The Fourth Principle: Insist on Using Objective Criteria
The first three principles of principled negotiation—separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests, and inventing options for mutual gain—are designed to transform a negotiation from an adversarial confrontation into a collaborative problem-solving process. They help to create a positive atmosphere, identify the real issues, and generate a rich menu of possible solutions. However, even with the best will in the world, negotiators will almost always face moments where their interests are in direct conflict. A buyer wants a lower price, a seller a higher one. A union wants a larger wage increase, management a smaller one. One department wants the corner office, and so does another. At this juncture, where creative options to reconcile interests have been exhausted, the negotiation reaches a critical fork in the road.
The traditional path is to revert to a contest of will. This is the realm of positional pressure tactics. One side insists on its number, threatens to walk away, tries to wear the other down through sheer stubbornness, or offers arbitrary “split the difference” compromises. This approach is costly, inefficient, and damaging to relationships. It rewards intransigence and produces outcomes that are arbitrary rather than wise. The principled negotiator, however, takes a different path, guided by the fourth and final principle: “Insist on Using Objective Criteria.”
This principle provides a powerful and legitimate way to resolve conflicting interests without a destructive battle of wills. The core idea is to commit to deciding the issue on its merits, based on some fair standard that is independent of the naked will of either side. Instead of arguing about what each party is willing to do, the discussion shifts to what they ought to do, as determined by a mutually respected, external benchmark. This approach allows negotiators to reach a wise agreement amicably and efficiently, protecting them from pressure while allowing them to be fair. It is the key to being “hard on the problem, soft on the people” when interests directly clash.
The Rationale: Deciding on the Basis of Principle, Not Pressure
The case for using objective criteria is both practical and compelling. Imagine you are building a house and have a dispute with the contractor over the required depth of the foundations. The contractor suggests two feet, you think five feet is necessary. If the contractor says, “I was generous on the price for the steel girders; it’s your turn to be generous on the foundations,” you would rightly reject this as absurd. The safety of your home is not a matter for horse-trading. Instead, you would insist on resolving the issue based on objective standards: “What do the government building codes specify for this type of soil? What is the standard engineering practice? How deep are the foundations of other houses in this area?”
This logic, so obvious in a construction context, applies with equal force to almost any negotiation. Why should the price of a company be determined by who is the more stubborn negotiator, rather than by standards such as book value, earnings, or the market price of comparable companies? Why should a legal settlement be a function of who can better tolerate the cost and stress of litigation, rather than a reasoned assessment of legal precedent and the likely outcome at trial?
Using objective criteria offers several significant advantages:
- It produces wise agreements. An agreement informed by precedent, community practice, scientific merit, or principles of fairness is far more likely to be wise, durable, and satisfactory to both sides than an agreement based on an arbitrary split between two opening positions. It anchors the outcome in reality and reason, protecting the parties from making a deal they will later regret. Furthermore, an agreement consistent with external standards is less vulnerable to attack from constituents or critics, as it can be defended as fair and reasonable, not just as a capitulation.
- It is efficient. Positional bargaining is a time-consuming ritual of offers, counter-offers, and small concessions. A huge amount of time is spent on posturing and tactical maneuvering. When negotiators use objective criteria, they can use their time more productively. Instead of attacking each other’s positions, they can focus their discussion on identifying relevant standards, analyzing their applicability, and framing a solution based on them. This is particularly crucial in multi-party negotiations, where positional bargaining can become impossibly complex. The example of the Law of the Sea Conference, where an MIT economic model for seabed mining broke a deadlock between developed and developing nations, is a powerful testament to this efficiency. The model provided a neutral, credible way to evaluate proposals, depersonalized the disagreement, and allowed both sides to change their positions without losing face.
- It protects the relationship. A contest of will inherently strains a relationship. One side must bend to the other’s will, leading to resentment. Principled negotiation, by contrast, transforms the encounter. The parties are no longer adversaries pushing against each other; they are colleagues reasoning together, seeking a fair solution to a shared problem. Neither side needs to give in to the other; both can defer to a fair standard. This allows them to maintain a good working relationship even as they resolve a difficult conflict of interest. It frames the negotiation as a joint search for legitimacy, which is a fundamentally less confrontational and more respectful process.
Developing Objective Criteria
The successful use of this principle begins with preparation. Before and during the negotiation, you must actively develop and identify potential objective criteria that could apply to your situation.
Fair Standards: The universe of potential standards is vast. The key is to find criteria that are legitimate, practical, and, ideally, accepted by both sides as relevant. Examples include:
- Market Value: The price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in a free market. (Used for real estate, used cars, companies, etc.)
- Precedent: What has been done in similar situations in the past? (Used in legal settlements, labor contracts, etc.)
- Scientific Judgment: The conclusions of experts in a given field. (Used in environmental disputes, technical specifications, etc.)
- Professional Standards: The code of conduct or accepted practices of a profession. (Used in medical malpractice, architectural contracts, etc.)
- Efficiency: The solution that achieves a desired result with the least cost or waste.
- Costs: Actual costs, depreciated book value, replacement cost, etc.
- What a Court Would Decide: A reasoned assessment of how a judge or jury would apply the law to the facts of the case.
- Reciprocity: Applying the same standard to both parties. This is a powerful test of fairness. “Would you agree to this standard if you were in my position?”
- Tradition / Custom: How have these things customarily been done?
At a minimum, the criteria must be independent of the mere say-so of either party. The more widely accepted and relevant the standard, the more persuasive it will be.
Fair Procedures: In some cases, it may be impossible to agree on a substantive standard. The conflict can still be resolved independently of will by using a fair procedure. These procedures introduce an element of objectivity or chance that removes the decision from the direct control of the negotiators. Examples include:
- One Cuts, the Other Chooses: The age-old method for dividing a piece of cake fairly. This was brilliantly adapted in the Law of the Sea negotiations, where the party with superior knowledge (the mining company) was required to present two potential mining sites, and the other party (the international Enterprise) got to choose one for itself. This procedure cleverly harnessed the expert’s self-interest to ensure a fair outcome for the novice.
- Taking Turns / Drawing Lots / Flipping a Coin: These methods are inherently fair when there is no other basis for distinguishing between claims. They give each side an equal opportunity, even if the result is unequal.
- Letting a Third Party Decide: This includes using mediators for advice, experts for a technical opinion, or arbitrators for a binding decision. “Last-best-offer arbitration,” where the arbitrator must choose one party’s final proposal or the other’s, is a procedure designed to pressure both sides to be more reasonable.
By preparing a portfolio of potential standards and procedures, you enter the negotiation equipped not just with your own position, but with a toolkit of reasoned arguments and fair processes for resolving disagreements.
Negotiating with Objective Criteria
Identifying potential criteria is only half the battle. You must then use them effectively in the negotiation. This involves a three-part approach.
1. Frame Each Issue as a Joint Search for Objective Criteria. From the outset, frame the task not as “trying to agree on a price,” but as “trying to determine a fair price.” This reframes the entire discussion. “You want a high price, and I want a low one. Let’s work together to figure out what objective standards would be most relevant here. What’s your theory for how we should determine the value of this company?”
When they state a position, don’t reject it. Instead, treat it as a proposal and ask for the theory behind it. “You’re asking for $1.5 million. Help me understand how you arrived at that figure. What standard are you using?” By assuming they are also seeking a fair outcome based on principle, you gently guide them into the game of principled negotiation.
Crucially, you should try to agree on the principles first, before considering specific terms. If you can agree on the standard (e.g., “We should base the price on what comparable houses in this neighborhood have sold for in the last six months”), then determining the price becomes a much easier, more mechanical process of joint fact-finding.
2. Reason and Be Open to Reason. This is the critical element that distinguishes principled negotiation from a sophisticated form of positional bargaining. Using objective criteria is not about cherry-picking the standards that support your position and using them as clubs to beat the other side. That is simply a more articulate way of digging into a position.
A principled negotiator behaves like a good judge. You come to the table with an open mind, willing to be persuaded by a better argument or a more appropriate standard. When the other side proposes a standard, you do not dismiss it. You discuss its merits. “You suggest we should use the sale price of the house next door. That’s an interesting precedent. My concern is that their house was renovated just last year, while this one hasn’t been updated in a decade. A more relevant standard might be the average price per square foot for unrenovated homes in the area. What do you think?”
This process involves a genuine dialogue on the merits. If both sides propose different but equally legitimate standards, you can search for an objective basis for choosing between them (e.g., Which is more widely used? Which have we used in the past?). Or, you might legitimately agree to split the difference between the results produced by the two standards. The outcome is still independent of will, as it is based on a jointly accepted compromise between two legitimate principles. The key is the combination of firm advocacy for standards you believe are appropriate, coupled with a genuine openness to persuasion about which standards are, in fact, the most appropriate.
3. Never Yield to Pressure, Only to Principle. This is the core of your defense against positional pressure tactics. When the other side tries to coerce you with threats, bribes, emotional manipulation, or a simple refusal to budge, the principled response is always the same. You invite them to state their reasoning. You suggest objective criteria you think apply. And you make it clear that you will only move in response to a persuasive argument or principle, not in response to pressure.
- If they say, “Trust me,” you respond, “Trust is a separate issue. Let’s focus on figuring out what a fair price would be.”
- If they threaten you, you can say, “My reputation is built on not yielding to threats. I only negotiate on the merits. Let’s talk about the substance of the problem.”
- If they simply refuse to budge from a number, you say, “You’re stuck on $50,000. There must be some reason you think that’s a fair number. I’d genuinely like to understand your thinking. I can’t agree to it just because you insist, but I can agree if I’m persuaded it’s fair.”
By consistently channeling the discussion back to the merits and refusing to engage in a contest of will, you create a situation where the only way for the other side to advance their interests is to play the game of principled negotiation with you. You use their desire for a substantive agreement to induce them to participate in a reasoned process. In this sense, insisting on principle is a dominant strategy. It is far easier to defend a refusal to yield except on the basis of reason than it is to defend a refusal to yield that is accompanied by a refusal to provide any reason.
In conclusion, the principle of using objective criteria is the principled negotiator’s anchor in the turbulent seas of conflicting interests. It provides a way to be firm without being stubborn, to be fair without being weak. It transforms the resolution of conflicts from a power struggle into a joint search for a just and wise outcome. By preparing diligently, engaging in a genuine dialogue about relevant standards, and refusing to yield to anything but reason, a negotiator can protect their interests, preserve their relationships, and produce agreements that are not only acceptable but also demonstrably fair.