Harvard vs. FBI: A Deep Dive into Two Powerful Negotiation Methods
Life is a series of negotiations, at least if you believe Harvard Business Review.
 |
|---|
| Photo by Cytonn Photography on Unsplash |
In the corporate world you talk about contracts, hire people, give feedback and sometimes let them go. You set deadlines, decide what needs to get done and talk about how much it’ll cost.
You work to get everyone on the same page.
But it’s not just about boardrooms or business deals. You negotiate when you split chores with a partner, decide where to go for dinner, buy a car, or plan a family trip.
Sometimes you say yes.
Sometimes no.
And sometimes, you just need a little more time.
Harvard vs. FBI: two approaches compared
When it comes to negotiation, two books stand out as modern classics: Getting to Yes - the Harvard approach and Never Split the Difference - the FBI approach.
Both offer powerful tools, but their underlying philosophies are quite different.
Let’s break down how they compare, where they diverge, and how you can take the best of both.
Let me briefly summarize the essence of the two approaches (for deeper dives, please check out my last two articles).
Getting to Yes
Getting to Yes focuses on principled negotiation: a method that emphasizes (i) fairness, (ii) mutual respect and (iii) problem-solving.
Developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project, its core principle is objectivity:
- separating emotions from the issue
- understanding underlying interests
- finding solutions that benefit both sides
Never Split the Difference
In contrast, Never Split the Difference, brings a more psychologically driven approach.
The author Chris Voss, who was involved in high-pressure hostage negotiations, teaches the importance of tactical empathy **(understanding and influencing emotions). It consists of techniques, such as …
- mirroring
- labeling
- getting the other party to say “no” initially
Where the approaches differ
| Area | Getting to Yes | Never Split the Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Tone | Collaborative, rational | Tactical, emotionally intelligent |
| Goal | Win-win solutions based on mutual understanding | Tactical advantage through psychological tools |
| Core principle | Focus on interests, not positions | Use emotions to influence decisions |
| Negotiation focus | Fairness and objective criteria | Emotional intelligence and control of the negotiation dynamic |
| Primary approach | Principled negotiation | Tactical empathy and psychological manipulation |
So the stand-out difference in the approaches is objectivity (Getting to Yes) vs. psychology (Never Split the Difference).
Where the methods align
Despite the big differences, both methods share some common principles:
- Preparation is key: Whether you’re using principled negotiation or Voss’ tactical techniques, understanding your goals and what you’re willing to walk away from is crucial.
- Listen more than you speak: Both approaches emphasize active listening. Getting to Yes encourages you to focus on the interests of both parties, while Never Split the Difference teaches you to use listening as a tool for emotional connection.
- Emotion is part of the process: Even though Getting to Yes advocates for logical, objective solutions, it recognizes that emotions influence decision-making. Voss, on the other hand, fully embraces emotional intelligence as the key negotiation tool.
- Be flexible: Both methods encourage creative problem-solving, whether through brainstorming options for mutual gain (Getting to Yes) or uncovering hidden truths and motivations (Never Split the Difference).
The techniques
One of the most notable differences between the two approaches lies in their techniques:
- Tactical Empathy vs. Objective Criteria
- In Getting to Yes, the emphasis is on using objective criteria (e.g., market value or legal standards) to find common ground.
- Never Split the Difference, however, uses tactical empathy: getting into the mindset of the other party, acknowledging their emotions, and using that information to influence their decisions. Labeling emotions and making people feel understood lowers the defenses of your counterpart and opens the door to collaboration.
- The “No” vs. The “Yes”
- Getting to Yes encourages negotiators to focus on win-win solutions. The goal is coming to a yes as quickly as possible and avoiding negativity at all costs.
- Voss turns this on its head by recommending you get a no early in the conversation. He believes that when someone says no, they feel safe and in control, which opens them up to real negotiation.
- Mirroring and Accusation Audits
- Voss introduces verbal mirroring, a technique where you repeat the last few words the other person says to encourage them to elaborate. This helps you gather more information without being pushy.
- Similarly, the Accusation Audit allows you to disarm any objections upfront by acknowledging what the other party might be thinking before they actually say it.
- Getting to Yes, doesn’t cover such approaches as it focuses more on fair and open dialogue.
- BATNA vs. Black Swans
- Both methods emphasize knowing your alternatives.
- Getting to Yes highlights BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) as a critical point of leverage. If a negotiation isn’t fruitful, you can fall back to your BATNA.
- Never Split the Difference focuses on discovering the Black Swan: these are unknown factors, hidden motivations, or pressures that could shift the negotiation in your favor. At its core, it is similar to the approach of Getting to Yes in finding a solution for mutual gain.
So, which one should you follow?
The beauty of these two approaches is that they aren’t mutually exclusive.
The best negotiators understand the tools they have at their disposal and know when to use each one.
By learning both principled negotiation (Getting to Yes) and the psychological strategies from Never Split the Difference, you’ll be prepared for almost any situation.
So, how can you make the most of both?
- Use Getting to Yes for collaborative negotiations where fairness and mutual benefit are essential: partnerships, salary discussions, and team agreements.
- When you’re focused on long-term relationships and fairness, use the principled negotiation techniques from Getting to Yes, focusing on interests, mutual gain, and objective criteria.
- Use Never Split the Difference when the stakes are high. Whether you’re negotiating in a high-pressure situation (like hostage negotiations) or need to manage an emotionally charged conversation (e.g. asking for a significant raise, handling tough clients, navigating disagreements with colleagues).
- When emotions run high, lean into tactical empathy: understand their feelings, acknowledge concerns, and get to the “no” to regain control.
My personal opinion
I think we usually gravitate more towards the approach suggested by Getting to Yes. And, yes using objective criteria and trying to let out emotions while negotiating can lead to good results.
However, as there also doesn’t exist a perfect Homo Oeconomicus in the real world, emotions do play a role whenever humans interact. They also play a role in negotiation. Even if you are good at separating emotions from the matter at hand, your counterpart might not.
That’s when the methods Voss advocates for in Never Split the Difference come in handy.
After finishing both books, I’m excited to start using more of the techniques in my daily work. One big thing that stood out to me is how important emotions are — even in negotiations — and how I can handle them better.
Thank you for reading my article! If you are interested in the topic of negotiation, you can also check out my last two articles on Getting to Yes and Never Split the Difference.
Disclaimer: For this article, I used generative AI support. As a basis, I used my notes back from when I initially read the two books. I used AI specifically for creating a first draft of an article based on these notes and then edited it manually.