Getting to Yes: find the need behind the demand

The book’s starting point

Fisher, Ury and Patton propose addressing a negotiation on its merits: distinguish the people from the dispute; explore interests rather than clinging to positions; develop options that offer value to both sides; and use relevant, independent standards.

A position is the request someone is making. An interest is the need or concern that request is meant to serve. If several arrangements could meet the need, the initial demand need not be the only available solution.

This does not mean ignoring the relationship. You can acknowledge someone’s frustration without automatically accepting their proposed remedy. You can also disagree with a remedy without treating the other person as the problem.

Example: not everything needs the same meeting

Imagine a small team arguing about a 9 a.m. planning meeting. One person wants everyone present. Another wants no meetings before noon. This is a fictional example, not a client story.

Rather than immediately compromising on 10:30, ask: which decision genuinely needs everyone? Who needs uninterrupted preparation time? Is the meeting for an update, discussion or approval? Perhaps one person needs a decision before work stalls, while the other needs to protect a work block that cannot move.

Two alternatives now become available: circulate a written update and hold a short decision meeting at noon; or meet in the morning with only the people needed for that decision and document it for the others. Neither is automatically the right answer. They are possibilities to test against the needs people have actually expressed.

A real alternative, not a threat

The book also introduces BATNA: the best alternative to an agreement in this particular negotiation. It answers “What will I do if we do not agree?” It is not another name for the demand I hope the other person will accept.

In the team example, “We will hold the same meeting anyway” may not be an option you can implement. A more realistic alternative might be to postpone a nonurgent decision, or separate an urgent decision from the general update—provided the people involved have the necessary agreement and authority.

Beside each alternative, distinguish what is known from what needs checking. Are the necessary people available? Does anyone else depend on the decision? What does a delay cost? An untested alternative can look reassuring on paper and disappear when it is needed.

A preparation sheet to use before the conversation

This is a new worksheet inspired by the ideas, not a form reproduced from the book.

1. My request: what exactly am I asking for?
2. My need: what would that request enable or prevent?
3. Their side: what do I know about their need, and what am I only guessing?
4. A question: what can I ask without supplying their answer for them?
5. Two possibilities: what different arrangements might serve the needs?
6. A shared test: how will we compare the possibilities—availability, task dependencies, workload, a decision deadline?
7. An alternative: what will we do without agreement, and what must be verified to make that option real?

The most useful entry may be “I don’t know yet.” A genuine question is a better starting point than a confident explanation of someone else’s motives.

Where the idea stops

Not every disagreement has a solution that satisfies everyone. Sometimes a resource really is scarce, interests conflict, or the people in the conversation lack authority to decide. Even a seemingly objective criterion needs to be accepted as relevant and fair for the situation.

The purpose here is not to obtain a yes at any price. It is to reach a decision you can explain: what you were trying to resolve, what options you considered, and what you agreed—or why you chose not to agree. If the next step is an experiment, give it an owner and a review date. In the team example, two meetings in the new format could reveal what needs changing without turning a temporary arrangement into a permanent rule.