No method of negotiation can completely overcome power differences. However, Fisher and Ury offer ways to protect the weaker side from a bad deal and help the weaker side make the most of its strengths. Getting to Yes has been printed for over thirty years. This timeless classic has helped millions of people make win-win deals at work and in personal life. Based on principles such as: As early as 1965, Walton and McKersie`s revolutionary study, Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, clearly articulated what they called « integrative negotiation, » with tactics such as mutual agreement on the problem, mutual information sharing, mutual trust, and the search for the best alternative. Does this sound familiar to you? Getting to Yes didn`t recognize Walton and McKersie`s book, although all the books I`ve read about collective bargaining do. Getting to Yes uses the phrase Be gentle with people and the problem. As an example, Walton and McKersie quoted Mr. Gandhi: Be antagonism and gentle on the antagonist. Fisher and Ury explain that a good deal is wise and effective and improves the relationship between the parties. Smart agreements are in the interest of the parties and are fair and sustainable. The goal of the authors is to develop a method to make good chords.

Negotiations often take place in the form of position negotiations. In position negotiations, each party begins with its position on a subject. The parties then negotiate from their separate opening positions to agree on a position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of position negotiations. Fisher and Ury argue that position negotiations tend not to produce good agreements. It is an ineffective way to reach agreements, and agreements tend to neglect the interests of the parties. It promotes stubbornness and therefore tends to harm the relationship of the parties. Principled negotiations offer a better way to reach good agreements. Fisher and Ury develop four principles of negotiation. Their principles-based negotiation process can be used effectively in almost all types of disputes. Their four principles are 1) to separate people from the problem; (2) Focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a variety of options before agreeing on an agreement; and (4) insist that the agreement is based on objective criteria.

[p. 11] Participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on common interests. If the interests of the parties are different, they should look for options in which these differences can be reconciled or even made complementary. The key to matching different interests is to « look for items that are inexpensive to you and very beneficial to them, and vice versa. » [p. 79] Each party should try to make suggestions that are attractive to the other party and with which the other party could easily agree. To this end, it is important to identify decision-makers and align proposals directly with them. Proposals are easier to accept if they appear legitimate or are supported by precedents. Threats are generally less effective in motivating deals than advantageous offers.

Good agreements focus on the interests of the parties and not on their positions. .