Summary

Introduction

Imagine sitting across from your landlord, palms sweating as you prepare to ask for a rent reduction. Or picture yourself in a boardroom, knowing that the next hour will determine whether months of work result in a successful partnership or a costly breakdown. Every single day, millions of people find themselves in situations where they must navigate conflicting interests, competing demands, and the delicate balance between getting what they want and maintaining important relationships.

Whether you're negotiating your salary, resolving a family dispute, or working through international conflicts, the traditional approach of positional bargaining often leaves everyone feeling frustrated, exhausted, or taken advantage of. The good news is that there's a fundamentally different way to approach these challenging conversations. This revolutionary method transforms negotiation from a battle of wills into a collaborative problem-solving process that helps you achieve better outcomes while actually strengthening your relationships. The principles you're about to discover have been successfully applied in everything from divorce settlements to international peace treaties, proving that when you change how you negotiate, you change what becomes possible.

Separate People from Problems

At its core, this principle recognizes a fundamental truth about human nature: we are emotional beings first, rational negotiators second. Every person who sits across from you at the negotiating table brings their fears, hopes, past experiences, and deeply held values into the conversation. When we fail to acknowledge this human dimension, even the most logical proposals can trigger defensive reactions that derail productive discussions.

Consider the real story of a union leader and a foreman named Campbell who seemed locked in bitter conflict. Jones, a union member, was convinced that Campbell had it out for him personally because he kept getting assigned to difficult replacement duties. The tension escalated until a walkout seemed inevitable. However, when someone finally took time to explore what was really happening, a completely different picture emerged. Campbell actually viewed Jones as his most reliable worker and assigned him to critical replacement duties precisely because he trusted Jones to handle important responsibilities. Jones had interpreted recognition as punishment, while Campbell had been showing respect through increased responsibility. Once they understood each other's perspectives, the conflict dissolved entirely.

The path to separating people from problems begins with genuine curiosity about the other person's experience. Start by asking yourself what fears, pressures, or constraints might be influencing their behavior. Practice stating their position back to them in terms that acknowledge their concerns: "Let me make sure I understand your perspective correctly." Make it safe for emotions to be expressed by acknowledging them explicitly rather than pretending they don't exist. Most importantly, attack the problem together rather than attacking each other. Sit side by side, literally if possible, and examine the challenge you both face.

When you master this principle, you discover something remarkable: you can be absolutely firm on the issues that matter to you while remaining respectful and understanding toward the person with whom you disagree. This isn't about being soft or giving in. It's about creating the psychological safety necessary for creative problem-solving while maintaining your commitment to achieving your important interests.

Focus on Interests, Not Positions

A position is what you've decided you want; an interest is why you want it. This distinction holds the key to transforming seemingly impossible negotiations into collaborative problem-solving sessions. When people argue over positions, they often overlook the underlying needs and concerns that, once understood, can be satisfied in multiple ways.

The famous Camp David negotiations between Egypt and Israel perfectly illustrate this principle in action. For years, the two nations seemed deadlocked over the Sinai Peninsula. Israel's position was that they must keep part of the Sinai for security. Egypt's position was equally firm: every inch of the Sinai must be returned to Egyptian sovereignty. No amount of map-drawing or boundary-splitting could bridge this gap because both sides were locked into incompatible positions. However, when President Carter helped the leaders look beneath these positions to their underlying interests, a breakthrough became possible. Israel's real interest was security—they didn't want Egyptian tanks positioned to roll across their border at any moment. Egypt's real interest was sovereignty—after centuries of foreign domination, they were not about to cede territory to another occupier. Once these core interests were understood, a creative solution emerged: the Sinai would be returned to complete Egyptian sovereignty, but large areas would be demilitarized to ensure Israeli security.

To uncover interests, start by asking "why" questions about every position you encounter. Why is that price important to them? Why do they insist on that particular timeline? Then dig deeper by asking "why not" about alternatives. What prevents them from accepting your proposal? What concerns would need to be addressed for them to feel comfortable moving forward? Remember that behind every position lie multiple interests, including basic human needs like security, recognition, and respect. Make these interests explicit in your discussions and look for creative ways to satisfy the most important ones for both parties.

The power of this approach lies in expansion rather than compromise. Instead of fighting over a fixed pie, you're working together to create more value for everyone involved. When you understand what truly matters to each party, you often discover that your most important interests don't actually conflict, opening up possibilities that neither side had previously imagined.

Invent Options for Mutual Gain

Most negotiations suffer from a poverty of options. People assume they know the right answer and focus on getting the other side to accept it, or they fall into the trap of thinking that any gain for the other party must come at their expense. This scarcity mindset prevents the creative thinking necessary to find solutions that benefit everyone involved.

The story of two children quarreling over an orange illustrates this missed opportunity perfectly. After considerable arguing, they decided to split the orange in half, with each child taking fifty percent. One child then ate the fruit from his half and threw away the peel, while the other threw away the fruit from her half and used the peel for baking a cake. Had they taken time to explore their underlying needs instead of fighting over positions, they could have achieved a perfect solution: all the fruit for one child, all the peel for the other. This same pattern repeats constantly in negotiations where parties leave value on the table by failing to explore creative alternatives.

Begin by separating the creative process from decision-making. Set aside specific time for brainstorming where all criticism is suspended and wild ideas are encouraged. Look at your problem through different lenses: how would a banker approach this? What would an engineer suggest? Consider agreements of varying strength and scope—if you can't agree on a permanent solution, what temporary arrangement might work? Ask the other party what they would prefer among several options that are equally acceptable to you, allowing you to give them something valuable at no cost to yourself.

Most importantly, look for differences that can be dovetailed to create mutual gain. If you care more about recognition and they care more about money, you might accept a lower fee in exchange for prominent credit and referrals. If they need immediate results but you're focused on long-term success, structure an arrangement that gives them quick wins while building toward your larger goals. The goal isn't to find one perfect answer, but to generate multiple promising possibilities that can serve as building blocks for an agreement that satisfies everyone's most important interests.

Use Objective Standards and Criteria

When interests conflict, as they inevitably will in any negotiation, you need some basis for deciding what's fair that goes beyond what either party happens to want at the moment. Relying on objective standards transforms negotiation from a contest of wills into a shared search for a reasonable solution that both parties can defend to their constituents and feel good about accepting.

The power of this principle becomes clear in a real insurance claim negotiation. When Tom's car was destroyed in an accident, the insurance adjuster's opening offer was $13,600, presented as a take-it-or-leave-it company decision. Rather than arguing over the amount or making a counter-demand, Tom shifted the conversation to standards: "How did you determine that amount? Can you show me where I could buy a comparable car for that price?" This simple reframing changed the entire dynamic. Instead of a standoff between arbitrary positions, they now had a joint project: figuring out what the car was actually worth based on market evidence. By researching comparable sales, factoring in mileage differences, and accounting for specific features, they worked together to build a case for fair compensation. Tom ultimately received $18,024—not because he was a tougher negotiator, but because he insisted on grounding the discussion in legitimate standards that both parties could respect.

The key is to frame each issue as a mutual search for fair criteria rather than a battle between competing demands. Research relevant precedents, market rates, expert opinions, legal standards, or established procedures that apply to your situation. When the other side suggests a standard, explore it seriously even if you think it favors them—you may find legitimate reasons why a different standard is more appropriate, or you may discover that their standard, properly applied, actually supports your position.

Remember that insisting on objective criteria doesn't mean being rigid about which specific standard to use. If you both agree that precedent is relevant but point to different precedents, look for principles to help choose between them. Which precedent is more recent, more similar to your situation, or more widely accepted? Sometimes the fairest approach is to split the difference between results suggested by two equally legitimate standards. The goal is reaching an outcome that both parties can justify as reasonable, not winning an argument about whose favorite criterion should apply.

Develop Your Best Alternative (BATNA)

Your power in any negotiation comes not from your skill at the table, but from the strength of what you can do if no agreement is reached. BATNA—your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement—is the standard against which you should measure every proposal. It's your source of real negotiating power and your protection against accepting terms that you shouldn't accept.

Consider the story of a wealthy tourist trying to buy a brass pot from a vendor at a Mumbai train station. Despite his wealth and presumed power, the tourist finds himself at a complete disadvantage because the vendor knows her alternatives while he doesn't. She knows what she paid for the pot, what other tourists typically pay, and how easily she can sell to the next customer if this negotiation fails. The tourist, however, has no idea what similar pots cost elsewhere or how difficult they are to find. His wealth means nothing because he hasn't converted it into negotiating power by developing good alternatives. Knowledge of options, not raw resources, determines who has leverage in this exchange.

Developing your BATNA requires three distinct steps. First, brainstorm all the actions you might take if this negotiation fails. If they won't hire you at the salary you want, you could approach other employers, start your own business, take additional training to improve your qualifications, or simply stay in your current position and try again later. Second, improve the most promising of these alternatives into concrete options. Don't just think about other employers—actually explore what's available, submit applications, and try to generate real offers. Third, select the best of your realistic alternatives as your BATNA. This becomes your walkaway point and your source of confidence in the negotiation.

The better your BATNA, the more you can afford to insist on an agreement that truly serves your interests. If you have three job offers in hand, you can be much more selective about salary, working conditions, and growth opportunities than if you have no alternatives. But remember that your BATNA is a tool for good decision-making, not a weapon to threaten others. Use it as a private standard to evaluate proposals, and share it with the other party only when doing so might help them understand why you can't accept their current offer and motivate them to improve it.

Summary

These principles work because they align with how people actually make decisions rather than fighting against human nature. When you separate people from problems, focus on interests rather than positions, invent creative options, and ground discussions in objective standards, you create an environment where agreement becomes possible even in seemingly impossible situations. As the authors observe, "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."

The most powerful insight from this approach is that you don't have to choose between being tough and being decent, between getting what you deserve and maintaining important relationships. Start your transformation by identifying one upcoming negotiation where you can practice these ideas. Before your next difficult conversation, invest time in understanding the other person's likely interests, preparing several options that might work for both of you, and developing your BATNA so you approach the discussion from a position of confidence rather than desperation. Remember, every expert was once a beginner, and every small step toward more principled negotiation creates ripple effects that extend far beyond any single agreement.

About Author

William Ury

William Ury, whose name is synonymous with the art of negotiation, emerges as a luminary in the literary and intellectual realms.

Download PDF & EPUB

To save this Black List summary for later, download the free PDF and EPUB. You can print it out, or read offline at your convenience.