‘Soft on the People, Hard on the Problem’

William Ury’s career in conflict negotiation began in 1977 when he was a graduate student at Harvard University and a professor asked for his help on a Middle East peace proposal. Since then, he’s traveled to war zones in places such as Northern Ireland, Colombia and the former Yugoslavia to help cultivate peace. He has also used his skills in corporate settings to settle boardroom disputes. Ury co-founded Harvard’s Program on Negotiation and has authored several books on resolving disputes inside and outside the workplace, his latest being Possible: How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict (Harper Business, 2024). He says his motto, “Soft on the people, hard on the problem,” can be key to resolving many types of conflict.

Many people believe the U.S. has never been more divided. What do you think?

That’s not true. We had the Civil War. But certainly, in the last 40 years, we are at a high watermark.

Why is that?

In the old days, everyone listened to Walter Cronkite. We got our news from common sources. Now, with social media, there’s a reinforcement of our preconceptions and our already firmly held beliefs. I think social media tends to make us more reactive. There’s a kind of dopamine effect [when you reply to a post]. The same thing can happen at work if you receive an email, and you feel left out or hurt by its contents. It’s very tempting to hit the reply button, even though you know you are angry or hurt. It seems to me that these days, there’s greater tension and greater stress coming out of the pandemic, hybrid working, technologies like AI and the climate heating up. Everyone’s nerves are on edge.

What is the foundation of a good negotiation?

The foundation of a successful negotiation is the ability to stop and pause. A little bit of silence actually goes a long way. Take a break. Sleep on it. If you want to influence the other side, which is what we’re trying to do, you have to influence yourself. So the very first step is to harness our natural ability to stop and say, “What do I really want?”

What are some of the stumbling blocks?

There is a lot of avoidance, which doesn’t solve the problem, because it often gets worse and doesn’t go away. Or we accommodate, and we appease. Or we attack.

How can you get negotiations back on track?

The easiest concession you can make in any kind of conflict negotiation is to show respect to the other side. A lot of respect is letting people be seen and heard. This also gives you insights into what they really want, which will then allow you to better influence them so you can get what you really want. What are their underlying interests? What are their needs? What are their concerns? What’s bugging them? What are their fears? What are their aspirations? Those are intangible motivations that drive us.

You mention in your books that there is a “third side” in conflicts. Can you explain that?

When we get into conflict, what gets in the way is that we tend to divide; we tend to reduce everything to two sides. It’s sales against manufacturing, employee against the employer, union versus management. But, in fact, there’s always a third side represented by the people around you who are affected by the conflict. They can help the parties see what they really want. They can help build that golden bridge. They unlock the potential around the parties.

Why do you say we should embrace conflict instead of avoiding it?

Conflict is a natural part of life. We’re not going to end it. It actually plays a very useful function, which is that it allows us to bring about change. It allows you to make better decisions because better decisions often come from each party surfacing diverse perspectives. It’s not getting rid of conflict, but transforming it from the destructive form. We need to learn to navigate conflict by engaging respectfully in deep conversation, dialogue and negotiated problem-solving. It’s the foundation of human growth.

How do you build trust with someone who holds an opposing view or idea?

Talk about what’s getting in the way of the two of you having a better relationship. Take some time to stop the conversation and say, “The underlying issue here is trust.” Ask the question, “What is it that each side could do tomorrow morning to build trust?” Even small things can start to build trust. It’s like putting a deposit in a bank account. It builds. You’ve got to be really clear about what you’re committed to. One thing that erodes trust is when someone says something is going to be done by a certain deadline, and then it’s not.

How do you deal with disappointment when you are not happy with the resolution?

I find those situations happen when people aren’t genuinely listened to. People are going to be a lot happier, or a lot less unhappy, with the outcome if they feel the process was fair—one where they felt heard and respected. If they feel included in the decision-making, they feel better.

Everyone deserves respect, no matter who they are. Oftentimes, when you are trying to be hard on the problem, you end up being hard on the people. So the motto is, “Soft on the people, hard on the problem.”

How should companies handle conversations about the upcoming election?

First, I would have the meta conversation: Acknowledge that not everyone’s going to agree on everything and that we can agree to disagree in an agreeable way—a civil way. It’s the community’s responsibility. You want to get buy-in. Then, it’s a question of when tempers rise, this is what is going to happen. You can’t wish the problem away. Deal with it, lean into it. It’s going to be here, so let’s talk about how we want to handle it.  

Interview by Theresa Agovino, workplace editor for SHRM.

Note: This interview was edited for context, clarity and space.