Getting to Yes with Yourself

How can you reach an agreement when what you want seems completely opposed to what someone else wants? Whether you’re bargaining for a raise, negotiating with a spouse, or mediating between nations, traditional negotiation often feels like a tug-of-war where either side must lose for the other to win. In Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton of the Harvard Negotiation Project upend this zero-sum view of negotiation. They argue that the real challenge isn’t about choosing between being “hard” or “soft,” but about changing the game entirely—from positional bargaining to principled negotiation.

The authors contend that negotiation is not an occasional act reserved for diplomats or lawyers; it’s a daily human activity. Every time you decide what movie to watch with your family, negotiate a deadline at work, or settle a dispute with a friend, you’re engaging in the same process that governs major diplomatic agreements. The problem is that most people use flawed methods—focusing on positions instead of interests, reacting emotionally instead of analytically, or compromising hastily rather than inventing creative solutions. Their approach, known as principled negotiation, provides a structured, fair, and repeatable way to get better results in any kind of negotiation.

Changing the Game: From Winning Battles to Solving Problems

At the heart of the book is a shift in mindset. Most people view negotiation as adversarial: if one side gains, the other must lose. Fisher and Ury propose a different paradigm: negotiation as joint problem-solving. Instead of arguing over positions, the parties should identify their underlying interests and collaborate to satisfy both sides to the greatest extent possible. This concept transformed not only corporate and legal negotiations but also how governments conduct diplomacy. It even influenced U.S.–Soviet talks during the Cold War and peace processes in places like South Africa and the Middle East.

To “get to yes,” the authors introduce four fundamental principles that form the backbone of the method. First, separate the people from the problem: don’t conflate personal relationships with the substantive issues at stake. Second, focus on interests, not positions: behind every rigid stance lies a human concern that can often be met in multiple ways. Third, invent options for mutual gain: generate creative possibilities before deciding what to do. Fourth, insist on using objective criteria: base decisions on facts, fairness, or standards outside either party’s will.

The Human Factor: People Before Problems

Negotiators are people first—prone to emotion, perception errors, and miscommunication. One of the most powerful yet overlooked insights of the book is that maintaining the relationship between negotiating parties is as important as the substance of the deal itself. Emotions easily entangle with the issues, leading to defensiveness or hostility. By addressing the “people problem” directly—acknowledging emotions, improving communication, and showing empathy—you keep the conversation constructive. Being “soft on the people but hard on the problem” becomes a skill that protects both your integrity and the results.

Interests Over Positions: The Hidden Motivations Beneath Demands

Positions—what people say they want—are merely the surface level of negotiation. Interests—why they want it—are where the power lies. As illustrated by Fisher’s famous story of two men arguing over a library window, the key to resolution isn’t to split the difference but to uncover the underlying interest (one wanted fresh air; the other wanted to avoid a draft). Once the interests were exposed, a win-win solution emerged: opening a window in the next room. This simple logic applies universally—from labor disputes to divorces to international diplomacy.

Inventing Options and Establishing Fair Standards

The authors emphasize that decision-making under pressure narrows creativity. The way to counter this is to consciously separate the process of inventing from deciding. They encourage brainstorming sessions—sometimes even jointly with the other side—where ideas flow without judgment. The best solutions often come from expanding the pie before dividing it, or from dovetailing differing interests (as when one side values early delivery and the other values long-term contracts). Once options are on the table, both sides should evaluate them using objective criteria—like market value or industry standards—rather than personal willpower.

Beyond the Ideal: Power, Resistance, and Dirty Tricks

But what if the other side refuses to cooperate, holds more power, or plays dirty? Getting to Yes explores these “Yes, but…” scenarios in detail. The answer, the authors say, lies not in retaliation but in preparation and adaptability. Develop your BATNA—your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement—so that you know your walk-away point and never settle out of fear. If the other party stonewalls or manipulates, use what the authors call “negotiation jujitsu”: don’t attack back, but redirect their aggression toward solving the problem. And if all else fails, deploy third-party mediation or the “one-text procedure,” a collaborative drafting approach used successfully in the Camp David peace talks between Egypt and Israel.

Why It Matters

Thirty years after its publication, Getting to Yes remains the cornerstone of modern negotiation theory. It’s taught in business schools, law schools, and diplomatic academies worldwide because its lessons apply as much to a family argument as to an arms reduction treaty. Fisher, Ury, and Patton invite you to see negotiation not as a battle to be won but as a process for transforming conflict into cooperation. Their framework empowers you to achieve your goals while preserving relationships and principles—and to realize, as they write, that every day you are already a negotiator. This book simply helps you become a better one.

One of the clearest messages in Getting to Yes is that positional bargaining—where each side takes a stand and haggles until both cave in halfway—is the biggest enemy of wise decision-making. Whether it’s a merchant haggling over price or superpowers arguing about arms inspections, this back-and-forth rarely leads to efficient, fair, or lasting solutions. The authors distinguish between two familiar styles: the hard game, where one side refuses to budge, and the soft game, where one side yields quickly to preserve relationships. Both, they argue, are flawed.

Why Positions Fail

Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes because it locks egos to stances. The more you defend a position, the harder it becomes to change without “losing face.” Fisher uses a classic Cold War example: the 1961 U.S.–Soviet negotiations on nuclear testing collapsed over numbers—how many on-site inspections were permissible—without either side clarifying what “inspection” actually meant. Similarly, Iraqi farmers and an oil company nearly resorted to violence over land, insisting on opposite positions (“It’s our land!” “No, it’s ours!”). Only when a mediator asked about their timing needs—harvest versus seismic surveys—did a cooperative solution arise: the farmers could finish harvesting before the oil company began drilling.

Costs of Positional Bargaining

Positional bargaining is inefficient, often taking endless time and energy. Each concession becomes an emotional blow, so parties drag their feet or manipulate information to appear firm. It’s relationally toxic, breeding resentment and distrust. When groups or nations are involved, positional bargaining creates coalitions that harden divisions—like the “North vs. South” or “East vs. West” blocs in the United Nations, where negotiating hundreds of positions becomes nearly impossible.

The Illusion of Niceness

Some people choose a softer version of positional bargaining, hoping generosity will buy goodwill. But being “nice” can be just as dangerous. A soft bargainer may protect harmony by yielding too quickly, only to feel exploited and bitter later. As Fisher and Ury note, hard bargainers usually dominate soft ones because threats outmuscle courtesy. A truly effective negotiator must be soft on the people, hard on the problem.

Changing the Game

Rather than choosing hard or soft positions, the authors urge you to change the underlying game. Every negotiation has two levels: the substance being discussed, and the implicit rules of how the discussion occurs. By consciously defining the rules—using a meta-game approach—you can shift from positional fighting to principled collaboration. The four principles of principled negotiation—separate people from problems, focus on interests, invent options, and use objective criteria—are designed to make outcomes wise, relationships healthy, and processes efficient. They turn negotiation from a battlefield into a laboratory of joint problem-solving.

Negotiations often fail not because of impossible differences, but because of human reactions—hurt feelings, misperceptions, and defensive communication. Fisher and Ury begin their method with this crucial step: disentangle relationship issues from the substantive issues so both can be managed effectively. As they put it, “Negotiators are people first.”

Perception: Seeing Through Their Eyes

Perception is often the biggest barrier. People confuse what they see with objective truth, assuming their fears reveal the other’s intentions. To counter this, the authors suggest empathy over assumption. Try to truly understand their perspective. When an employee thinks a foreman is “picking on him” while the foreman thinks he’s showing trust by assigning tough tasks, a small clarification can dissolve weeks of resentment. A successful negotiator actively tests assumptions—asking questions, inviting correction, and acknowledging feelings without judgment.

Emotion and Identity

Strong emotions—anger, fear, frustration—often drive negotiation into conflict spirals. The authors advise recognizing these emotions explicitly, inviting them into the open, and giving people constructive ways to express them. Acknowledging feelings (“You seem upset”) often defuses tension more than counterarguments ever could. They also highlight deeper triggers tied to core human concerns: autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, role, and status (a theme later expanded in Fisher’s Beyond Reason). Threats to identity—like feeling disrespected or irrelevant—can explode minor issues into major impasses. Managing identity respectfully is thus a strategic necessity, not mere courtesy.

Communication and Listening

“Without communication,” they warn, “there is no negotiation.” Most negotiators talk past each other, preparing rebuttals instead of listening. Active listening—paraphrasing, clarifying, and confirming—shows understanding and earns reciprocal attention. When you restate someone’s argument better than they could themselves, they feel heard and become more receptive. Speak about yourself (“I feel concerned”) rather than blaming (“You’re unfair”). Listen first, speak second, and only for a clear purpose.

Prevention: Build Relationships Early

The best way to handle “people problems” is prevention. Build trust, rapport, and informal contact before disputes arise. As Fisher quips, “It’s easier to attribute diabolical intentions to a stranger than to a colleague.” In short: invest in goodwill before you need it. In formal negotiations, this means structuring the physical and procedural setup as side-by-side work on a shared problem, not a face-to-face confrontation. When people sit literally on the same side of the table—with the problem sheet in front of them—they instinctively become allies in solving it.

Whenever you hear two people arguing—over price, policy, or principle—they’re probably stuck on positions. A position is what a person says they want; an interest is what makes them want it. In one of Fisher’s favorite illustrations, two men bicker over whether to open or close a library window. Behind their positions (“open” vs. “closed”) lie their true interests: one needs fresh air, the other wants to avoid a draft. Once the librarian discovers this, she opens another window. A wise agreement reconciles interests, not positions.

Identifying and Exploring Interests

To uncover interests, ask “Why?” and “Why not?” repeatedly—why do they want this, and what stops them from accepting that? Everyone has multiple interests: economic, relational, security-related, or based on identity. Hidden among these are the most powerful of all—our basic human needs for recognition, autonomy, belonging, and fairness. When a party’s interests are ignored, even generous offers can fail. Conversely, when core needs are honored, compromise becomes easier.

Shared and Divergent Interests

Not all interests conflict. In fact, most negotiations contain large areas of overlap. A tenant and landlord share an interest in a well-maintained property, reliable rent payments, and long-term stability. Diverging interests can also complement each other, as when one side cares most about timing and the other about price. Recognizing these interlocking interests transforms negotiation from a zero-sum contest into a design challenge.

Talking About Interests

Once you’ve identified interests, communicate them clearly. Make them vivid, specific, and legitimate. Provide context and show how your request is fair, not selfish. Acknowledge the other side’s interests, too—it earns credibility and expands empathy. Always explain your reasons before presenting your proposal, not after. If you present the proposal first, they’ll stop listening to argue against it. Presenting the reasoning first primes them to see your proposal as the logical next step.

Negotiation, in the authors’ view, is not about dominating others or surrendering your needs—it’s about being clear on your real goals and helping others see that meeting them helps meet their own. The result: agreements that are not just balanced but wise.

When stakes are high and pressure builds, your creativity tends to shrink. You look for a single correct answer and forget that there might be many. Fisher and Ury call this the biggest missed opportunity in negotiation: failing to invent options before deciding. Their solution? Separate inventing from deciding.

The Obstacles to Creativity

Four forces block innovation in negotiation. First, premature judgment kills ideas before they’re born. Second, people assume only one right answer exists. Third, they treat resources as fixed (the “fixed-pie” illusion). Finally, they assume solving the other side’s problem is the other side’s job. These assumptions keep negotiations stagnant and adversarial.

Brainstorming Without Judgment

To spark creativity, the authors recommend a structured brainstorming process—a technique Fisher helped popularize long before it became common in business schools. Gather diverse participants, switch to informal settings, enforce a “no criticism” rule, and record every idea in full view. Once options are generated, “star” promising ones, refine them, and later decide collectively which to pursue. Even in deadlocked negotiations, joint brainstorming reframes adversaries as collaborators against a shared problem.

Expand the Pie

Fisher introduces the Circle Chart—a method for turning one good idea into many by moving from specific cases to general principles and back again. Look through the perspectives of different experts to spot new dimensions. Can legal, engineering, or psychological insights suggest alternative solutions? Changing the scope—broadening issues to include trade-offs or narrowing them to partial agreements—often unlocks mutual value where none seemed possible.

Dovetailing Differences

Perhaps the book’s most elegant idea is “dovetailing differences.” Just as puzzle pieces fit precisely where they differ, conflicting preferences can complement each other. If you dislike risk but the other side enjoys it, you can trade risk for return. If you need cash now and they value long-term commitments, one side can pay upfront for a discount. These tailored trades create win-win outcomes without cost to either party. Or as the French proverb says, “Vive la différence.”

Even after interests are clarified and creative options devised, conflicts of will often remain. Fisher and Ury’s fourth principle—insist on objective criteria—protects you from arbitrary pressure and helps legitimize outcomes. Instead of haggling based on who’s tougher or louder, you should both agree to ground your decisions in facts, fairness, and precedent.

Why Objective Criteria Matter

Negotiation based on willpower is costly and fragile. “Who says so?” battles invite manipulation and lead to resentment. In contrast, invoking neutral benchmarks—market value, expert opinion, law, efficiency—builds trust and protects both sides. At the Law of the Sea Conference, for example, the United States and India broke a deadlock on mining fees after introducing an MIT economic model that predicted outcomes fairly for both; debate shifted from politics to data.

Finding Fair Standards

Look for standards independent of either side’s will: precedent, legal rulings, professional norms, or scientific formulas. Test fairness through reciprocity—would you accept the same rule if roles were reversed? (“Would your company pay that rate if it were buying instead of selling?”) If no shared standard exists, agree on a fair procedure such as an independent appraisal or arbitration. As in dividing a cake fairly—“one cuts, the other chooses”—procedure can ensure legitimacy even when outcomes differ.

Sticking to Principle

Once you frame the negotiation as a joint search for fairness, resist pressure that lacks reason. Be open to legitimate arguments, closed to manipulation. Reject threats and appeals to trust that aren’t grounded in objective logic. And if pressured beyond reason, fall back on your alternative—your BATNA. As Fisher puts it: “Never yield to pressure, only to principle.”

What happens if the other side has all the leverage—more money, better connections, or stronger alternatives? The authors’ answer is one of the book’s most influential contributions to negotiation theory: develop your BATNA, or Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Knowing your BATNA transforms negotiating power from vague hope into calculable confidence.

Beyond the Bottom Line

Most negotiators think they can protect themselves with a bottom line—a minimum acceptable outcome. But a rigid bottom line prevents creativity and may be arbitrarily high or low. A BATNA, in contrast, is flexible: it’s the specific alternative you’ll pursue if no deal is reached. Asking, “What will I do if this fails?” is far more realistic than asking, “What’s the worst I’ll accept?”

How to Build a BATNA

Developing your BATNA involves three steps: (1) list all possible alternatives if no agreement is reached; (2) improve and refine the most promising; (3) choose your best option. For instance, a job-seeker might research other offers, firm up options in other cities, or start their own project. Even if these alternatives never materialize, developing them gives leverage by turning desperation into choice. The better your BATNA, the less dependent you are on any single deal.

Analyzing Their BATNA

Your power doesn’t only depend on your own BATNA—it also depends on theirs. If they overestimate their options, help them see the reality. For example, if a town negotiating taxes with an oil company knows it could annex the company’s factory and double its revenue, the town’s credible BATNA makes it the powerful player—even against a global corporation. When both sides have strong alternatives, walking away can be the wisest form of agreement.

Ultimately, your BATNA is your safety net and your sword. It protects you from bad deals and empowers you to negotiate fearlessly on the merits.

What if the other side refuses to play fair—attacking, stonewalling, or manipulating? Fisher and Ury’s remedy is a martial art for the mind: negotiation jujitsu. Instead of resisting force with force, you sidestep, redirect, and turn their energy toward solving the problem. The goal is to make rigid opponents engage with principles without escalating conflict.

Deflecting Attacks

Never attack positions head-on; instead, look behind them. When someone makes an extreme demand, ask questions about their reasoning. When they attack your ideas, invite criticism: “What’s wrong with it?” When they attack you personally, reframe the insult into a problem statement (“You seem unhappy with the plan; what part concerns you most?”). Questions replace confrontation with curiosity, and silence—patient, uncomfortable silence—often compels them to fill the gap with something useful.

The One-Text Procedure

If direct dialogue fails, bring in a neutral third party to act as a process facilitator. The one-text procedure—used at the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel—works like this: a mediator drafts a possible agreement, solicits criticism from both sides, revises it repeatedly, and presents one final text for a simple yes-or-no decision. This method channels energy into problem improvement rather than positional defense. In workplace or family settings, you can play the mediator yourself by proposing a “draft for comment” instead of demands.

Case in Point: Jones Realty

Fisher illustrates this principle through a real estate dispute between tenant Frank Turnbull and landlord Mrs. Jones. When Turnbull discovered he was being overcharged under rent control, he remained calm, asked questions, acknowledged the landlord’s concerns, and kept returning to fairness. By refusing to attack or defend, he gently redirected the conversation toward standards and shared interests—eventually securing reimbursement and preserving goodwill. His secret weapon wasn’t aggression but skillful empathy.

Some negotiators rely on deception, intimidation, or psychological tactics to gain advantage. Fisher and Ury call these ploys “dirty tricks,” and they recommend taming them through principled negotiation rather than retaliation. The three-step process is simple: recognize the tactic, name it explicitly, and negotiate its legitimacy.

Recognizing Manipulation

Deception often takes the form of phony facts, ambiguous authority, or false intentions. For instance, if someone claims a limited authority just as you reach agreement (“I’ll need my boss’s approval”), clarify expectations early—“Are you empowered to make final decisions today?” Psychological warfare is another breed: using personal attacks, stress, or the good-guy/bad-guy routine to rattle you. Recognition alone often neutralizes their power.

Negotiating the Rulebook

When faced with unfair tactics, treat the process itself as a negotiation. Question the principle: “Is this the way we want to handle things?” Agree on fair rules—confidential meetings, verified facts, or rotating speaking turns. Be firm on behavior, not personalities. If they escalate, calmly name the tactic (“It sounds like you’re using a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Is that how you’d like me to respond?”). In essence, you are negotiating about how to negotiate.

Walking Away with Principle

If bad faith persists, use your BATNA. Walking away with dignity demonstrates strength built on principle, not hostility. As the authors conclude, you can’t stop people from being unfair, but you can refuse to play by their rules—and by doing so, you often change the game entirely.