Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In

by Roger Fisher

Harvard Negotiation Project we have been developing an alternative to positional bargaining: a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. This method, called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits, can be boiled down to

the people from the problem. Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Options:

multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do. Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some

stage you are simply trying to diagnose the situation—to gather information, organize it, and think about it. You will want to consider the people problems of partisan perceptions, hostile emotions, and unclear communication,

positional bargaining, the principled negotiation method of focusing on basic interests, mutually satisfying options, and fair standards typically results in a wise agreement. The method permits you to reach a gradual consensus on a joint decision efficiently without all the transactional costs of digging in to positions only to have to dig yourself out of them. And separating the people from the problem allows you to deal

negotiation, easy to forget in corporate and international transactions, is that you are dealing not with abstract representatives of the “other side,” but with human beings. They

viewpoints; and they are unpredictable. They are prone to cognitive biases, partisan perceptions, blind spots, and leaps of illogic. So are we. This human aspect

during a negotiation, from preparation to follow-up, it is worth asking yourself, “Am I paying enough attention to the people problem?”

bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict. Framing a negotiation as a contest of will over positions aggravates the entangling process. I see your position as a statement of how you would like the negotiation

bargaining deals with a negotiator’s interests both in substance and in a good relationship by trading one off against the other. If what counts in the long run for your company is its relationship with the insurance commissioner,

however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people’s heads.

even if ill-founded, are real fears and need to be dealt with. Hopes, even if

looking for objective reality can be, it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to

difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. It is not enough to know that they see things differently. If you want to influence them, you also need to understand empathetically

perceptions. One way to deal with differing perceptions is to make them explicit and discuss them with the other side. As long as you do this in a frank, honest manner without either side blaming the

other side to accept a disagreeable conclusion, it is crucial that you involve them in the process of reaching that conclusion.

Agreement becomes much easier if both parties feel ownership of the ideas. The whole process of negotiation becomes stronger as each side puts their imprimatur bit by bit on a developing solution. Each criticism of the terms and consequent change, each compromise, is a personal

the substantive merits, the feeling of participation in the process is perhaps the single most important factor in determining whether a negotiator

reconciling an agreement with principle and with the self-image of the negotiators. Its importance should not be underestimated.