I had another discussion about the two types of negotiation classes offered at Insead. One based on heavy academic models, decision trees, rich and deep psychological tools. It assumes that enough value will be created anyway and taht most of the action resides in how the pie is split. The other, illustration of the Harvard Negotiation Project led by Roger Fisher is based on the 7 elements of negotaition and borrows some of the theoretical aspects from the first one but insists on option creating and perhaps puts less emphasis on value capture: a very important part of the process, especially if you have worked so hard at creating value.

Whenever you talk to either camp (namely the professors opting for one solution or the other) they break ice on the back of the other camp. Aren't they already expressing their opinion through their choice of method as they are teaching it? Why do they have to destroy the other method? Unless there have been loads of studies and empirical evidence that clearly positions one method vs the other, let us just carry on with the problem at hand and stop this blame/negation game.

And no - not everything in life is a negotiation. We don't think about bargaining with our parents, with our spouse or with our friends. We might end up doing a negotiation but we don't want to capture value for them. There is such a concept as unconditional help, gift and pleasure in just being with others - there is such a context in which the outcome matters little. Negotiation is useful but it is not the only thing that counts.