Principled Negotiation Method
Negotiate on interests not positions to reach wise agreements efficiently and amicably
Principled Negotiation is a four-element method for reaching agreements that satisfy both parties' underlying interests without the destructive dynamics of positional bargaining. Traditional negotiation involves each side taking a position, arguing for it, and making concessions to reach compromise. This process is inefficient, produces suboptimal outcomes, and damages relationships. Principled Negotiation replaces this with four principles: separate the people from the problem (address emotions and relationship issues independently from substantive issues), focus on interests not positions (explore the underlying needs driving each position), invent options for mutual gain (brainstorm creative solutions before deciding), and insist on using objective criteria (use fair standards and procedures to resolve differences). The method also introduces the concept of BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) as a source of power: knowing your walkaway alternative gives you leverage without needing to use threats or positional pressure. The framework works in business deals, salary negotiations, international diplomacy, and everyday conflicts.
- Separate the people from the problem: deal with relationship issues directly rather than trying to solve them through substantive concessions
- Focus on interests, not positions: understand what each party actually needs rather than fighting over stated demands
- Invent options for mutual gain: expand the pie before dividing it by brainstorming creative solutions
- Insist on using objective criteria: resolve differences by reference to fair standards rather than willpower contests
- Separate People from the ProblemBefore diving into substantive issues, address the human side of negotiation directly. Recognize that negotiators are people with emotions, different perceptions, and communication difficulties. Acknowledge feelings, allow the other side to let off steam, and build a working relationship independent of the substantive disagreement. When people feel heard and respected, they are far more likely to engage productively on the substance. Attack the problem, never the person.
- Focus on Interests Not PositionsBehind every position lies an underlying interest: the needs, desires, concerns, and fears that motivate people. Ask why the other side wants what they want, and share your own underlying interests openly. Often both parties' interests are compatible even when their positions seem opposed. A classic example: two people fighting over an orange discover one wants the peel for baking and the other wants the juice, so both can be fully satisfied rather than splitting the orange in half.
- Invent Options for Mutual GainBefore trying to decide on a solution, brainstorm multiple possible options without commitment. Separate the act of inventing from the act of deciding. Look for solutions that dovetail different interests, and identify shared interests that both parties can benefit from. The key is expanding the set of possibilities beyond the binary choice between each side's initial position.
- Insist on Using Objective CriteriaWhen interests conflict directly, resolve differences by reference to fair standards such as market value, expert opinion, custom, law, or precedent rather than through a contest of wills. Agree on the criteria before applying them to the specific case. This transforms negotiation from a battle of willpower into a joint search for a fair outcome.
- Develop Your BATNADetermine your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement before entering any negotiation. Your BATNA is your walkaway power: knowing exactly what you will do if no agreement is reached gives you confidence and leverage. The better your BATNA, the greater your negotiating power. Invest time in improving your alternatives rather than just your arguments.
Two children quarrel over an orange. A compromise would split it in half. But when asked why each wants the orange, one says she wants the juice to drink and the other wants the peel to bake a cake. By focusing on interests rather than positions, both can get everything they want. This simple example illustrates how positional bargaining leaves value on the table that interest-based negotiation captures.
Egypt and Israel's positions on the Sinai Peninsula seemed irreconcilable: Egypt demanded full sovereignty, Israel insisted on keeping it for security. When mediators explored underlying interests, they discovered Egypt's interest was sovereignty and national pride while Israel's was security. The solution gave Egypt sovereignty over the entire Sinai while creating demilitarized zones that addressed Israel's security concerns. Interest-based negotiation resolved what positional bargaining could not.
Roger Fisher and William Ury developed this method at the Harvard Negotiation Project in the late 1970s. They observed that most negotiations followed destructive patterns of positional bargaining where each side locked into positions and made grudging concessions, producing agreements that left value on the table and damaged relationships. By studying negotiations across diverse contexts from labor disputes to international diplomacy, they identified the common principles that led to wise, efficient, and amicable agreements.