Book SummaryGetting to Yes, by Roger Fisher and William Ury

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of Getting to Yes

In Getting to Yes (1988), negotiation theorists Roger Fisher and William Ury write that negotiation isn’t just for boardrooms—it’s central to your daily life. Whether you’re talking with a sibling about caring for an aging parent or discussing with your partner which streaming services to keep, you’re negotiating. Fisher and Ury write that in today’s world it’s more important than ever to develop strong negotiation skills to navigate both your professional and personal lives successfully.

Getting to Yes is widely considered one of the landmark texts in negotiation theory. Disciplines from business and law to international diplomacy have adopted its principles—making it the foundational text that transformed how professionals across the world approach conflict resolution.

In this guide, we’ll start by exploring the traditional negotiation approach and its shortcomings. We’ll then explain Fisher and Ury’s interest-based negotiation approach—and why it’s superior to traditional negotiation. Then, we’ll cover the specific negotiation tactics you can use to put interests-based negotiation into practice, including having a fallback option, building a personal connection with your counterpart, and navigating cultural and identity differences. Throughout, we’ll supplement Fisher and Ury’s ideas with insights from other negotiation experts and theorists.

Introduction: Why Traditional Negotiation Doesn’t Work

Despite how often we find ourselves in situations that require negotiation, write Fisher and Ury, most of us aren’t particularly skilled at it . This is largely because we rely on traditional negotiation tactics—an approach we’ll call the “dig in your heels” method—which are inherently flawed. In “dig in your heels” negotiations, each party holds firm on a specific demand, defends it vigorously, and slowly inches toward middle ground. The authors write that this tug-of-war approach regularly leads to agreements that are unfair and, suboptimal, that waste everyone’s time and energy, and that damage your business and personal relationships.

To illustrate, think of haggling over the price of a used car: The seller lists it at $15,000, you counter with $10,000, but neither of you is being entirely honest about what you’d actually accept. You spend the next hour trading offers back and forth, each trying to give up as little ground as possible, until you eventually meet somewhere around $12,500—a number that doesn’t satisfy you or the seller and leaves you both wondering if you got taken advantage of.

When to Take an Uncompromising Stand

Although the authors write that digging in your heels is usually counterproductive, some negotiation experts write that sometimes it can be effective to take an uncompromising position . This mindset proves particularly valuable in time-sensitive situations where delays could prove costly or when specific terms are non-negotiable and must be secured exactly as needed. This approach also serves as an effective counter-strategy when the opposing side uses similar tactics, creating balance rather than allowing one party to dominate.

For example, let’s say you see an apartment listed at $1,800 per month. You know that units in the building rent for $1,600, and that the “For Rent” sign has been up for two months. The landlord takes an aggressive approach: “I have two other applicants ready to sign today at full price. If you want it, I need your decision and deposit right now—no negotiations.” But you hold firm, responding, “I’ll sign a one-year lease today for $1,600 per month. That’s my offer.” When the landlord mentions the other applicants again, you simply reply, “I understand. I have another apartment I'm viewing this afternoon at $1,550,” as you start to walk out.

The landlord quickly changes his tone and accepts your $1,600 offer. Your uncompromising stance succeeded as a counter-strategy to his bullying tactics. By refusing to be intimidated and matching his pressure with equal resolve, you balanced the power dynamic. Without this firm approach, any willingness to negotiate upward would have signaled weakness and encouraged him to push for more. Standing pat neutralized his high-pressure game and saved you $200 monthly.

Part 1: Choose Interest-Based Negotiation

In contrast to “dig in your heels” negotiation, Fisher and Ury propose what they call “win-win” negotiation as an alternative (we’ll call it “interest-based negotiation” in this guide). This approach is based on getting to the titular “yes” while preserving your relationship with your counterpart through mutual problem-solving, empathy, and creativity. With interest-based negotiation, you’re focused on why you and your counterpart each want what you want—addressing the underlying needs and concerns driving both of your positions rather than just tossing arbitrary demands at each other.

The table below illustrates the core differences between traditional, “dig in your heels” negotiation and FIsher and Ury’s interest-based negotiation approach. We’ll explore these principles in greater detail throughout the guide.

Getting to Yes Summary Introduction

We’re all negotiators — negotiation is how we get what we want from others in business and personal life. We negotiate with our bosses, clients, sellers, real estate agents, family members, and others. In fact, we reach most decisions in our lives through negotiation, often without realizing it.

In Getting to Yes, authors Roger Fisher and William Ury note that the number of situations requiring negotiation keeps increasing, which makes it essential to learn negotiation skills. Twenty or more years ago, command-and-control structures with a chain of bosses ordering our actions were common. Today, however, organizational structures are less hierarchical, more companies emphasize teamwork, and people expect a say in decisions that affect them rather than being dictated to. This requires negotiation.

Getting to Yes, a 30-year-old classic updated in 2011, presents an alternative to adversarial bargaining — principled negotiation, a process focusing on finding creative options that serve mutual interests (some have...

Shortform Exercise: Review Your Negotiations

We’re always negotiating in our personal and work lives. In the traditional method of adversarial bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and haggles to reach a compromise.

Think of a situation where you negotiated with someone over something, for instance a used car, a job offer, or how to divide the housework. What did you want? What did the other person want? How did it turn out?

Getting to Yes Summary Part 1: Problems With Traditional Negotiation

The authors identify three criteria for successful negotiation that apply to any method:

• The resulting agreement must be wise, meaning that it meets the interests of each side, and it’s fair and lasting.
• The process must be efficient, producing results without wasting time.
• The process must strengthen the relationship between the parties — or at least not damage it.

Positional bargaining falls short on all three counts.

Bargaining from Positions

In positional bargaining, each side starts with a position, argues and defends it, and bargains to reach a compromise. A classic example is when you haggle with a seller over the price of something.

Positional bargaining involves each side offering a series of positions and concessions, which takes considerable time. Each can clearly see what the other wants and the process usually leads to an agreement that both sides accept. But the agreement it produces doesn’t meet the three criteria (wise, efficient, and friendly).

Specifically, arguing over positions is problematic because:

1) Positional bargaining produces bad outcomes: Negotiators become rigid in their positions. The harder you try to...

Shortform Exercise: Three Criteria

The authors identify three criteria for successful negotiation: 1) the agreement must be wise, meaning that it meets the interests of each side and it’s fair; 2) the process must be efficient; and 3) the process must strengthen the relationship.

Think of a recent negotiation you were involved in. How did it compare to the above criteria?

Getting to Yes Summary Part 2: Principled Negotiation | Element 1: Separate Emotions from Issues

In a negotiation, you may be dealing with an institution, company, or organization, but besides the entity, you’re dealing with human beings who have different backgrounds, values, biases, emotions, and communication styles.

The human aspect can be both a plus and a minus in negotiations. People misunderstand and misinterpret things, which can reinforce the other side’s misgivings or spark negative reactions. On the other hand, a good working relationship can help negotiations go smoothly. Also, people’s desire to be liked and respected may make them more considerate.

In any case, handling people sensitively and respectfully is a prerequisite for successful negotiation. Continually ask yourself whether you’re giving enough consideration to human issues.

Substance Versus Relationship

Negotiators are always dealing with two issues: the substance of the negotiations and the relationship between the two sides. Both issues are important. For instance, a store owner wants to make a profit on a sale (substance), but also create a return customer by sending her away happy the first time (relationship). If he overcharges, he may make a profit, but he’ll damage his...

Getting to Yes Summary Element 2: Focus on Interests

In standard negotiations, the focus is on coming up with a compromise on conflicting positions, for instance splitting the difference between a union’s pay request and a company’s smaller offer. Such negotiations over firm positions often reach an impasse.

But underlying each side’s position are interests — the reasons for the positions. Addressing interests rather than positions often opens the way to an agreement.

An example illustrates the difference. Two men get into an argument at a library because one wants to keep a window open while the other wants to close it; neither is willing to go halfway. The librarian asks each man for his reasons. One wants the window open to get fresh air; the other wants it closed to avoid a draft. So, the librarian opens a window in an adjoining room to provide air flow and avoid creating a draft. She resolved the conflict by focusing on the men’s underlying interests rather than their positions on opening or closing a particular window.

Interests Explain the Problem

In negotiations, you can’t come to an agreement without understanding both sides’ interests. **Interests involve people’s needs, desires, fears, and concerns — they...

Shortform Exercise: Identifying Interests

In negotiations, both sides need to understand each others’ interests. Interests involve people’s needs, desires, and concerns — they drive people to take the positions they take.

Think of something that you and a friend or partner are always debating, such as what to do on the weekend. What is your partner’s usual position? What is yours?

Getting to Yes Summary Element 3: Invent Options for Mutual Gain

A common challenge in negotiations arises when there doesn’t seem to be a way to split the pie that serves both sides. The choice seems to be having a winner and a loser, and neither side wants to lose. But the dilemma opens up the opportunity for creative options that expand the pie before dividing it. A creative solution can break an impasse and result in a better agreement.

But standard negotiation methods don’t often produce many options. The people on both sides don’t see a need for them. They believe they have the right answer, that their position is reasonable, and that it should be accepted. A suggestion to split the difference is as creative as they get. The resulting agreement doesn’t serve either party as well as it should.

Here are some additional obstacles to generating multiple options during negotiations:

• Premature criticism: Your inner critic hinders your imagination. You also fear the other side’s reaction to a proposal — either dismissing it or taking it as a commitment. You fear jeopardizing your bargaining position.
• Searching for the one best answer: People see their job as narrowing the options, not expanding them, which would make...

Getting to Yes Summary Element 4: Insist on Objective Criteria

Standard negotiations are a battle of wills. For instance, with a labor contract, the prevailing side determines the level of pay increases and benefits, based on their view of what’s appropriate. The agreement won’t be efficiently arrived at and it won’t be civil because one side has to back down. It’s also unlikely to be a wise agreement (encompassing the interests of both sides).

A better alternative is to negotiate an agreement measured against objective standards, independent of the will of either side.

Why Use Objective Standards?

When you use objective standards, such as market value or average salaries, you’re basing the agreement on principle instead of succumbing to pressure tactics or threats to use an arbitrary standard chosen by the other side.

Principled negotiation using objective criteria is more likely to produce a fair and balanced agreement efficiently and civilly. Objectives standards support the three criteria for a successful negotiation:

• Fairness: Objective standards relying on precedent, scientific merit, and community practices strengthen the agreement — it’s less vulnerable to attack and both sides are likely to ensure smooth...

Shortform Exercise: FInding an Objective Standard

The authors argue that agreements should be based on objective standards independent of either side, such as market values. Use these questions to determine the objective standards in your own negotiations.

Think of a situation where you negotiated with someone over the price of something. What was the rationale behind the price you ended up with? Was it fair?

Getting to Yes Summary Part 3: Practical Application

(Shortform note: In the final two parts of the book, the authors answer questions about principled negotiation. Because some answers introduce new material or are repetitive, we’ve reorganized the information into sections on Practical Application (Procedures, Tactics), and Challenges to make it easier to grasp.)

Procedures

Informal negotiations with family and friends about such things as where to eat or spend a vacation tend to be impromptu. However, formal negotiations between companies and employees, or involving governments, and other entities require planning. Here are some logistics and procedural considerations.

Deciding Where to Meet

Deciding where to meet for negotiations will depend on both needs and circumstances. Think about where the parties would be most comfortable and productive.

• Seclusion may be important if there’s a significant chance of interruptions and distractions.
• If the other side’s chief negotiator relies heavily on support staff and documentation, you may want to meet in his or her offices. Meeting in the other side’s offices also gives you the option of walking away if necessary.
• If there are equipment needs such as...

Shortform Exercise: Dealing With Pressure Tactics

Hardball negotiators use an array of strong-arm tactics to get you to accept their position, including lies, pressure tactics, and psychological tricks.

Think of some pressure tactics someone used in a negotiation with you, for instance threats or refusing to budge. How did they affect the negotiation?

Getting to Yes Summary Part 4: Challenges in Negotiations

Two types of challenges that can stymie principled negotiation are:

• Dealing with the human element when you can’t separate people and their emotions from the substance because people are the problem.
• Negotiating successfully when there’s a power imbalance — when the other side is more powerful than you are.

Handling Human Problems

People’s defensive or reactionary behavior is often a reason that negotiations fail. Dealing with the human element of how you’re treating the other side and how the people are reacting is critical to success. Whether you’re focusing on a specific human issue, or people are just one concern of negotiation, follow these guidelines:

• Build a good working relationship that’s separate from the substance of the negotiations. A good relationship makes it easier to get a good outcome and good outcomes make a good relationship even better. But don’t entangle the relationship with substance. For instance, don’t make concessions in order to save the relationship and don’t try to force a concession by threatening the relationship, for instance by saying something like, “If you really cared, you’d accept the proposal.”
• ...