Getting to Yes

How do you get what you want without damaging relationships? That’s the central question behind Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton—one of the most influential books ever written on negotiation. Whether you're debating a salary raise, resolving a family dispute, or navigating an international peace treaty, the authors argue that negotiation shouldn't be about winning or losing but about finding mutual gains through reason and fairness.

They propose a method called principled negotiation, also known as negotiation on the merits. This approach transforms the traditional back-and-forth of positional bargaining into a collaborative process based on shared problem-solving. Instead of arguing over who’s right or who gets more, principled negotiation encourages you to focus on the underlying interests of each party and to seek objective, fair standards for agreement.

The Harvard Negotiation Project developed this framework in the late 1970s to address high-stakes conflicts—from personal disagreements to global disputes. Over the decades, the book has inspired diplomats, CEOs, mediators, and parents alike to rethink their approach to conflict and redefine what it means to truly win a negotiation.

From Adversaries to Problem-Solvers

At the heart of Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s philosophy is a simple truth: people are not the problem—the problem is the problem. Most of us instinctively adopt one of two negotiation styles: hard (demanding and competitive) or soft (accommodating and relationship-oriented). The hard bargainer sees negotiation as war; the soft bargainer just wants peace, often at the cost of fairness. The authors argue that both approaches fail because they tie ego and emotion too closely to positions. In contrast, principled negotiation allows you to be both soft on people and hard on the problem.

Instead of defending rigid positions, this approach asks what both sides actually need. It urges negotiators to separate personal feelings from objective facts and to frame the process as a joint search for solutions. By disentangling relationship issues from substantive problems, you can protect goodwill and still fight for legitimate interests.

The Four Pillars of Principled Negotiation

The book is built around four simple but revolutionary principles:

• Separate the people from the problem: Humans bring emotions, biases, and egos into every negotiation. Address relationship and communication issues directly rather than letting them distort the substantive discussion.
• Focus on interests, not positions: Positions are what people say they want; interests are why they want it. Understanding motives opens possibilities for mutual gain.
• Invent options for mutual gain: True negotiation is creative. By brainstorming freely before deciding, you expand the pie instead of fighting over how to divide it.
• Insist on using objective criteria: Disagreements should be resolved based on fair, independent standards—like legal precedent, market value, or expert opinion—not pressure or coercion.

These four steps help you transform the mindset of the negotiation itself—from a zero-sum duel to a joint exploration. In doing so, you produce outcomes that are wiser, more efficient, and more sustainable.

Dealing with Tough Situations

But what if the other side refuses to play fair? Later chapters delve into three particularly difficult negotiation scenarios: what if they’re more powerful, won’t cooperate, or use dirty tricks. To counter power imbalances, the authors introduce the concept of a BATNA—your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Knowing your BATNA protects you from accepting bad deals and strengthens your confidence at the table.

If the other side won’t engage cooperatively, Fisher and Ury recommend what they call negotiation jujitsu: rather than resisting attacks directly, deflect them back toward the problem. When someone attacks you, you don’t retaliate—you reframe their aggression into a collaborative exploration of interests.

Finally, when trickery or manipulation enters the scene, the authors advise negotiating about the rules themselves. Raise the tactic explicitly, question its fairness, and bring the discussion back to shared principles. By doing so, you avoid being a victim and reassert control of the process.

A Revolution in Everyday Decision-Making

Since its first publication in 1981, Getting to Yes has helped ignite what the authors call the “negotiation revolution.” Organizations, families, and even governments increasingly rely on collaborative dialogue rather than hierarchy or coercion to make decisions. In a world where conflict is unavoidable—yet mutual dependence runs deeper than ever—these principles remain as relevant today as they were decades ago.

As Fisher, Ury, and Patton remind us, conflict isn’t the enemy; destructive conflict is. When you master principled negotiation, you don’t just get better at closing deals—you become better at building understanding. And in an increasingly interconnected world, that’s how we all get to yes.

Negotiations fail when emotions hijack reason, and Getting to Yes shows exactly how to prevent that. The first rule of principled negotiation is to separate the people from the problem. Negotiators are human—driven by pride, fear, ego, and identity. When you mix those human elements with the substantive issues being debated, you risk turning a solvable problem into a personal battle. The authors argue that it's crucial to disentangle relationship challenges from the actual merits of the disagreement.

Perception: Seeing Through Their Eyes

Misunderstanding is the first great trap of negotiation. People don’t respond to reality—they respond to their perception of reality. Fisher and Ury urge you to actively explore how the other side sees the situation. Put yourself in their shoes. For example, in a labor dispute between workers and management, the workers might view layoffs as evidence that management doesn’t care about them, while management may see cuts as a survival necessity. Until both sides understand each other’s perceptions, progress is impossible.

“Their thinking is the problem,” the authors write, meaning that change starts by addressing misunderstandings—clarifying perceptions rather than arguing over who’s right.

Emotion: Acknowledging Feelings Without Blame

In emotionally charged negotiations, people’s needs for respect, belonging, and identity often outweigh material stakes. The authors introduce what they call “core concerns”: autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, role, and status. When these needs are unmet, emotions flare. You don’t suppress emotions; you acknowledge them. In one of their examples, allowing parties to vent frustrations without judgment transformed anger into problem-solving energy. Symbolic gestures—like apologies or small acts of empathy—can powerfully shift dynamics.

Communication: Listening, Speaking, and Understanding

Clear, two-way communication is essential. The authors warn against three common problems: not talking, not listening, and misunderstanding. Negotiators often talk past each other, rehearsing arguments rather than considering what the other side says. Active listening—paraphrasing, summarizing, and acknowledging—signals respect and prevents misinterpretation. Equally important is speaking for a purpose: every statement should clarify, test, or move the discussion forward.

Finally, Fisher and Ury advise creating an environment that reduces defensiveness. Build a working relationship before crisis hits. Treat negotiation as if you and the other party are sitting side by side, jointly facing a problem—not face to face in combat. With empathy, respect, and clear communication, you shift the interaction from confrontation toward collaboration.

A position is what someone says they want; an interest is the reason they want it. This distinction, simple in theory but profound in practice, lies at the core of Getting to Yes. The authors illustrate it through the famous story of two people arguing over a window: one wants it open, the other wants it closed. Their positions clash—until a librarian discovers their interests. One wants fresh air, the other wants no draft. She opens a window in the next room, satisfying both.

Discovering the “Why” Behind the “What”

Negotiators often fixate on defending their stances: “I need $100,000,” or “We won’t move that deadline.” Fisher and Ury suggest instead asking “Why?”—and “Why not?” These questions uncover motives, fears, and needs that can be reconciled. In international diplomacy, for instance, Israel’s position of keeping part of the Sinai and Egypt’s demand for full sovereignty seemed irreconcilable until both sides acknowledged their deeper interests: Israeli security and Egyptian sovereignty. The eventual peace treaty demilitarized the area, satisfying both.

Shared and Diverging Interests

Contrary to popular belief, not all interests conflict. Behind opposing positions often lie shared goals—security, stability, or good relationships. Recognizing these areas of overlap provides fertile ground for compromise. For example, landlords and tenants both want stability and proper maintenance, even if they differ on rent. Negotiations should highlight these commonalities rather than escalate differences. By drawing a map of shared, divergent, and conflicting interests, you can identify where joint gains are possible.

Communicating Interests with Clarity

Express your interests vividly. People respond more to genuine stories and examples than to abstract demands. The book’s guidance to “make your interests come alive” means sharing real impacts: How will a delayed project affect your customers or your morale? Just as importantly, acknowledge the other side’s interests out loud: “I understand that you need to keep costs low.” This acknowledgment builds trust and demonstrates that you see the whole picture.

As the authors put it, be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Stand firm on principles and objectives but remain flexible about the means. When both sides focus on interests instead of rigid positions, negotiation transforms from a battle of wills into a joint search for solutions.

When negotiation feels like splitting a pie, both sides lose. Getting to Yes insists that most negotiations hide opportunities to make the pie bigger. This fourth pillar—inventing options for mutual gain—turns negotiation into a creative process. Fisher and Ury note that people often fail to do this because of premature judgment, the search for one perfect answer, the assumption of a fixed pie, and the belief that solving the other side’s problem is their problem. Overcoming these mental blocks unlocks innovation.

Brainstorm Without Judging

The authors encourage separating inventing from deciding. Brainstorm as many ideas as possible before evaluating them. A teacher and school board, for example, might suspend decision-making and list dozens of solutions—from staggered schedules to shared facilities—before picking one. They even suggest “brainstorming with the other side” under clear ground rules: no criticism, no commitments, just exploration. This injects playfulness and cooperation into what otherwise might be defensive posturing.

Broaden the Options

Think beyond yes/no answers. The authors’ “Circle Chart” illustrates how to move between the concrete (specific actions) and the general (abstract principles). For example, if citizens and developers clash over pollution, a general principle might be “preserve environmental quality while allowing economic growth,” which could yield inventive proposals like shared green zones or cleaner technologies. Similarly, thinking like different experts—lawyers, engineers, sociologists—can produce more creative, cross-disciplinary solutions.

Dovetail Differing Interests

Often, what one side values most costs the other very little. In one story, two children fight over an orange until their mother splits it. One wanted the fruit, the other the peel for baking—a classic metaphor for missed opportunities. Negotiation thrives on differences: risk tolerance, time preference, or forecasting. By finding where interests diverge constructively, you can craft deals that satisfy both sides beyond compromise. As the authors write, “Vive la différence!”

Make Their Decision Easy

The best solutions help the other side say yes easily. Understand whose decision matters, clarify their constraints, and present choices that appeal to their self-interest and sense of legitimacy. When Egypt’s President Sadat traveled to Jerusalem in 1977, he overturned expectations and reframed Israelis’ perceptions of his motives—making peace politically possible. That’s strategic empathy at its highest form: shaping options that make agreement feel not capitulation, but wisdom.

Inventing options means seeing negotiation not as a win-or-lose showdown but as joint problem-solving. When creativity enters the table, even the toughest disputes can turn into opportunities for shared success.

Even with empathy and creativity, some negotiations reach stalemates. When that happens, the final principle—insisting on objective criteria—serves as the anchor of fairness. Instead of fighting over willpower (“I want this,” “I refuse that”), the authors recommend grounding decisions in legitimate, independent standards. These could be market values, legal precedent, scientific data, or moral principles.

For example, if you’re haggling over a car price, referring to Kelley Blue Book listings or comparable sales shifts the debate from opinion to fact. In international talks like the Law of the Sea negotiations, adopting MIT’s neutral economic model helped developing and developed nations settle a resource allocation dispute. Objective criteria remove ego from the equation and make solutions more durable.

Be Open to Reason, Closed to Pressure

Fisher and Ury advocate a balanced stance: be open to reason but closed to threats. Concede only to principle, never to intimidation. If someone says “That’s company policy,” ask, “What’s the principle behind that policy?” You’re not defying; you’re demanding logic. When both sides adopt this mindset, negotiation becomes a joint search for legitimacy, not dominance.

Fair Procedures and Mutual Respect

The method also applies to process. When substance can’t be agreed on, use fair procedures—like “one cuts, the other chooses,” flipping a coin, or consulting an arbitrator. In a divorce case, parents might agree first on visitation principles before assigning custody. Process fairness builds trust in outcomes, even if results differ from expectations.

By shifting from “Who wins?” to “What’s fair?”, you transform clashes of power into partnerships in truth-seeking. As the authors put it, principled negotiation is not just efficient—it’s ethical. In insisting on objective criteria, you ensure that agreements not only work but feel right.

What if the other side is more powerful? Getting to Yes answers with one word: BATNA, or Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Your BATNA is your plan B—what you’ll do if no deal is reached. The authors emphasize that power in negotiation doesn’t come from dominance or wealth but from knowing your alternatives. As they write, “The better your BATNA, the greater your power.”

Why BATNA Beats Bottom Lines

Most people set a rigid “bottom line”—the least they’ll accept. But that’s often guesswork and can be too harsh or too generous. Instead, focus on your BATNA, which is flexible and reality-tested. Knowing your BATNA protects you from bad deals while opening your mind to creative ones. If your BATNA improves—a new supplier, another job offer—your leverage strengthens automatically.

Develop and Improve It

A strong BATNA doesn’t appear by luck; you develop it deliberately. Generate possible alternatives, refine the best ones, and cultivate them into viable options. If you’re a labor union, that might mean preparing for a strike or securing mediation. If you’re job-hunting, it means lining up multiple possibilities so you aren’t desperate for one offer. As Fisher and Ury note, knowing how you’ll cope if talks collapse is the surest path to confidence at the table.

Assess and Respect Their BATNA

Good negotiators also estimate the other side’s alternatives. A small town bargaining with a large corporation, for instance, may realize its leverage if the company would incur massive costs moving their factory. Understanding this changes the balance of power. When both sides have realistic views of their BATNAs, agreements become wiser and more stable.

In short, BATNA transforms negotiation from dependence to freedom. You can walk away with confidence, not fear. And paradoxically, the moment you’re truly ready to walk away is when the other side is most likely to take you seriously.

Even with principles in place, reality can be messy. Some people refuse to cooperate, or worse, use deception and manipulation. Getting to Yes tackles this head-on with two pragmatic tools: negotiation jujitsu and taming hard bargainers.

Negotiation Jujitsu: Redirect the Energy

When someone attacks you or your ideas, don’t push back—that only strengthens the opposition. Instead, deflect it. If they criticize your proposal, invite them to suggest improvements. If they attack you personally, redirect the discussion to the shared problem. This method, modeled after martial arts, uses the opponent’s momentum to move the conversation forward. Asking questions (“What would make this offer fair to you?”) and allowing silences can be surprisingly disarming.

The One-Text Procedure

When communication breaks down completely, bring in a neutral “architect” of agreement. The mediator listens to both sides, drafts a potential solution, invites criticism, and refines it iteratively until both can sign. This “one-text procedure,” famously used by President Jimmy Carter during the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, helps adversaries focus on a shared document instead of clashing egos. Even in business or family disputes, a trusted third party can play this role effectively.

Taming Hard Bargainers

Some negotiators use dirty tricks—false information, psychological intimidation, or “take-it-or-leave-it” tactics. The authors advise three responses: recognize the tactic, raise it explicitly, and negotiate over it. Instead of retaliating, call out unfair behavior directly: “It seems you’re using an extreme position as leverage. Can we agree to base this on fair standards instead?” This exposes manipulation and re-centers the process on principle.

By mastering these techniques, you can maintain your integrity while dealing effectively with the toughest partners. As the book concludes, principled negotiation isn’t naïve—it’s disciplined realism. It combines empathy with firmness, and fairness with strength.