Getting to Yes: Chapter 3 Summary & Analysis

The authors begin with a parable about two men in a library fighting about the window. One man wants it open for fresh air, but the other does not want to feel a draft. So the librarian goes to the next room and opens the window there. Under the heading “For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions,” the authors note that failed negotiations often take this form: people focus on positions rather than interests. The librarian’s solution works because she cares about the parties’ interests—meaning their “needs, desires, concerns, and fears”—which are really the core issue in any dispute.

One example of why interests are fundamentally more important than positions is the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, which had been occupying Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula for more than a decade. Both sides had clear, incompatible positions: Israel insisted on keeping some of the territory, but Egypt wanted all of it. But their interests were actually compatible: Israel worried that Egypt would build up troops in the Sinai, and Egypt wanted sovereignty back over its territory. So  Israel agreed to return the Sinai to Egypt, as long as it would remain a demilitarized zone.

Because the same interests can usually be satisfied in many ways, it is always better to focus on interests than positions. Similarly, even negotiators with opposed positions often have compatible interests. For instance, a landlord and a tenant both want to maintain the apartment and have a good relationship. The landlord might want some things that the tenant does not care about, and vice versa. Their opposed interest—the cost of rent—is only one among many important factors in their relationship. Sometimes, opposed interests are the source of a wise agreement—like when a shoe-seller wants money and a buyer wants shoes.

The authors then ask, “How do you identify interests?” People are often explicit about their positions, but their interests can be harder to discern. Negotiators should first ask why the other party is taking whatever position they have chosen, and why they have not already agreed to one’s requests. The authors look at the Iranian hostage crisis and note that it was in the hostage-takers’ best interests to keep the hostages as long as possible.

Negotiators should think through the decisions facing the other side and the consequences of deciding each way. For instance, the other side’s popularity or political support might be affected, they might want to maintain certain principles, or their actions might have consequences for people who rely on them and the options available to future decision-makers.

Negotiators almost always have multiple interests—including an interest in actually reaching an agreement. And negotiators frequently forget that the other side can be made of different competing groups with different interests—like when Lyndon Johnson foolishly referred to all Vietnamese people as “the enemy” during the Vietnam War. By imagining negotiations as two-sided exchanges in which each side has agreed-upon, definite interests, negotiators can also forget that there are usually competing groups with complex interests on each side.

The authors note that people’s interests are most often grounded in powerful basic needs like security, belonging, recognition, and autonomy. Even when negotiations are explicitly about money, these basic needs often dictate parties’ demands. For instance, when Mexico was planning to sell natural gas to the United States, it was important for them to be respected and get a fair price, rather than just sell as much as possible. In such situations, it is helpful to explicitly write out a list of each side’s interests.

In order to actually fulfill their interests, negotiators must identify them and clearly communicate them to the other side. Including specific details is very important because it allows a negotiator to paint a more vivid picture of the problem. And by showing that they legitimately understand the other side’s interests, negotiators can convince the other side to take their interests seriously too. Negotiators should communicate problems before solutions—rather than telling the other side what to do and then explaining why, they should explain the interests at stake before proposing how to resolve them.

People often argue for argument’s sake—to score points rather than to reach an agreement. If asked why they are arguing, people often “identify a cause, not a purpose.” It should be the other way around: people should not argue because of something undesirable in the past (a cause) but because of a desirable outcome they want to achieve in the future (a purpose). The question “why?” is ambiguous—people can always explain their behavior in terms of either causes or purposes, but in a negotiation, focusing on the future is always a better way to satisfy one’s interests.

Negotiators should “be concrete but flexible,” meaning they should enter a negotiation with a plan but always be interested in accommodating new ideas. They should think of multiple specific plans to fulfill their interests, but they should keep these plans flexible. This is a better alternative to positional bargaining: negotiators should offer illustrative but specific proposals.

In conclusion, people should take a hard negotiating stance toward their interests but not toward their positions. Wise agreements often require both sides to advocate hard for their interests, but doing this effectively requires addressing the problem without attacking the people with whom one is negotiating. Actually, it is best to actively support the people on the other side. In fact, principled negotiation is effective because it relies on the contradiction between supporting the people and attacking the problem: to resolve this contradiction, negotiators team up and attack the problem together. They should be firm about their interests but open to varied proposals for achieving them.