Getting to Yes

Negotiation appears constantly in daily life, whether through discussions with employers about compensation, conversations with partners about dividing responsibilities, or bargaining with sellers over costs. As organizations have shifted from rigid hierarchies toward more participatory environments where individuals expect to contribute rather than obey, the ability to negotiate effectively has become increasingly essential.

Despite how common negotiation is, most people have never learned formal negotiation skills. Many default to an outdated adversarial style called positional bargaining, in which each side takes a firm stance and argues for it while trading concessions. Instead of solving problems jointly, participants attempt to win. The authors argue that this method typically leads to dissatisfaction, wasted time, and damaged relationships.

To replace this unproductive approach, Fisher and Ury introduce principled negotiation—a method designed to produce agreements that are fair, efficient, and durable while strengthening relationships instead of weakening them. A successful negotiation, they emphasize, must result in wise outcomes, avoid unnecessary complexity or delay, and maintain goodwill between parties.

The Problem with Traditional Positional Bargaining

Positional bargaining is structured around opposing demands: each party selects a stance, defends it, and slowly retreats through concessions until reaching a midpoint compromise. Although common, this approach is deeply flawed.

First, positional bargaining produces poor outcomes. Once people take firm stances, their egos become tied to defending those positions. Saving face becomes more important than solving the underlying issue. Negotiators stop listening and become more committed to proving themselves right than in exploring the real reasons behind their demands. A well-known example surfaced in the 1961 nuclear test ban negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, where talks stalled over inspection numbers because each side clung to their opening stance instead of discussing underlying security concerns.

Second, positional bargaining is inefficient. Endless cycles of proposals, counteroffers, and incremental concessions consume time and energy. Negotiators frequently start with exaggerated positions and use tactics such as refusing to budge or threatening to walk away, which further slow the process.

Third, positional bargaining damages relationships. Treating negotiation as a contest positions participants as adversaries rather than collaborators, leading to frustration, hostility, and resentment. Even after reaching agreement, lingering negativity can undermine implementation and future cooperation. Multilateral negotiations, such as UN assemblies, reveal how complicated and unproductive adversarial bargaining becomes when many parties defend inflexible positions.

The Alternative: Principled Negotiation

Principled negotiation, also known as negotiating on the merits, offers a constructive alternative to adversarial tactics. Instead of trying to win by overpowering the other side, participants collaborate to find solutions rooted in fairness and logic.

The process is built on four essential elements:

Principled negotiation is neither soft nor hard—rather, it is assertive without being aggressive and cooperative without being weak. It works in nearly any environment, whether resolving interpersonal conflict, business disagreements, or international diplomacy.

Separating People from the Problem

Negotiation always involves two dimensions: the substance of the dispute and the relationship between participants. When those become ...