B2B-Negotiations: No Room for the Harvard-Concept

Reason for this Article

Attorney Prof. Dr. Jörg Risse, LL.M. (Berkeley), recently published an article titled "Deadlocks in Negotiations - and How to Overcome Them" (BB 2024, 835 ff.). Prof. Risse is a partner at Baker McKenzie Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, a limited liability law and tax consulting firm based in Frankfurt a. M., and an honorary professor at the University of Mannheim. His areas of expertise include arbitration and commercial mediation, particularly in the context of M&A-Transactions.

The practitioner Prof. Risse states in his article, among other things, that B2B-Negotiations are conducted “almost without exception in a positional and therefore confrontational manner” - and thus not cooperatively. This implies the following: The Harvard Concept, which focuses on cooperation, is not applied in B2B-Negotiations. Prof. Risse proposes the following solution: Parties who wish to apply the Harvard Concept in B2B-Negotiations (instead of negotiating exclusively in a confrontational manner) should engage a mediator who is well-versed in the sophisticated and intricate rules of the Harvard Concept.

No Harvard-Concept for B2B-Negotiations

I cannot imagine this solution being implemented in the B2B sector. It would be like a car manufacturer revealing a new model of a car and explaining that the vehicle is so difficult to handle that it can only be driven by an experienced chauffeur - who, of course, needs to be paid “on top” for every ride.

Game-Changer Driver-Seat-Concept for B2B-Negotiations

I recommend applying a true game-changer: make use of the innovative Driver-Seat-Concept with practical, action-oriented rules. This concept is designed for real-world situations, specifically the B2B environment, and incorporates all of the (actively practiced) best strategies. You will not need a mediator to implement this negotiation concept (You are the one in the drivers' seat). You will work with three easy-to-apply core strategies: the Team Strategy (task-oriented), the ABC Strategy (process-focused), and the BMI Strategy (behavior-oriented): https://rock-negotiation.de/insights/so-erkennen-sie-mit-3-fragen-den-professionellen-verhandlungsfuhrer.

Principled Negotiations

In German-speaking countries, the term Harvard-Concept refers to the 5 principles introduced in the 1981 (more than 40 years ago) book "Getting to Yes" by Ury, Fisher, and Patton. The 2018 revised edition remains largely identical to the original version of Harvard-Concept of 1981. On pages pp. 22–23, the authors state: “The method of principled negotiation, developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project, is intended to resolve disputes based on objective criteria rather than through positional bargaining” (Emphasis added by the author).

Challenging Rules - Negotiating with a Mediator

In the cited article, Prof. Risse notes that the Harvard-Concept has (so far) not been applied in B2B-Negotiations: “Negotiations in the business world are conducted almost without exception in a positional and thus confrontational manner: One's own position is articulated and defended with arguments. … This competitive negotiation framework is the absolutely predominant reality in business, even though negotiators often describe their approach as ‘cooperative’ or even as ‘negotiating according to the Harvard-Concept.’ In reality, however, these negotiators usually are not aware of what a systematically different negotiation approach based on the Harvard-Concept actually even looks like” (Risse, BB 2024, 835, 838; emphasis added by the author).

Prof. Risse compares negotiations to a soccer game: “If past games have shown that you are bound to lose, simply replaying the match under unchanged conditions will be of little help. Instead, you need to change the game itself. In negotiations - just like in soccer - there are various ways to do so” (p. 836).

Prof. Risse attributes the limited practical applicability of the Harvard-Concept to its 'highly demanding set of rules'.

To implement these rules in the B2B-World, Prof. Risse (as mentioned above) suggests appointing a mediator for every negotiation: “In reality, this new style of soccer only works if both sides have truly mastered this style through years of training - or if a strict referee ensures compliance with the new rules throughout the entire game. The same applies to negotiations: Those who wish to negotiate according to the new, demanding rules of the Harvard-Concept regularly require a referee who ensures adherence to these rules. In negotiations, this referee is called a mediator” (Risse, BB 2024, 835, 838; emphasis added by the author).

Rosner and Winheller (2012) share a similar perspective: “These principles of rational negotiation - such as the use of objective criteria, interest-based negotiation, and fact-driven argumentation - must first be ‘installed.’ In other words, the structure of the negotiation process is not self-explanatory; rather, it often requires clarification, agreement with negotiation partners, and demands energy and self-discipline from all parties involved. To negotiate rationally and successfully, a negotiator (or a mediator as a negotiation facilitator) must also possess extensive knowledge of how specific approaches impact the negotiation process, i.e., which strategies and tactics are effective” (p. 82, emphasis added by the author).

This aspect is also emphasized in the revised 2018 edition of the Harvard-Concept: “The negotiation advisor helps the parties apply the principles of the Harvard-Concept. The focus is placed on finding an optimal solution for all involved, reopening the path back to their respective interests - it is the only possible way out of a deadlock” (p. 309, emphasis added by the author).

The realization that the successful application of the Harvard-Concept depends on the involvement of a third party is not a surprising one, as the Harvard-Concept was originally developed as a mediation-based approach. Rosner and Winheller elaborate on this: “The book Getting to Yes was initially intended by the authors to be a book about mediation-based negotiation but was then (partly at the publisher’s suggestion) restructured into a general negotiation guide” (Rosner/Winheller, 2012, p. 92).

Challenging means unrealistic

From my own professional experience (having worked on over 150 M&A transactions in the past 25 years), I can only confirm the Harvard-Concepts' lack of Relevance in B2B-Negotiations. In the field of so-called crisis negotiations (e.g., police negotiations with hostage-takers), the application of the Harvard-Concept was tested and ultimately abandoned as early as the year 2000 - more than 24 years ago (see Vecchi, G.M., Van Hasselt, V.B., Romano, SJ., Crisis (hostage) negotiation: current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10 (2005), pp. 533, 535).

To avoid misunderstandings: This does not apply to the tactics presented in "Getting Past NO". William Ury’s book is a must-read for the elite of professional negotiators (see McMains/Mullins/Young, Crisis Negotiation, 6th edition (2021), pp. 241 ff.).

The reason for this significant difference is simple: "Getting to Yes" promotes an idealistic approach - fact-based and consistently cooperative negotiations that often lack realism. "Getting Past NO", on the other hand, addresses the real-world challenge of dealing with uncooperative negotiation counterparts (see Rosner/Winheller, 2012, p. 234).

The reason the Harvard-Concept holds little relevance in the B2B-World, in my view, is that some of the "Harvard-Worlds" fundamental principles contradict the rules of the "B2B-World". As a result, B2B managers quite literally perceive these principles as "detached from reality".

Accordingly, Rosner and Winheller (2012) also confirm (see pp. 91 and 93) that the Harvard-Concept is regarded in the business world as "idealistic", "naïve", or even "unrealistic." However, they do not share this assessment.

The Contradiction Between the "Harvard-World" and the "B2B-World" Becomes Evident in 3 Key Aspects:

• The Goals

The Harvard-Concept aims to contribute to a more peaceful world.

In contrast, the B2B-World is about gaining a competitive edge, increasing power, and enhancing status. To the typical B2B-Manager, the goal of the Harvard-Concept is unrealistic.

• The Conflict Resolution Standards

The Harvard-Concept assumes that people make rational decisions and must be persuaded through fact-based arguments.

However, in reality, people tend to make decisions based on emotions. In the B2B-World, conflicts are not resolved through rational arguments but rather by addressing the underlying emotions and motivations of both parties.

Salewski further elaborates: "Since resistance stems from emotions, it cannot simply be overcome with rational arguments."

As a result, the Harvard-Concept’s strict reliance on objective criteria - particularly rational arguments - is unrealistic for the typical B2B-Manager. Instead, B2B-Managers prioritize solutions that ensure both sides feel emotionally satisfied, without being bound to objective criteria.

• The Disclosure of Information

The Harvard-Concept requires all parties to fully disclose the information available to them in order to achieve a Pareto-optimal outcome (see Rosner/Winheller (2012), pp. 212 and 116).

In the B2B-World, a party generally discloses only the information that is strictly necessary to explain its position to the negotiation counterpart. This approach is also considered best practice in crisis negotiations: "We restrict information given to or received by the subject because knowledge is power, and power means control." (Strentz, T., Psychological Aspects of Crisis Negotiation, 3rd ed., Routledge Taylor & Francis, New York, 2018, p. 62).

For the typical B2B-Manager, the recommendation to fully disclose information is also considered unrealistic.

The Game-Changer for the B2B-World

The Solution: Those who (i) do not want to apply the (unrealistic) rules of the Harvard-Concept or engage a mediator, yet (ii) also want to avoid negotiating in a purely confrontational manner, have another way to change the game. As highlighted above, I recommend a true game-changer: the implementation of the innovative Driver-Seat-Concept. It incorporates the best practices of negotiation leadership from the perspective of the (real) B2B-World. Unlike the Harvard-Concept, the Driver-Seat-Concept does not require a mediator. The Driver-Seat-Concept inherently allows for purely confrontational negotiations (no paternalism). It fundamentally recommends the application of 3 strategies: (i) the (process-oriented) ABC Strategy, which enables you to combine confrontation and cooperation in a highly professional manner (Hybrid Model), (ii) the (task-oriented) Team Strategy, and (iii) the (behavior-oriented) BMI Strategy. (https://rock-negotiation.de/insights/so-erkennen-sie-mit-3-fragen-den-professionellen-verhandlungsfuhrer).

The practitioner of the Driver-Seat-Concept strives to win but recognizes that their negotiation counterpart must be satisfied with the outcome. The guiding principle is: Play to win – create satisfaction.

In Part 2, you will discover why the Harvard-Concept will no longer play a role in the future of B2B-Negotiations.