is your partner. So the first principle is separate the person from the issue. Easy said, hard actually to live. The second principle we already heard when we illustrated with the pumpkin example. If you remember, three people had a position, they all wanted the pumpkin. Since there was only one pumpkin, it was not possible to give everybody the pumpkin. There were two limited resources. The solution that was found was not found based on the position and focused on the position, but oriented on the interests of the people. You remember, one wanted the shell for a Halloween mask, the other one wanted a soup, so he needed the meat, and the third person simply the seeds. So on the level of interest, it was possible to find a solution that everybody made happy. So a win-win solution. The second principle of the Harvard People for Cooperation is you should not negotiate position-focused, but interest-oriented. And later, when we come to the U-Model, I will show you what kind of questions you have to ask in order to examine the interests of people who are negotiating. The third principle now is that, and that is, if you are actually looking for a trick for win-win, you might find it here. The Harvard People found out that sometimes cooperation is not possible because people who are negotiating are going too fast, too quick into solutions. You hear a problem and you immediately suggest a solution. And if all parties are doing this, chances are very high that you then only negotiate these kinds of positions and you end up with a compromise, in the best of all worlds. In order to get to the win-win, they suggest now a different approach. They said, based on the interest, you should first develop criteria that must be fulfilled by a solution that you could say yes to. Or in other words, what conditions must a good solution that you could say yes to fulfill? Just to illustrate this principle a little bit, just assume you want to invite somebody out for dinner for a restaurant and you want to make sure actually that the person you invite to actually likes the restaurant. So you could ask this other person, how would you realize that the restaurant is a good restaurant for you? And then immediately the person would tell you some conditions that must be fulfilled by a good restaurant. For example, a small menu, because a small menu for this person suggests that it is actually fresh cooked. Or it might say a certain quality of light, and then you could elaborate a little bit more what kind of light the person means, like candle lights or whatever. Or that there is a certain quality of hygiene, and so on and so forth, music and so on. So you would get a whole set of criteria that must be fulfilled, and the interesting thing about the criteria is there are much more restaurants than only one restaurant that would fulfill the criteria. So working with criteria opens a world of lots of options. And whereas positions, it's only, it must be, we go to Chez Felix, for example. So the third principle is, before creating a solution, agree on certain principles that must be fulfilled by a solution that you could say yes to. And so at that stage of the negotiation, we would have a set of criterias for party A, and we would have a set of criterias for party B. And you will find a win-win solution in that moment where you find one option that fulfills all criterias of party A and all criterias of party B. Win-win. So this is how we get win-win solution. And the fourth principle is, and this is based on the research that people like to choose. So the Harvard people suggest before you actually choose a solution, you should have different options to choose from. So they suggest don't develop only one option that then is the best solution, but maybe two, three, or four options, and then take the criterias and evaluate your options by the criterias to find the best option. So that, and by doing so, the solution that was found by the parties will be much more sustainable because they also have the sense they actually had a choice. So just to repeat these four principles of the Harvard model of negotiation, it is separate the person from the issue, negotiate not position-focused, but interest-oriented, develop first criterias that a good solution must fulfill, and develop several options to choose from. So if you follow these four principles, chances are very high that you actually go for cooperation and that you avoid competition. And in the next chapter, I will then guide you through a pathway through conflicts how actually to do this and how to apply these kind of principles.