Getting to Yes

Fisher and Ury present principled negotiation, developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project, as an alternative to positional bargaining in which parties state positions and converge through concessions. Their argument is that positional bargaining produces worse agreements, damages relationships and becomes less efficient as more parties are involved.

The method has four elements. Separate the people from the problem, which requires addressing perception, emotion and communication as a distinct track from the substance. Focus on interests rather than positions, since a position is one way of satisfying an interest and there are usually others, which is illustrated by the two people wanting the same orange for different parts of it. Invent options for mutual gain before deciding, which requires separating the generation of options from their evaluation. Insist on objective criteria, meaning that agreement should rest on standards independent of either side's will, such as market value, precedent or professional standards.

The most used concept is BATNA, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, which they identify as the source of negotiating power. A party should know their own alternative, improve it where possible, and estimate the other side's. They also cover negotiation jujitsu for dealing with a party who will not engage, and the one-text procedure for multiparty situations.

Voss's Never Split the Difference is written explicitly against this book, arguing that it assumes rational counterparties. The framework works best where both sides want an agreement and have ongoing relationships, and works poorly against people negotiating in bad faith. The BATNA concept and the interests-versus-positions distinction have entered general practice.