Getting to Yes

Getting to Yes Plot Summary

Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable part of human interaction. Whether you're discussing a raise with your boss, negotiating the purchase of a new home, or resolving a dispute with a colleague, you're engaging in negotiation. Most people approach these situations with anxiety, assuming that negotiation is a battle where one side must lose for the other to win. This adversarial mindset often leads to suboptimal outcomes, damaged relationships, and missed opportunities for mutual gain. What if there was a better way? Imagine approaching conflicts not as win-lose battles but as shared problems to be solved collaboratively. The methods presented in this book offer a revolutionary approach to negotiation—one that allows you to be both principled and practical. By focusing on interests rather than positions, generating creative options, using objective criteria, and separating people from problems, you can transform contentious conflicts into productive agreements. These skills aren't just for diplomats or business leaders; they're essential tools for anyone who wants to navigate life's inevitable disagreements with confidence and effectiveness.

Chapter 1: Separate People from Problems

At the heart of effective negotiation lies a fundamental principle: separate the people from the problem. This means addressing relationship issues and substantive issues independently, rather than allowing them to become entangled. When we fail to make this separation, emotions, misunderstandings, and personality clashes can derail even the most promising negotiations. Consider the case of a union leader confronting a foreman about perceived unfair treatment of a worker named Jones. The union leader approaches aggressively: "Why do you keep picking on Jones? He says you've put him on replacement detail five times in two weeks." The foreman responds with surprise: "I pick Jones because he's the best. I know I can trust him to keep things from fouling up in a group without its point person. I never knew Jones objected. I thought he liked the responsibility." What appeared to be discrimination was actually a misunderstanding about intentions and perceptions. In another example, an insurance company lawyer approached a state insurance commissioner about revising certain regulations. The commissioner immediately took the request as a personal attack on his competence: "Are you saying I made a mistake? Are you saying I'm unfair?" The conversation quickly deteriorated as the commissioner felt personally threatened by what could have been a substantive policy discussion. To separate people from problems, focus on three key areas: perceptions, emotions, and communication. Regarding perceptions, remember that conflict exists not just in objective reality but in people's minds. Put yourself in their shoes to understand how they see the situation. With emotions, recognize and legitimize feelings without letting them dictate outcomes. Say, "I understand you're frustrated about this situation, and so am I. Let's figure out how to address the underlying issues." For communication, listen actively and speak to be understood, not to score points. The practical steps for separating people from problems include: sitting side by side facing the problem rather than face-to-face in opposition; explicitly acknowledging emotions; focusing criticism on actions not character; and building a working relationship before negotiations begin. When a construction company and community were at odds over safety concerns, residents shifted from personal attacks ("You don't care about our children's safety") to problem-focused language ("How can we ensure children's safety around the construction site?"). Remember, being hard on the problem while being soft on the people isn't just a nice way to negotiate—it's more effective. By protecting the relationship from the substantive disagreement, you create space for creative problem-solving and increase the likelihood of reaching a wise agreement that satisfies everyone's legitimate interests.

Chapter 2: Focus on Interests, Not Positions

Focusing on interests rather than positions represents a fundamental shift in how we approach negotiation. Positions are the concrete things people say they want—"I need a 15% raise" or "We won't accept less than $300,000 for our house." Interests, however, are the underlying motivations—the needs, desires, concerns, and fears that drive those positions. The key insight is that satisfying interests, not positions, is what makes for successful negotiations. A classic story illustrates this principle perfectly. Two men were quarreling in a library. One wanted the window open; the other wanted it closed. They argued back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three-quarters. No solution satisfied both. The librarian came over and asked the first man why he wanted the window open: "To get fresh air." She asked the second why he wanted it closed: "To avoid the draft." After thinking a moment, she opened wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft. By looking behind their stated positions to their underlying interests, she found a solution that satisfied both. This approach proved transformative in the 1978 Camp David negotiations between Egypt and Israel. Israel had occupied the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula since 1967. Egypt's position was that every inch of the Sinai must be returned to Egyptian sovereignty. Israel's position was that they needed to keep parts of the Sinai. These positions seemed irreconcilable. However, when negotiators looked deeper, they discovered that Egypt's underlying interest was sovereignty—the Sinai had been Egyptian territory since the time of the Pharaohs. Israel's interest was security—they didn't want Egyptian tanks poised on their border. The solution? Return the Sinai to full Egyptian sovereignty (satisfying Egypt's interest) while demilitarizing large areas (satisfying Israel's security interest). To identify interests in your negotiations, ask "why" questions. If someone states a position, ask "Why is that important to you?" or "What problem would that solve?" Also ask "why not" questions about alternatives they've rejected. Remember that each side has multiple interests—some shared, some conflicting, and some merely different. A tenant and landlord might disagree on rent but share interests in building maintenance, stability, and a good relationship. When discussing interests, make yours concrete and legitimate. Instead of just stating demands, explain the human story behind them: "Three times last week, a child was almost hit by one of your trucks going forty miles per hour down our street." Listen actively to understand their interests, and acknowledge them as part of the problem you're jointly solving. Frame discussions in terms of the future rather than dwelling on past grievances. The most successful negotiators are both firm and flexible—firm about their interests but flexible about positions. By focusing on interests rather than positions, you expand the possibilities for creative solutions that satisfy everyone's core needs.

Chapter 3: Generate Options for Mutual Gain

One of the most common mistakes in negotiation is the failure to generate multiple options before making decisions. Many negotiators fall into the trap of looking for a single answer, assuming a fixed pie, or thinking that solving the other side's problem is their problem. This narrow thinking leads to missed opportunities and suboptimal agreements. Consider the story of Israel and Egypt negotiating over the Sinai Peninsula. If they had focused solely on drawing boundary lines (positions), they might never have reached agreement. Instead, by exploring options that addressed their underlying interests—sovereignty for Egypt and security for Israel—they created a solution that satisfied both: full Egyptian sovereignty with demilitarized zones. This creative option transformed what seemed like an either/or choice into a both/and solution. Another vivid example comes from the children's story about an orange. Two children were fighting over an orange. They eventually compromised by cutting it in half. One child ate the fruit and threw away the peel, while the other threw away the fruit and used the peel for baking. Had they explored their interests and options more thoroughly, one could have had the whole fruit and the other the whole peel—a better outcome for both. To generate options effectively, first separate the act of creating options from the act of judging them. Premature criticism kills creativity. Consider organizing a brainstorming session with clear ground rules: no criticism allowed during the idea generation phase, wild ideas encouraged, and quantity of ideas valued over quality. When a coal mine and union were trying to reduce unauthorized strikes, they brought together representatives from both sides. The facilitator asked for ideas without judgment, resulting in creative suggestions like allowing union members to meet in the bathhouse immediately when issues arose, speeding up the grievance procedure, and organizing joint training for union members and foremen. After generating many options, look for mutual gains. Identify shared interests that both parties care about, such as maintaining a good relationship or ensuring quality standards. Then look for differences that can be dovetailed. Different interests, beliefs, forecasts, or attitudes toward risk can all be sources of mutual gain. For example, in a salary negotiation, if the employee cares more about flexible hours while the employer cares more about minimizing base salary, they might agree to a lower base salary with performance bonuses and flexible working arrangements. Finally, make it easy for the other side to decide. Put yourself in their shoes and consider what might make your proposal difficult for them to accept. Then modify your approach accordingly. If you're selling a house, think about what might make it hard for the buyer to say yes—perhaps concerns about financing or the move-in date—and address those issues proactively. Remember, the goal isn't to "win" the negotiation but to craft an agreement that satisfies both parties' interests as fully as possible. By generating multiple options and looking for mutual gains, you expand the pie before dividing it.

Chapter 4: Insist on Objective Criteria

When interests directly conflict, the temptation is to resolve differences through a contest of wills—pushing, pressuring, or threatening until one side gives in. This approach is costly: it damages relationships, produces arbitrary outcomes, and often leaves both parties dissatisfied. A more effective approach is to insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria or fair standards independent of either side's will. Imagine you've contracted for a house with concrete foundations, but the contract doesn't specify how deep they should be. The contractor suggests two feet; you think five feet is more appropriate. Instead of haggling or threatening, you might say: "I want foundations strong enough to hold up the building safely. What do government specifications require for these soil conditions? How deep are foundations for similar buildings in this area? Let's look for standards to resolve this question." By focusing on objective criteria, you transform the negotiation from a test of wills into a joint search for a fair solution. This approach proved transformative during the Law of the Sea negotiations. At one point, India, representing developing nations, proposed an initial fee of $60 million for companies mining the deep seabed. The United States rejected this, suggesting no fee at all. Both sides dug in. The breakthrough came when someone introduced an economic model developed by MIT that provided objective data on the impact of different fee structures. When shown how his proposal would make mining economically impossible, the Indian representative reconsidered his position. The Americans, whose information had come mainly from mining companies, also modified their stance when the model showed some fee was economically feasible. Neither side "backed down"—they simply responded to objective information. To negotiate with objective criteria, first identify relevant standards. For a car insurance claim, these might include the car's original cost minus depreciation, comparable sales prices, blue book value, or replacement cost. For a salary negotiation, standards might include industry benchmarks, cost of living data, or the company's existing salary structure. The key is finding criteria that are both legitimate (widely accepted as fair) and independent of either party's will. When negotiating, frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria: "Let's figure out what a fair price would be. What objective standards might be relevant?" Reason and be open to reason about which standards apply and how they should be applied. If the other side proposes a standard, take it seriously and evaluate it on its merits. If different standards produce different results, you might split the difference between them or find a fair procedure to choose between them. Most importantly, never yield to pressure—only to principle. If the other side refuses to be reasonable, you can say: "Perhaps I'm missing something. Help me understand why that standard is more appropriate than the one I've suggested." Or "I'd like to settle this on the basis of principle, not pressure. What's the theory behind your proposal?" By standing firm on principle while remaining open to persuasion, you protect yourself from arbitrary outcomes without becoming rigid or unreasonable. The power of objective criteria lies in their legitimacy. When an insurance adjuster offered Tom $13,600 for his totaled car, Tom didn't argue about the amount directly. Instead, he asked what standard the adjuster had used to determine that figure. Through persistent questioning about objective standards—comparable cars, mileage adjustments, and equipment values—Tom eventually received a check for $18,024. By focusing on criteria rather than positions, he achieved a fair outcome without damaging the relationship.

Chapter 5: Develop Your BATNA

What if the other side is more powerful? What if they have more resources, authority, or leverage? In such situations, many negotiators feel they must either capitulate or engage in risky confrontation. However, there's a more effective approach: developing your BATNA—your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Consider this scenario: A small town was negotiating with a large corporation that operated a factory just outside town limits. On the surface, the corporation seemed to hold all the cards—it provided most local jobs and tax revenue, and the town was economically dependent on it. Yet the town successfully negotiated an increase in the corporation's "goodwill" payment from $300,000 to $2,300,000 annually. How? The town had developed a powerful BATNA: if no agreement was reached, they would expand the town limits to include the factory and then tax it at the full residential rate of $2,500,000. Meanwhile, the corporation had committed to keeping the factory and had developed no alternatives. Despite its apparent power, the corporation found itself in a weak negotiating position. Your BATNA is your walkaway alternative—what you'll do if you don't reach agreement. It's the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. If the proposed agreement is better than your BATNA, you should accept it; if not, you should reject it. Unlike an arbitrary "bottom line," your BATNA provides a realistic measure of what you should accept. Developing a strong BATNA involves three steps. First, invent a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached. If you're negotiating for a job, alternatives might include taking a position with another company, starting your own business, or pursuing further education. Second, improve the most promising alternatives into viable options. If working in Chicago seems attractive, try to secure an actual job offer there. Third, select the best alternative as your BATNA. The power of a BATNA was demonstrated during hostage negotiations with Iran in 1980. For months, student militants holding American diplomats refused to negotiate, making demands without offering concessions. Analysis revealed why: from their perspective, continuing to hold the hostages brought international attention to their grievances, made them heroes at home, and gave them political leverage. Their BATNA—continuing the status quo—seemed attractive to them. Only when this calculation changed did meaningful negotiation become possible. Should you disclose your BATNA to the other side? It depends. If your BATNA is strong, letting them know may enhance your position. If it's weak, disclosure will likely undermine your leverage. Either way, understanding both your BATNA and theirs provides crucial context for the negotiation. Remember, negotiation power comes not from resources or status but from having attractive alternatives. The better your BATNA, the stronger your position. Even when facing a seemingly more powerful opponent, a well-developed BATNA can give you surprising leverage. As one negotiation expert put it: "The better able you are to walk away from a negotiation, the greater your capacity to affect its outcome."

Chapter 6: Handle Difficult Tactics Effectively

What if the other side refuses to play fair? What if they use deception, psychological pressure, or positional hardball tactics? Many negotiators respond either by giving in or by responding in kind—both problematic approaches that often lead to poor outcomes. Instead, you need strategies to redirect the negotiation toward problem-solving without becoming a victim of manipulation. Frank Turnbull's negotiation with Mrs. Jones of Jones Realty illustrates this approach masterfully. Frank discovered he had been paying $268 more than the legal maximum rent for his apartment. When he approached Mrs. Jones, she was initially hostile and defensive, accusing him of ingratitude and blackmail. Rather than responding with anger or backing down, Frank used a series of techniques to transform the interaction. First, he separated the people from the problem, saying: "We appreciate what you've done for us. You were very kind to put in the time and effort." This personal support defused Mrs. Jones's defensiveness while allowing Frank to address the substantive issue separately. He framed his concern in terms of principle rather than power: "Our concern is fairness. We want to know that we didn't pay any more than we should have." When Mrs. Jones tried to make it a question of trust ("You don't trust me? After all I've done for you?"), Frank sidestepped this emotional trap: "Mrs. Jones, we appreciate all you've done for us. For us, this is not a matter of trust. The issue is the principle: Did we pay more than we should have?" He consistently refused to be drawn into personal attacks or defensive reactions. Frank also used questions rather than accusations to establish facts: "Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right? Is the apartment really under rent control? Is the legal maximum rent really $932?" This approach invited Mrs. Jones to participate in building a shared understanding of the situation rather than defending against accusations. When explaining his reasoning, Frank presented his concerns before making any proposal: "Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasons for the extra $268 a month." Only after establishing the facts and principles did he suggest a solution: "Given all the considerations we've discussed, one fair solution seems to be for Paul and me to be reimbursed for the amount of rent we paid in excess of the legal maximum. Does that sound fair to you?" This approach—what might be called "negotiation jujitsu"—works by redirecting the other side's energy rather than opposing it directly. When they assert positions, don't reject them; look behind them for interests. When they attack your ideas, don't defend them; invite criticism and advice. When they attack you personally, don't counterattack; reframe their attack as an attack on the problem. For particularly difficult situations, consider using a mediator or the "one-text procedure." In this approach, a third party (or sometimes you yourself) develops a draft agreement, asks both sides for criticism, revises the draft based on that feedback, and continues this process until the best possible agreement is reached. This procedure was used successfully at the Camp David peace talks between Egypt and Israel in 1978. The key to handling difficult tactics is to recognize them, name them explicitly, and negotiate about the negotiation process itself. Whether facing deliberate deception, psychological warfare, or positional pressure tactics, respond by focusing on interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and insisting on objective criteria. As Frank's negotiation with Mrs. Jones demonstrates, this approach can transform even hostile interactions into productive problem-solving.

Summary

Throughout this book, we've explored a revolutionary approach to negotiation—one that replaces positional bargaining with principled negotiation. By separating people from problems, focusing on interests rather than positions, generating options for mutual gain, insisting on objective criteria, developing your BATNA, and effectively handling difficult tactics, you can transform conflicts into agreements that satisfy all parties. As Roger Fisher eloquently stated, "The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess." Your next negotiation is an opportunity to put these principles into practice. Start by identifying one concept—perhaps focusing on interests or generating multiple options—and consciously apply it in your next interaction. Notice how it changes the dynamic and the outcome. With practice, these approaches will become second nature, allowing you to navigate conflicts with confidence and skill. Remember, the goal isn't to "win" at the other's expense but to solve problems in ways that meet everyone's legitimate needs. When you approach negotiation as collaborative problem-solving rather than combat, you open the door to creative solutions that might otherwise remain undiscovered.

About Author

Loading...

William Ury

William Ury is an American author, academic, anthropologist, and negotiation expert. He co-founded the Harvard Program on Negotiation. Additionally, he helped found the International Negotiation Network with former President Jimmy Carter. Ury is the co-author of Getting to Yes with Roger Fisher, which set out the method of principled negotiation and established the idea of the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) within negotiation theory.

Read more