NEGOCOACH
254
Origin : Harvard School

🎓 Harvard School

Principled negotiation

R. Fisher & W. Ury, "Getting to Yes", Harvard Negotiation Project, 1981.

Full detail in the “Origin & history” section below.

254

The Mutual Gains Approach

International negotiation Technique 254 / 360
Alexandre Baumberger

Author of the library

Alexandre Baumberger

Negotiation lecturer at KEDGE Business School

A rare threefold background serving negotiation: teaching, commercial justice and audit, backed by experience as a company director in Bordeaux.

  • Teaching, KEDGE Business School Negotiation lecturer since 2014 (12 years).
  • Commercial justice, Commercial Court Judge from 2018 to 2026: litigation, then insolvency proceedings.
  • Audit & advisory, over 20 years Tax, employment and financial audit in major firms, for large groups.
Full profile Contact him
In brief

The Mutual Gains Approach (MGA) is the operational extension of principled negotiation, formalised by Lawrence Susskind at MITi. It breaks value creation down into concrete stages - prepare, create value, distribute it, follow through - designed for multiparty and public negotiations.

Save to favourites Practise this technique
Reading level

At a glance

Its family profile at a glance

Effectiveness Psychologicalimpact Discretion Preparation Relationalrisk Ethics
5.7 / 10 Tactical potential

Vigilance: low (1.0/10) · Preparation required: 8/10

Grounding in the source school School grounded in experimental research

Indicative profile: it situates the “International 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 5.7/10 (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 “International negotiation” family and the “Harvard School” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.

  • Effectiveness 8/10 · Very high

    How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.

  • Psychological impact 5/10 · Moderate

    Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.

  • Discretion 4/10 · Moderate

    How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.

  • Preparation 8/10 · Very high

    The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.

  • Relational risk 1/10 · Low

    Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.

  • Ethics 10/10 · 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.

Summary: The Mutual Gains Approach

Origin & history

Developed by Lawrence Susskind and the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, the MGA operationalises Getting to Yes for complex, multiparty disputes (environment, public policy, consensus building). Where Fisher and Ury set out principles, Susskind provides a sequenced process, linking thorough preparation, joint invention of options and the building of lasting consensus among numerous stakeholders.

Definition and principle

The MGA rests on a four-stage process: (1) prepare (clarify your interests and BATNA, and those of the others); (2) create value by inventing options before deciding; (3) distribute value according to criteria perceived as fair; (4) follow through so that the agreement holds over timei. Its distinctive hallmark: managing consensus among numerous actors, not merely two.

Concrete examples of application

Application by context

The same technique, across every negotiation settings

Context 1 / 8

Sales negotiation

A supplier and a distributor, rather than fighting over the margin, run a joint workshop: they first invent options (co-marketing, exclusivity, shared data) that enlarge the pie, then divide the value created according to agreed criteria. The relationship becomes a partnership.

How to apply it

Before sharing the margin, create value together (joint options); only then move to distribution, on criteria agreed in advance.

Strengths

Turns a customer-supplier relationship into a lasting partnership; enlarges the pie before cutting it.

Weaknesses

Time-consuming and demanding on trust; unsuited to a one-off, purely price-based transaction.

Context 2 / 8

Procurement negotiation

A buyer engages a strategic supplier in a mutual-gains process: joint logistics optimisation, shared forecasts, reduction of common costs. The savings generated are divided by an agreed formula. The buyer gains more than by squeezing price alone.

How to apply it

On the buy side, with strategic suppliers, seek to create shared value (co-innovation, logistics) before negotiating its division, rather than crushing the margin.

Strengths

Yields gains greater than price pressure alone and secures supply.

Weaknesses

Worthwhile only for lasting relationships; excessive for spot or commodity purchases.

Context 3 / 8

Labour negotiation

Faced with a restructuring, management, unions and public authorities run a mutual-gains process: shared preparation of the data, joint invention of solutions (retraining, mobility, training), then allocation of the efforts. Multiparty consensus averts open conflict.

How to apply it

In a complex collective setting, structure the process: prepare the facts together, invent before deciding, allocate fairly, then follow through on implementation.

Strengths

Suited to multiparty disputes; builds a firmer consensus than an imposed compromise.

Weaknesses

Cumbersome to orchestrate; the number of actors multiplies the risk of deadlock.

Context 4 / 8

Crisis management

In a multiparty territorial crisis (industrialists, residents, elected officials around a polluted site), a facilitator applies the MGA: establish shared facts, invent options for clean-up and compensation, allocate the burdens, then follow up on commitments over time.

How to apply it

In a multiparty crisis, begin with a base of shared facts before any negotiation of options; this is the condition for a consensus that holds.

Strengths

Structures crises with numerous stakeholders where two-party negotiation fails.

Weaknesses

The time the process takes (workshops, consensus) is ill-suited to acute urgency.

Context 5 / 8

Political negotiation

In an international environmental negotiation, the MGA organises the work: joint technical preparation, invention of options (financing mechanisms, technology transfers), distribution of efforts according to fairness criteria, then monitoring and verification arrangements to give the agreement credibility.

How to apply it

In multilateral diplomacy, sequence value creation then distribution, and invest in follow-through (verification, revision) that keeps the agreement alive over time.

Strengths

Designed for complex multiparty agreements (climate, resources) where a bilateral approach is not enough.

Weaknesses

Building consensus is slow and vulnerable to the defection of a key actor.

Context 6 / 8

Real-estate negotiation

In a property project involving developer, local authority, residents and future buyers, the MGA structures the consultation: each party's interests clarified, development options invented together (green spaces, social mix, phasing), then allocation of trade-offs and monitoring of the works.

How to apply it

On a project with multiple stakeholders, use the MGA to turn residents' opposition into co-design, before fixing the sharing of burdens and benefits.

Strengths

Defuses opposition to a project by involving the parties in value creation.

Weaknesses

Needlessly cumbersome for a simple transaction between one seller and one buyer.

Context 7 / 8

Cross-cultural negotiation

An international consortium (partners from several countries) applies the MGA to a large project. The preparation phase reveals differing conceptions of 'fairness' in distribution: strict equality for some, proportionality to contribution for others. The process must accommodate these culturally variable fairness criteria.

How to apply it

In a cross-cultural setting, explicitly negotiate the fairness criteria of the distribution phase: the notion of 'fair sharing' is not universal and must be builti.

Strengths

Its explicit process forces clarification of fairness criteria that are often implicit and divergent.

Weaknesses

Its methodological heaviness may jar with cultures that favour informal, relationship-based agreement.

Context 8 / 8

Family negotiation

In a large blended family settling a complex inheritance, the MGA provides structure: preparation (each party's interests and constraints), creation of options (cross-buyouts, temporary joint ownership, targeted sales), fair distribution, then follow-through on commitments (compensation schedules).

How to apply it

In an inheritance with many heirs, apply the MGA sequencing to prevent complexity from degenerating into conflict; formalise the follow-through on compensation.

Strengths

Brings method to complex inheritances that improvisation would blow apart.

Weaknesses

The formalism may feel cold or out of place in an emotionally charged family setting.

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

  • Playing on cultural codes
  • Convenient "misunderstandings"
  • A deliberately stretched timeline

Neutralise

The counters that defuse it

  • Learn the local customs
  • Have each point confirmed in writing
  • Keep your own tempo

Turn around

Turn it into an advantage

Make the long-term relationship your lever rather than the one-off deal.

The trap to avoid

Reading a cultural custom as weakness or agreement.

In brief

  • Difficulty: Advanced
  • Estimated effectiveness: Very high
  • Time to implement: A long, structured process
  • Fields of application: Consensus building, Public policy, Multilateral diplomacy, Environment, Major projects
  • Synonyms: Mutual Gains Approach, MGA, Structured win-win approach, Consensus building
  • Tags: mutual gains, Susskind, MIT, multiparty, consensus

Strengths and weaknesses

The MGA supplies a concrete process where principled negotiation remains at the level of principles: prepare, create, distribute, follow through. Its distinctive strength is managing multiparty and public negotiations, building a lasting consensus rather than a fragile compromise. Its cost: it is heavy and slow, requires facilitation and trust, and is hard to justify for simple or bilateral matters.

When to use this technique?

Deploy it for complex, multiparty disputes (environment, planning, public policy, major partnerships) where a lasting consensus is needed. Invaluable when the long-term relationship and implementation matter as much as the agreement. Over-engineered for a one-off, bilateral or purely distributive transaction.

How to recognise and counter this technique

Recognise it: the other side pushes for a structured process of workshops and 'value creation' before any sharing. Neutralise it: commit to value creation but protect your share at the distribution stage by setting clear fairness criteria in advance. Turn it around: co-pilot the process (agenda, criteria, follow-through) so that it does not serve only the interests of whoever initiated it.

Limits and ethics

The MGA is hungry for time and resources (facilitation, workshops, shared data), which makes it unsuited to urgency and to minor stakes. The distribution phase remains a distributive moment where the balance of power resurfaces despite the cooperative veneer. Ethically, an actor may instrumentalise the consensus process to legitimise a decision already taken. Finally, the fairness criteria, presented as objective, remain negotiated and culturally situated.

Variants and related techniques

The operational extension of principled negotiation; it incorporates logrolling, MESOs and interest mapping within its phases. Close to consensus building and public-dispute facilitation. It stands opposed to purely distributive and bilateral negotiation, and to a compromise imposed without process.

Going further

  • Lawrence Susskind & Jeffrey Cruikshank, Breaking Robert's Rules, 2006.
  • Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan & Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, The Consensus Building Handbook, 1999.
  • David Lax & James Sebenius, 3-D Negotiation, 2006.

Aims of the technique

  • Enlarge the pie before sharing it: generate options that create value across several issues (price, deadlines, volumes, risks, duration) before any discussion of allocation.
  • Prepare the negotiation around interests and BATNAs, your own and the other party's estimated one, rather than around stated positions.
  • Distribute the value created using objective, verifiable criteria, so that each party can justify the agreement as 'fair' to its principals.
  • Protect the long-term relationship and reputation, the conditions for repeat business and future cooperation.
  • Secure execution: build into the agreement, from the outset, mechanisms for monitoring commitments, regular communication and dispute resolution.

Famous cases

Diplomatic - Camp David 1978: the Sinai returned but demilitarised: During the Camp David negotiations between Egypt and Israel, the positions were head-on incompatible: Egypt demanded the full return of the Sinai, Israel wanted to keep part of it. By moving from positions to interests, sovereignty and national dignity for Egypt, military security for Israel, the negotiators invented a mutual-gains option: the Sinai returned in full to Egypt, but largely demilitarised, with buffer zones guaranteeing Israeli security. This case, popularised by Fisher and Ury in 'Getting to Yes', illustrates value creation through the exploration of underlying interests rather than positional bargaining.

Corporate - Kaiser Permanente: mutual-gains negotiation at group scale: In 1997, the American health group Kaiser Permanente and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions (dozens of unions, more than 100,000 employees) formed a labour partnership based on interest-based bargaining. Rather than the classic employer-union stand-off, the national collective agreements were negotiated in joint working groups dealing simultaneously with pay, quality of care, job security and work organisation, broadening the issues to create value before dividing it. This process, documented by Kochan, Eaton, McKersie and Adler in 'Healing Together' (2009), produced some of the collective agreements regarded as among the most innovative in American labour relations.

Commercial - Representative scenario: the supplier renewal broadened beyond price: Representative scenario (unattributed): a manufacturer renegotiates its contract with a key supplier who is asking for +8% to cover the rise in raw materials. Instead of a tug-of-war over price alone, the buyer applies the four stages: preparing its BATNA (an alternative supplier qualifiable in 9 months) and estimating the seller's; in session, the parties invent options crossing several issues, a 3-year volume commitment, shortened payment terms in exchange for a discount, joint development of an exclusive product line, transparent indexation to a public materials index. The rise agreed is +3%, justified by an objective criterion (the index), and the contract provides for a six-monthly review clause. Each side leaves with more value than in a simple split-the-difference compromise.

Common mistakes

  • Moving to allocation too quickly: bargaining over the split before exploring value-creation options freezes positions and destroys the agreement's potential.
  • Confusing mutual gains with unilateral concessions: giving ground 'to preserve the relationship' is not creating value; it is about exchanging trade-offs that each party values differently.
  • Neglecting BATNA preparation: without an assessed alternative (your own and the other side's), you know neither when to accept, nor when to walk away, nor what the possible zone of agreement is.
  • Mixing invention and commitment: failing to separate the brainstorming of options ('invent without committing') from the decision phase stifles creativity and pushes each party to defend its ideas prematurely.
  • Forgetting the fourth stage: signing without mechanisms for follow-through, communication and dispute resolution condemns many a 'win-win' agreement to unravel at the execution stage.

Scientific foundations

  • Roger Fisher, William Ury (with Bruce Patton) (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Houghton Mifflin (French trans. 'Comment réussir une négociation', Seuil)
  • Lawrence Susskind, Patrick Field (1996) Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes The Free Press
  • Hallam Movius, Masa Matsuura, Jin Yan, Dong-Young Kim (2006) Tailoring the Mutual Gains Approach for Negotiations with Partners in Japan, China, and Korea Negotiation Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 389-435, DOI: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00111.x

Quick exercise

Test yourself before answering

Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.

1 Quels signaux doivent vous alerter ?
  • Playing on cultural codes
  • Convenient "misunderstandings"
  • A deliberately stretched timeline
2 Quelles parades appliquer ?
  • Learn the local customs
  • Have each point confirmed in writing
  • Keep your own tempo

Frequently asked questions

The questions we get most

What is the "The Mutual Gains Approach" technique?

The Mutual Gains Approach (MGA) is the operational extension of principled negotiation, formalised by Lawrence Susskind at MITi. It breaks value creation down into concrete stages - prepare, create value, distribute it, follow through - designed for multiparty and public negotiations.

Is the "The Mutual Gains Approach" 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 Mutual Gains Approach"?

Reading a cultural custom as weakness or agreement. The right reflex: learn the local customs.

What is the "The Mutual Gains Approach" 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 Mutual Gains Approach" 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.

ChatGPT Claude Perplexity

Simulate

Rehearse against an AI counterpart

Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The Mutual Gains Approach" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.

ChatGPT Claude Perplexity

Debrief

Analyse a past negotiation

Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The Mutual Gains Approach" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.

ChatGPT Claude Perplexity

References

Bibliography & credible sources

Founding works of the 🎓 Harvard School school this technique belongs to.

  • Cover: Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

    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.

  • Cover: Getting Past No

    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.

  • Cover: Negotiation Genius (Harvard Business School)

    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.

On video

See the technique in action

Videos to picture The Mutual Gains Approach and anchor it through examples.

Search for videos Examples & demonstrations

A verified video selection is being enriched; the search above already surfaces the best videos on the topic.

Technique map

Where this technique sits

Every technique sits within a network: what it draws on, what it combines with, where it applies, and how to defend against it.

Combines with

same family
247 The BATNA 248 The WATNA 249 The ZOPA 250 MESOs (Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers) 251 Logrolling 252 Package Negotiation

Levers engaged

biases & emotions

Fields of application

Sales negotiation Procurement negotiation Labour negotiation Crisis management Political negotiation Real-estate negotiation Cross-cultural negotiation Family negotiation

Countered by

Spot its signals, neutralise it and turn it around with the defensive playbook on this page.

See the counter-techniques

Key takeaways

  • En une phrase

    The Mutual Gains Approach (MGA) is the operational extension of principled negotiation, formalised by Lawrence Susskind at MITi. It breaks value creation down into concrete stages - prepare, create value, distribute it, follow through - designed for multiparty and public negotiations.

  • The right reflex

    Make the long-term relationship your lever rather than the one-off deal.

  • Never do this

    Reading a cultural custom as weakness or agreement.

5.7/10 tactical potential Low vigilance School grounded in experimental research

Master this technique in real situations?

Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.

Explore our programmes
← Technique n°253 Principled Negotiation Technique n°255 → The Single Negotiating Text

Related techniques

The full library →
253 Principled Negotiation 255 The Single Negotiating Text 252 Package Negotiation 256 Interest Mapping
Call Book a call