Getting to Yes — Principled Negotiation (Fisher & Ury) • Olimp Run

I’m reading (and re-thinking) Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury. The book is famous for sounding like common sense — until you apply it when you’re tired, emotionally activated, and the other side is playing hardball.

What I like most: it doesn’t try to turn you into a “hard negotiator.” It gives you a structure that lets you stay calm while keeping firm boundaries.

Everyone negotiates (even if they hate the word)

Fisher & Ury start with a simple claim: everyone negotiates — with partners, kids, colleagues, vendors, institutions.

Most people, however, believe there are only two styles:

Soft: preserve the relationship, avoid conflict, make concessions.
Hard: push, demand, anchor, and outlast.

And yes — in classic positional bargaining, hard typically dominates soft. Soft negotiators often “win peace” and later pay with resentment.

Negotiations happen on two levels

Here is the meta-point that matters in real life:

Substance (merit) — money, scope, deadlines, terms.
The game (process / meta-game) — what rules we’re using: positional arm-wrestling or problem-solving.

Most people negotiate only on Level 1. Fisher & Ury argue you should also negotiate Level 2 — and when needed, change the game.

The alternative to positional bargaining: principled negotiation

Their proposed game is principled negotiation (also framed as negotiation “on the merits”). It has four pillars:

Separate the people from the problem
Focus on interests, not positions
Invent options for mutual gain
Insist on objective criteria

The mindset: participants solve a shared problem together.

A key phrase that finally clicked for me:

Be soft on people, hard on the problem.

“Soft/hard” is not about personality. It’s about tone vs boundaries:

Soft on people = respectful, non-accusatory, emotionally regulated.
Hard on the problem = clear constraints, criteria, and walk-away lines.

The time structure: Analysis → Planning → Discussion

Another piece I already did intuitively (now I can run it as a checklist):

Analysis: what’s really going on? what are the constraints and interests?
Planning: what do I want, what can I trade, what are my options?
Discussion: the conversation itself — execution under pressure.

When you’re tired, structure beats willpower.

Pillar 1: Separate the people from the problem

Fisher & Ury emphasize that negotiators are human. Ignore the human layer and the whole thing can collapse.

They highlight two kinds of interests that run in parallel:

Substantive interests (merit)
Relationship interests (how we treat each other, long-term cooperation)

In long-term relationships, relationship interests often dominate.

The tricky part: we tend to entangle substance with relationship psychology. A comment about numbers becomes a story about intent, respect, and identity.

They propose treating “people problems” through three lenses:

Perception
Emotion
Communication

Perception: stop negotiating against your own assumptions

People routinely infer intent from incomplete signals. We turn interpretations into “facts.”

Useful reminders:

Don’t infer their intent from your fears.
Don’t blame them for your problems.
Discuss mutual perceptions explicitly.

A practical move: do something that violates their expectation.

Example: if they expect confrontation, show up calm, polite, and structured. It’s a pattern interrupt that often de-escalates the room.

Give them participation (ownership)

If you want someone invested in a solution, let them co-create it:

ask for constraints (“What is procedurally possible on your side?”)
ask for criteria (“What would you need to justify this internally?”)
ask for advice (“Which option is easiest to defend formally?”)

This is not surrender; it’s creating ownership.

Face-saving (keeping dignity intact)

People resist solutions that make them look weak, wrong, or humiliated.

Your proposal must fit their value system — especially with institutions or formal roles.

Emotion: recognize identity triggers

They suggest paying attention to identity-level interests:

autonomy
recognition
belonging
role
status

In my experience, role/status is massive with formal decision-makers.

Don’t hide emotion — acknowledge it strategically

“Talking about emotion” doesn’t mean emotional dumping.

It means controlled disclosure:

say what you feel as data
then immediately anchor to process and criteria

Example:

“I’m under stress because this matter is important. That’s why I prepared options and objective criteria so we can stay factual.”

Also: don’t react impulsively to emotional outbursts. Let the pressure vent, then return to the problem.

Communication: three common failures

People speak “to the audience” (performance) instead of to each other.
People don’t hear because they’re rehearsing their response.
People misunderstand — often not because of language, but because of different definitions.

Tools that actually work

Active listening: paraphrase + confirm.
Speak to be understood: one thought per sentence, reduce ambiguity.
Speak about yourself, not as a diagnosis of them.

Example:

“You’re discriminating against me.” (diagnosis)
“I feel treated unfairly / disadvantaged by this process.” (I-statement)

Talk to achieve an objective

Over-communication is a tax.

A great example of self-sabotage:

If someone offers me 20k for my car and I say:

“I’d be willing to sell for 15k.”

I just revealed my reservation value and created a negotiation problem out of a solved deal.

Rule: if a sentence does not move toward your goal, don’t say it.

Pillar 1 takeaway: prevention beats confrontation

The most underrated prevention:

build enough relationship to cooperate
keep the human layer clean
fight the problem, not the person

This isn’t “being nice.” It’s a disciplined way to keep negotiation from degrading into ego battles.

Pillar 2: Focus on interests, not positions

The second pillar sounds like a slogan until you notice how often people argue about what they want (positions) while ignoring why they want it (interests).

Position = a stated demand (“180/m²”, “I want the window closed”, “I won’t pay retroactively”).
Interest = the underlying need, constraint, fear, or goal that makes that position feel necessary (comfort, risk, predictability, budget limits, precedent, autonomy, etc.).

The famous “library window” example works because the fight is framed as two incompatible positions (open vs closed), while the real interests are not symmetrical: one person wants fresh air, the other wants to avoid a draft. Once you drop to interests, you can expand the solution space (open another window, move seats, adjust airflow). The conflict was never “open vs closed” — it was “air vs draft.”

The non-magical truth: sometimes it is just a price fight

It’s important not to romanticize this principle. In a pure single-issue negotiation (e.g., one-time transaction, one variable, no relationship, no scope/time/risk dimensions), “interests” can collapse into a boring tautology:

Seller’s interest: more money.
Buyer’s interest: less money.

In a true fixed-pie situation, focusing on interests won’t invent value out of thin air. It won’t replace leverage, alternatives, or constraints.

However, the point is not that interests always create agreement. The point is that positions are a low-resolution model of what’s going on. When you search for interests, you often discover hidden variables — and that’s where agreements become possible.

Behind opposing positions, there are usually mixed interests

Fisher & Ury address this directly. They distinguish three categories of interests:

Shared interests — both sides want the same thing (stability, good relationship, maintained asset).
Different but compatible interests — each side wants something different, but the differences don’t collide (one cares about timing, the other doesn’t; one wants X for reason A, the other avoids X for reason B).
Conflicting interests — more for one means less for the other (price, territory, allocation).

Their key claim: conflicting interests are rarely the only interests at play.

They illustrate this with a landlord/tenant example:

Shared: both want stability, both want the apartment well-maintained, both prefer a good relationship.
Different but compatible: the landlord doesn’t want to repaint (cost), the tenant doesn’t want repainting either (allergic to paint fumes). Or: the tenant prefers paying on the 1st, the landlord doesn’t care about the exact date.
Conflicting: rent amount.

The insight: shared and compatible interests are complementary building blocks from which a wise agreement can be constructed — even when conflicting interests exist.

The trap is assuming that “conflict” is the whole picture. In most real negotiations, it isn’t — but you won’t see the rest unless you map interests explicitly.

How to identify interests (without therapy language)

A useful method is to ask two questions:

“Why?”
What is driving this position? What problem is the position trying to solve?
“Why not?”
What makes the alternative unacceptable? What risk, constraint, or precedent blocks it?

You can do this internally (analysis) or explicitly (discussion). The key is to keep it neutral and concrete. Instead of challenging a number or a demand directly, you map the reasoning behind it.

Once interests are visible, you can also formulate your own in a way that’s easier to accept:

be specific (vague interests sound like manipulation)
show they are reasonable (a neutral observer could understand them)
explain them as constraints (what makes a proposal workable or unworkable)

A subtle but powerful move: state the problem before you state the answer

A pattern Fisher & Ury keep pushing is:

don’t jump to “here is what I want”
start with “here is the problem we are solving, and here are the constraints”

This shifts the conversation from positional combat to joint problem definition. It is also a clean way to introduce your interests without sounding self-serving.

Future-oriented framing beats blame

Another useful reminder: focus forward. In many conflicts, people argue about causes (“you did X”), but negotiation is about outcomes (“we need Y”). Moving from positions to interests naturally forces this shift:

from justification (“because you…”)
to objective (“so that we can…”)

The bridge that makes “interests” actionable: soft on people, hard on the problem

This is the line Fisher & Ury keep forcing for a reason:

Be soft on people, hard on the problem.

Without it, “focus on interests” easily turns into either:

softness everywhere (you understand everyone, then you concede), or
hardness everywhere (you diagnose interests, then you weaponize them).

The point is to split tone from stance.

What “soft on people” actually means (and what it does NOT)

Soft on people is not being agreeable or “nice.”
It means you avoid converting a substantive disagreement into an identity conflict.

Practically:

don’t speculate about intent (no mind-reading)
don’t moralize (“you’re unfair,” “you’re greedy,” “you don’t care”)
don’t diagnose emotions as facts (“you’re angry,” “you’re insecure”)

Instead, treat the other person as a legitimate participant with constraints — even if their position is annoying.

Softness is in the temperature:

respectful language
curiosity
letting them save face
active listening (paraphrase + confirmation)

What “hard on the problem” means

Hard on the problem means you are firm on:

your interests (what must be true for a deal to work)
your constraints (time, budget, risk, feasibility)
your process standards (clarity of scope, definitions, criteria)

Notice: “hard” is not aimed at the person. It is aimed at reality.

This is where “interests over positions” becomes more than a slogan:

You can be flexible on positions (how the deal is shaped)
while being inflexible on interests (what must be protected)

The clean operational model: low temperature, high standards

A simple rule I’m stealing for future negotiations:

Low temperature with people
High standards on the problem

This creates a paradox that often helps cooperation: the more you insist on clarity and constraints, the more important it becomes to be calm and respectful, so it doesn’t turn into an ego fight.

How to reconcile firmness with respect (language patterns)

A few patterns that keep you hard on the problem without attacking people:

Acknowledge → constrain → propose
- “I understand why this matters to you. My constraint is X. Given that, here are two options…”
Separate intent from impact
- “I’m not assuming bad intent. The impact of this proposal is Y for me, which makes it unworkable. Let’s adjust the structure.”
Define the problem before stating the answer
- “If the goal is to achieve A while staying within constraints B and C, then the solution can’t be D. We need an option that satisfies B and C.”

These moves keep the relationship intact while keeping the negotiation anchored in interests, constraints, and objective reality — not personality and pride.

Why this is the “unique” part

Many negotiation frameworks either teach assertiveness (hard) or empathy (soft). Fisher & Ury’s distinctive move is insisting that you can — and should — do both simultaneously, but aimed at different targets:

empathy aimed at people
rigor aimed at the problem

Once you internalize this split, “interests vs positions” stops being abstract. It becomes a disciplined way to fight for your interests without making the other side your enemy.

Pillar 2 takeaway

“Interests over positions” is not a magic key. It’s a diagnostic tool and a solution generator:

If the negotiation is truly single-issue and fixed-pie, interests won’t save you.
If there are hidden variables (risk, scope, time, process, reputation, precedent), interests reveal them.
Once interests are explicit, you can craft options and criteria that are harder to dismiss as “just your demand.”

In short:

Positions shrink the world to a fight.
Interests expand it back into a problem you can actually solve.

Pillar 3: Invent options for mutual gain

This pillar is where Getting to Yes stops being a philosophy and becomes a practical skill.

Fisher & Ury use the “split the pie” metaphor: people assume there isn’t a way to divide outcomes so that both sides feel satisfied. They argue the opposite: the ability to create options that generate value for both sides is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have.

The core idea is simple:

Before you try to split value, try to create value.

Why this feels “impossible” (the four barriers)

They diagnose four predictable barriers that block option-creation:

Premature judgment
Evaluating ideas too early kills creativity. Under pressure, people default to defending their position rather than generating possibilities. In the middle of a tense negotiation, it is unlikely you will suddenly produce a brilliant alternative on the spot — more likely you will either freeze or say something dumb.
Searching for the single best answer
Many people don’t treat “inventing options” as part of negotiation at all. They think the job is to narrow the gap between positions, not to expand the set of possible solutions.
Assuming a fixed pie
The default assumption is that negotiation is zero-sum: one side wins exactly what the other side loses. That mindset forces “either/or” thinking and collapses creativity.
Thinking their problem is their problem
People focus on their own interests and forget a brutal truth: a proposal is useless if the other side cannot accept it. A workable option must speak to both sides’ interests and constraints.

The “recipe” (what to do instead)

Fisher & Ury propose a practical counter-method:

Separate inventing from deciding
Generate options first; evaluate later. Mixing creation and judgment ensures you generate too few options.
Expand the options on the table
Don’t search for one perfect solution. Treat negotiation like any real decision process: you need multiple alternatives to choose from.
Look for mutual gains
Search for value-creating trades rather than pure concessions.
Make it easy for the other side to decide
Your job is not to hand them a problem. Your job is to hand them a decision they can accept with minimal pain and risk.

1) Separate inventing from deciding (brainstorming, with guardrails)

Their primary tool is brainstorming, ideally with others. You generate many ideas first, without critique, and only later switch into evaluation mode.

They note you can brainstorm with the other side — but that comes with risk: you may reveal information you don’t want to reveal, or accidentally anchor the discussion in the wrong direction. In practice, brainstorming is often safer as an internal step, before you bring options to the table.

The key principle stands:

Creativity requires temporary protection from judgment.

2) Expand your options (avoid the “single-answer” trap)

Options are not a luxury; they are the difference between being trapped and having room to maneuver.

Instead of asking “What is the best answer?”, force yourself to ask:

“What are at least 5–10 ways this could be solved?”

Fisher & Ury treat the negotiation table as a place where you should arrive with choice, not with one fragile proposal.

The “swing” between the specific and the general (the circular diagram)

A central method they propose is generating more options by moving back and forth between specific and general thinking. The diagram is essentially a loop of four thinking modes:

Start with the concrete problem
Describe the current situation you are dissatisfied with.
Move to descriptive analysis (diagnosis) using general categories
Label what type of problem this is and what is causing it. You divide the mess into categories (legal, operational, relationship, financial, etc.) and form working hypotheses.
Move to general approaches (theory-driven solution classes)
Based on diagnosis, you search for broad solution patterns that tend to work for that kind of problem.
Return to concrete, actionable proposals
Translate general approaches into specific next steps: who does what, when, and how.

Then you loop again — using one good idea to generate the next ones.

This is the practical value of the model:

One decent option becomes a generator for more options.

Other option-expansion techniques

Fisher & Ury add several additional ways to multiply ideas:

Look through different professional lenses
Imagine how different disciplines (law, finance, engineering, operations, psychology) would frame the same problem and what solutions they would suggest.
Design agreements of different strength
Don’t think only in “full agreement or nothing.” Create weaker versions you can live with if the ideal deal is out of reach. And if you can’t reach substantive agreement, aim at minimum for agreement on what you disagree about (clarifying the dispute itself can be progress).
Change the scope (scale) of the proposed agreement
Break the problem into smaller parts, or restructure it into more manageable components. Smaller problems are often more solvable, and partial agreements reduce friction.

3) Look for mutual gains (they are often hidden)

Mutual gains are rarely obvious. They can be buried under positions and under the assumption of a fixed pie.

The move is to search for differences in what each side values.

A classic illustration: two sisters fight over an orange. If you stay at the positional level (“I want the orange”), you split it in half and both lose. If you ask about interests, you discover one wants the fruit and the other wants the peel — and the agreement becomes easy because they want different things.

The takeaway:

Mutual gain usually comes from allocating resources according to different interests, not from splitting them evenly.

When you find potential mutual gains, name them explicitly. They become fuel for collaboration and a reason for both sides to keep searching.

4) Make it easy for them to decide (reduce their decision pain)

This section is deceptively important.

A proposal can be attractive on paper and still be rejected because accepting it is costly for the other side — socially, procedurally, politically, or psychologically.

Fisher & Ury suggest “wearing their shoes” deliberately:

imagine a specific person on the other side
ask what decision they are being asked to make
ask what they fear will happen if they accept it
ask how they could be criticized afterwards

The goal:

Present them with a decision that is as low-pain as possible.

Don’t hand them a problem; hand them a justified option

They note a common dynamic:

If you put pressure on the other side to propose something “acceptable,” they may offer a number or a term that is safe for them. Then you treat it as the start of bargaining — and they feel punished for making the first move. This feeds defensiveness and stalls progress.

A better approach is to shape proposals so they feel justifiable:

fair
lawful
honorable
consistent

They point to precedent as especially powerful. People want to be consistent, and precedent gives them a ready-made defense: “this isn’t arbitrary.”

They also recommend thinking about what the other side is afraid of, and designing offers (not threats) that minimize those fears — including fear of later criticism for accepting your proposal.

Pillar 3 takeaway

Pillar 3 is not “be creative.” It is a disciplined process:

protect idea generation from early judgment
generate multiple options using a specific↔general loop
search for trades based on different values and interests
and then package proposals so the other side can say “yes” without getting hurt

In other words:

Expand the space of solutions — and reduce the cost of choosing one.

Pillar 4: Insist on objective criteria

If Pillar 2 is about diagnosing what’s really going on (interests), Pillar 4 is about deciding in a way that doesn’t depend on willpower, dominance, or who can endure discomfort longer.

Fisher & Ury’s claim is blunt:

Resolve differences by using standards that are independent of either side’s will.

In practice, this pillar is the antidote to “because I say so.”

It also gives you a clean rule for staying calm under pressure:

Be open to reason, deaf to threats.

“Reason” means arguments tied to legitimate standards. “Threats” include ultimatums, emotional blackmail, appeals to blind trust, and any form of pressure that tries to replace justification.

What counts as “objective” criteria?

A good criterion is:

independent (not “my preference”)
legitimate (defensible to a neutral observer)
practical (usable, not philosophical)
passes a reciprocity test (you would accept it if roles were reversed)

Examples Fisher & Ury point to include:

market value / prevailing rates
precedent and social practice
scientific assessment
professional standards
efficiency, cost, feasibility
likely court decision
equal treatment and consistency
moral standards (careful: only if both sides accept them)
reciprocity

The point is not to find the One True Standard. The point is to move the conversation from “positions” to “standards” — and sometimes to combine several standards rather than pretending only one exists.

When standards clash: use fair procedures

Sometimes the interests are genuinely in conflict and multiple standards point in different directions. In that case, “objective” can mean fair process, not just fair numbers.

Classic examples:

one person cuts, the other chooses
sequence decisions (agree on process first, then the hard decision)
use a neutral expert / arbitration
even a coin flip (primitive, but fair)

A fair procedure is an “objective criterion” in disguise: it removes arbitrariness and makes outcomes easier to accept without humiliation.

How to use objective criteria in conversation (three moves)

Fisher & Ury propose a simple execution model:

Frame each issue as a shared search for standards
Instead of “your number vs my number,” make the problem: “What standard should decide this?”

A practical prompt:
- “What is this based on?”
- “How did you arrive at that?”
Reason about which standards apply, and how
Insisting on standards does not mean insisting on your standard.

Two standards can both be legitimate. The negotiation may become:
- choosing the most appropriate one, or
- blending standards, or
- switching to a fair procedure if standards collide.
Never yield to pressure — yield only to principles
Pressure comes in many forms:
- threats and ultimatums
- bribes
- manipulative “trust me” appeals
- refusal to move (“take it or leave it”)
The response is not emotional resistance. It is a procedural redirect:
- ask for reasons
- propose a legitimate standard
- agree to adjust only on that basis

A useful mental trick: it is easier to refuse a demand than to refuse a person. You can say:

“I can’t accept that without a standard that justifies it.”
“If we agree on criteria, I’m flexible on structure. Without criteria, we’re just arm-wrestling.”

Why this works against “hard” negotiators

Hard negotiators win when the game is about endurance and dominance. Objective criteria changes the win condition.

It forces them to either:

justify their position using legitimate standards, or
reveal they have no justification — only leverage.

Either way, the conversation becomes clearer. And clarity is power.

Pillar 4 takeaway

Objective criteria is not “being fair” in a moral sense. It is a tactical move:

Replace willpower battles with standards and procedures that a neutral observer could accept.

When you insist on criteria, you’re not being stubborn. You’re refusing to let the outcome depend on who pushes harder — and demanding it depend on what makes sense.

Practical summary: Analysis → Planning → Discussion (when tired)

This is the operational checklist I want available when I’m tired, emotionally activated, or simply short on time.

Analysis

What do I want (interests)?
What do they likely want (interests)?
What constraints exist?

Planning

objective criteria (2–3)
options (A/B)

Discussion

paraphrase + confirm
define terms (“What does ‘not possible’ mean exactly?”)
say less; ask better questions

If I had to compress the entire approach into one line:

Don’t win the arm-wrestling. Change the game — with structure, criteria, and disciplined communication.