In the early 1980s, professors Roger Fisher and William Ury developed the method of “principled negotiation” while working with the Harvard Negotiation Project. The authors argued that the traditional form of negotiation “depends upon successively taking, and then giving up, a sequence of positions.”1
The contest of will in such a scenario may produce agreements, but it will not be sustainable long-term, as neither party feels content with the results. After acquiescing to demands to achieve common ground, they may perceive certain concessions as forced measures and remain hopeful that the issues could be revisited in the future, instilling doubt and instability in the agreements. As a result, the agreements remain unstable and temporary. The hard positional negotiator wants to win; thus, they see any situation as a contest, treating opponents as enemies instead of partners who aim to reach an agreement that reflects mutual interests. In this contest of wills, the side that adopts extreme positions and holds out longer fares better. However, often they end up facing an equally hard response, which can be exhausting, stretch resources, and waste time while also harming the relationship with the other side. As a result, Fisher and Ury qualified any effective method of negotiation through three criteria: “It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.”2
