A few weeks ago I wrote something about the different\u00a0Styles of mediation<\/a>\u00a0<\/a>and written them in\u00a0three basic currents<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0subdivided. It was helpful to distinguish between an emphatically factual style, a primarily procedural style and so-called transformative styles.<\/p>\n Today I would like to go into more detail about the so-called Harvard negotiation style. It is probably the most widespread way of thinking and conducting negotiations in practical terms, if it can be quantified at all. In any case, it seems to be the most widespread style within the mediation scene because no mediation training programme can avoid referring to the underlying\u00a0Harvard negotiation concept\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>in more detail. Even though it was not explicitly created for mediation, it is recommended by mediators all over the world.<\/p>\n It emerged from the Harvard Negotiation Studies, which were established in the course of diplomatic crisis situations during the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David under Jimmy Carter from 1978 onwards.<\/p>\n All people negotiate<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0every day and want to realise their personal wishes and goals. This happens in a wide variety of situations, often in passing. Rarely is there conscious negotiation or talk under this title. Negotiations are so commonplace that hardly anyone seems to think about them.<\/p>\n Negotiations are only referred to as difficult discussions in which a negative outcome is imminent or a general agreement has to be reached. There is a widespread belief that compromises have to be made. Job searches, job interviews, hiring staff, having to convince others to lend money or give money at high risk, asking other people for a risky contribution, such as consent or authorisation, or any other discussion situation that for some would be accompanied by a considerable increase in pulse rate.<\/p>\n As a result of negotiations, compromises often seem desirable or even necessary. Everyone has to take a step back or give up something. And if such compromises are not found, people switch to \"toughness\" and \"intransigence\" or to self-sacrifice and good-naturedness (\"The smarter one gives, as we all know...\").<\/p>\n The Harvard concept offers a\u00a0third alternative, which combines this determination in the matter with sensitivity towards the negotiating partner<\/i>.<\/strong>\u00a0This negotiation approach is called the Harvard negotiation style, which is also used in the context of Mediations<\/a> is applied.<\/p>\n The Harvard Principle is probably the most important concept of fact-based mediation. It is based on the analyses of game theory conflict research, which\u00a0destructive\u00a0<\/i>Negotiation dynamics<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0have shown. For example, in difficult conversations, sooner or later it is thoughtlessly assumed that the negotiating partner is the problem - and not the common difference on the issue.<\/p>\n Very popular are such\u00a0Personalisation of problems<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0enriched with kitchen-psychological explanatory models:\u00a0\"He's just stubborn! He gets that from his father! He was like that too...\"<\/em>.<\/p>\n The idea behind the Harvard concept is that if an economic rationality takes hold in the negotiation (place), a\u00a0Win-win situation\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>The idea that there is an optimal and objectively ascertainable solution that leads to a constructive solution (yes, exactly! \"Win-win\", the credo of mediation stems precisely from this style of negotiation!) The whole thing is based on the idea that an optimal and objectively ascertainable solution actually exists and that this can be found together in the negotiation or mediation process. Mediation<\/a> can be found. For this reason, this solution is based on\u00a0objective evaluation standards<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0wanted.<\/p>\n Consistently along these lines, the mediation scene, for example, is characterised by the agreement that in the specific dispute\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>can be agreed is considered a failure. In this respect, the Harvard method can certainly appear \"success-driven\" to some mediators.<\/p>\n 1. the\u00a0Factual problems must be separated from the personalities of the negotiating parties.\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>become.<\/p>\n The people are not the problem - even if they behave like that. This only tempts us to lose sight of the actual goal and to attach too much importance to personal animosities.<\/p>\n 2. there must be\u00a0Solution options developed<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0from which to select and negotiate.<\/p>\n Creativity is required, especially when looking for options that ideally bring the greatest possible benefit to both sides. An attempt should be made not to fixate on the supposedly only conceivable solution.<\/p>\n 3. the\u00a0Interests of the parties involved\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>should be disclosed and take centre stage, not their positions.<\/p>\n After all, it is interests that can bring people together and can be realised through cooperative implementation. Better than alone. That is the\u00a0Core of the mediative approach!<\/em><\/p>\n 4. to decide in favour of a solution\u00a0criteria that are as neutral as possible\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>(legal regulations, ethical standards, etc.). This principle is the reason why the Harvard method is described as fact-based.<\/p>\n This approach helps in the first instance,\u00a0Bazaar negotiations<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0in which \"mere\" haggling takes place.<\/p>\n Bargaining is fun, but only when there is little at stake. Or when others do it.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nBasic consideration of the Harvard negotiation style<\/b><\/h2>\n
Eliminate destructive negotiation dynamics<\/b><\/h2>\n
<\/h2>\n
Approaches for a win-win situation<\/b><\/h2>\n