You can be hard on the problem while being soft on the person. This technique consists in dissociating the human relationship from the dispute to be settled: attack the problem, never the counterpart. In doing so, you prevent emotions and ego from turning a disagreement into a personal confrontation.
Grounding in the source schoolSchool grounded in experimental research
Indicative profile: it situates the “Structural negotiation” family as the Harvard School school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.
NEGOCOACH assessment
How to read this rating
Tactical potential 6.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance low (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Structural negotiation” family and the “Harvard School” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.
Effectiveness8/10 · Very high
How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.
Psychological impact5/10 · Moderate
Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.
Discretion6/10 · High
How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.
Preparation8/10 · Very high
The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.
Relational risk2/10 · Low
Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.
Ethics9/10 · Very high
Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.
Level of evidence
School grounded in experimental research
The school this technique stems from is grounded in replicated, peer-reviewed experimental work. This indicator qualifies the school, not the experimental validation of this technique taken in isolation.
Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.
Overview of SEPARATE THE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM
Origin & history
This is the first principle of principled negotiation set out by Roger Fisher and William Ury (Getting to Yes, 1981, Harvard Negotiation Project). The authors observe that most negotiations go off the rails because people identify with their positions: criticising the idea becomes criticising the person. Their proposal: treat the substance (the problem) and the relationship (the people) separately, standing « side by side facing the problem » rather than « face to face ». It is one of the most influential contributions to modern negotiation.
Definition and principle
The technique consists in preserving and tending to the relationship (listening, respect, managing emotions) while remaining firm on the substance. You take on the problem as a common adversary, rather than the other party as an enemy.
Concrete examples of application
Application by context
The same technique, across several negotiation settings
A negotiator maintains warm relations with their counterpart while firmly defending their terms, without ever calling the other party into question personally.
Context 2 / 6
Labour negotiation
Management and representatives agree to treat the conflict as a common problem to be solved, preserving mutual respect.
Context 3 / 6
Crisis management
The mediator distinguishes the person (whom they respect and listen to) from the behaviour or demand (which they contest), avoiding personal escalation.
Context 4 / 6
Political negotiation
Two opposing camps maintain proper relations between negotiators while clashing hard on the issues.
Context 5 / 6
Real-estate negotiation
Buyer and seller remain courteous and human while negotiating hard on price, which avoids ruptures of ego.
Context 6 / 6
Family negotiation
In a division of assets, one separates affection for loved ones from the dispute over the property, preventing the conflict from becoming personal.
Counter-techniques
Spot and neutralise this technique
Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.
Detect
The signals that give it away
Rules and agenda imposed from the outset
A "take it or leave it" frame
A counterpart who "has no mandate"
Neutralise
The counters that defuse it
Negotiate the frame before the substance
Insist on the right decision-maker
Set your own rules of the game
Turn around
Turn it into an advantage
Propose an alternative frame that favours you, rather than enduring theirs.
The trap to avoid
Accepting the other side's ground without ever discussing it.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Separating the people from the problem avoids the bruised egos that cause agreements to fail and preserves the relationship for the future. Its limits: it is emotionally demanding, especially when the other party attacks personally; you must then name and manage the emotion without being drawn into it.
When to use this technique?
Essential in almost any negotiation, and vital in lasting or emotionally charged relationships. Particularly valuable when the tone rises or when ego enters the picture.
Objectives of the technique
Preserve the relationship between the parties while firmly defending one's interests on the substance of the problem
Prevent emotional tensions (ego, anger, misunderstandings) from contaminating the resolution of the substantive dispute
Attack the problem and not the person, in order to turn a confrontation into a joint, side-by-side resolution
Defuse mistaken perceptions and attributions of intent by explicitly addressing the human factor
Allow each party to save face and stay engaged in the negotiation even after a sharp disagreement
Famous cases
Diplomatic · The Camp David negotiations (1978): During the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel, the substance of the dispute concerned the Sinai, but years of hostility and personal mistrust poisoned the exchanges. American mediation set about separating the resentments and symbolic charge from the concrete territorial problem. By refocusing the discussions on the underlying interests (security for Israel, sovereignty for Egypt) rather than on postures and personal grievances, a framework for agreement was able to emerge. This case is regularly cited by advocates of principled negotiation to illustrate the distinction between the people and the problem.
Business · A dispute between two partners over cash flow: A representative scenario: two co-founders clash violently over an investment decision, each perceiving the other as reckless or timid. As long as the debate remains personal (« you are irresponsible » / « you block everything »), no way out appears. By explicitly naming the relational tension, then setting it aside to focus on the facts (cash-flow forecasts, acceptable risk threshold, costed scenarios), the partners reach a decision on the substance without breaking their working relationship.
Common mistakes
Confusing firmness on the substance with harshness towards the person: being hard on the problem does not licence humiliating or attacking the counterpart
Giving way on the substance for fear of damaging the relationship (« so as not to offend them »), which betrays one's own interests
Ignoring the emotional dimension entirely, believing one is staying « purely rational »: untreated emotions resurface and block the agreement
Personalising the disagreement by interpreting the other side's positions as deliberate attacks rather than as viewpoints to be understood
Waiting until the conflict has soured to address the human factor, when the relationship should be built beforehand, before the problem emerges
Limits and ethics
The first principle of Fisher and Ury, the rule is excellent and makes it possible to stay hard on the substance without damaging the relationship: most negotiations fail because the disagreement turns personal, and knowing how to avoid this is a major skill. Two limits must nonetheless be set, for this principle is one of those that can be turned against the very party it was meant to protect. The first is a fact that the formula obscures: sometimes the person is the problem. In the face of repeated bad faith, lies, or tactics aimed at the individual, insisting on separating amounts to denial, and the grievance then bears on a behaviour that must be named. The second is more insidious: the principle can serve as a gag. « Let's stay factual, let's not personalise » is a convenient way to disqualify a well-founded complaint by reframing it as misplaced emotion, and it is frequently used where the balance of power is unequal, with an employee who describes unacceptable behaviour being told they lack perspective. Going after the problem rather than the person preserves the agreement; invoking the principle to disqualify a well-founded grievance turns a rule of courtesy into a gag.
Scientific foundations
Roger Fisher, William Ury & Bruce Patton (2011) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd ed.) Penguin Books
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton & Sheila Heen (2010) Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most Penguin Books
Quick exercise
Test yourself before answering
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
1Quels signaux doivent vous alerter ?
Rules and agenda imposed from the outset
A "take it or leave it" frame
A counterpart who "has no mandate"
2Quelles parades appliquer ?
Negotiate the frame before the substance
Insist on the right decision-maker
Set your own rules of the game
Frequently asked questions
The questions we get most
What is the "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique" technique?
You can be hard on the problem while being soft on the person. This technique consists in dissociating the human relationship from the dispute to be settled: attack the problem, never the counterpart. In doing so, you prevent emotions and ego from turning a disagreement into a personal confrontation.
Is the "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique" technique ethical?
Yes. Used in good faith it stays within a fair negotiation: it structures the exchange without deceiving the other party. Being transparent about your intentions strengthens the long-term relationship.
How do you defend against "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique"?
Accepting the other side's ground without ever discussing it. The right reflex: negotiate the frame before the substance.
What is the "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique" technique based on?
NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Harvard School): school grounded in experimental research. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.
Practise with AI
Three ready-to-use prompts
Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.
Prepare
Build your plan before the meeting
You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.
Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.
Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.
Founding works of the 🎓 Harvard School school this technique belongs to.
Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
Book
R. Fisher & W. Ury · 1981
The manifesto of principled negotiation: move beyond positional bargaining to negotiate on interests, separate the people from the problem, invent options for mutual gain and rely on objective criteria. The best-selling negotiation book in the world.
Getting Past No
Book
W. Ury · 1991
The practical sequel to Getting to Yes: negotiating with a difficult, hostile or bad-faith counterpart. Ury lays out "breakthrough negotiation" in five steps, including the famous "go to the balcony" to master your emotions.
Negotiation Genius (Harvard Business School)
Book
D. Malhotra & M. Bazerman · 2007
A modern synthesis of Harvard research: creating then claiming value, defusing biases, handling lies and negotiating from a weak position. Very rich in real cases and tools.
R. Fisher & W. Ury, "Getting to Yes", Harvard Negotiation Project, 1981.
The author
Author
On video
See the technique in action
Videos to picture The Separate-the-People-from-the-Problem Technique and anchor it through examples.
You can be hard on the problem while being soft on the person. This technique consists in dissociating the human relationship from the dispute to be settled: attack the problem, never the counterpart. In doing so, you prevent emotions and ego from turning a disagreement into a personal confrontation.
The right reflex
Propose an alternative frame that favours you, rather than enduring theirs.
Never do this
Accepting the other side's ground without ever discussing it.
6.3/10 tactical potential Low vigilance School grounded in experimental research
Master this technique in real situations?
Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.
