I read this book with one course which i am doing on Coursera on negotiation and found it very useful. It gives you insight that how wrong i was in various negotiation. Obviously i need to practise these learnings in my daily life so i can be better negotiator.

Fairly harmless, not overly helpful but also an easy read

This book was a rather interesting read! Overall, I felt that this book has really broadened my perspective on how to approach conflict while also teaching me ways on how to negotiate better, as well as and be more open-minded to hearing different stance. It provides insightful and practical ways on to strive toward a mutually beneficial agreement without having to give in. Before reading this book, I used to think that people have conflicts because they have different personalities or ‘just don’t vibe well together’, but while reading the book, it revealed to me that conflicts arise due to the misalignment in interests and priorities. What is interesting to me is how Fisher talks about “focusing on interests, not positions”. Often times, we assume that there’s only 2 sides to the problem — “yes” and “no”, “agree” and “disagree”, “right” and wrong”. As a result, we don’t see the need to communicate and understand other party’s interests because it might seem as if we are giving in. However in reality, it helps us better understand the root cause of the problem, making it easier for us to find a common ground to a more integrative solution.

As I was reading this book, I was also reminded of what I learnt in my business class: The tale of the two sisters. The sisters were fighting over an orange and to resolve the problem, they cut the orange into half (each take half an orange). It seems like a logical approach to the conflict. However, the thing is, one wanted the orange peel to make a cake, and another wanted the flesh to make orange juice. By the time the sisters realise this, it was too late because one had already thrown away the flesh for the cake, another had already thrown away the peel for the juice, essentially, they only had half an orange. They could have a whole orange if they were to communicate to each other their interests (’why I want the orange’) rather than focusing on the positions (’I just need the orange’).

Eye-opening. Now, how do I rewrite all of my bad habits to take advantage of the knowledge in this book...?

Could help provide a foundation for the upcoming website redesign discussions.

Favorite Tips

Separate the people from the problem.
Focus on interests, not positions.
Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

Where perceptions are inaccurate, you can look for ways to educate. If emotions run high, you can find ways for each person involved to let off steam. Where misunderstanding exists, you can work to improve communication.

But even if blaming is justified, it is usually counterproductive.
Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions.
Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the process.
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate.
Allow the other side to let off steam.
Be specific. Concrete details not only make your description [of the problem] credible, they add impact.

[At this point, I got lazy and stopped reading. But I really should come back to finish at some point.]

This is an acknowledged classic in the literature of negotiation, though I am grateful that I read it on a Kindle, as being forced to see the title every time I picked it up to read it would, frankly, have been unbearable. It draws on a range of situations, backgrounds, and environments for its examples, meaning that it is more useful than its "Do YOU want to be a business executive?"-style title would suggest. For instance, one touchstone case is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty, which a massive and complex negotiation across almost a decade.

I enjoyed reading it, and the emphasis on the practical was welcome, but I don't imagine that I'll be striding out to the front of any kidnapping or hostage situations I find myself in in the near future.

car salesmen... i'm onto you.

Would recommend for lawyers, diplomats, and businessmen.
This book mostly talks about what it says in the title. "Getting to Yes", precisely means prioritizing reaching an agreement based on mutual interests.
It explains a different framework for negotiations called "principle negotiations" which is radically different from our day to day negotiation methodology. He explains why our usual framework is inefficient and doesn't prioritize having a long term relationship with the opposite group. He then discusses his framework in a lot of detail and answers the common questions and problems people face while using Principle negotiations as their procedure for negotiation.
To give you a blurry image of this framework, it prioritizes reaching a mutually agreed, beneficial agreement while also ensuring that all the parties involved can have a long term relationship. It involves taking time out to understand the other side's interests, perceptions and his emotions regarding the agreement. It mentions using objectivity and standards to measure the fair valuation of assets being negotiated on. It tries to create a fair solution for both sides, where one doesn't yield to pressure, rather yields to principle.

Closing this, don't read this book thinking it will help you much with your day to day haggling with a shopkeeper/your boss, etc. While the author tries to extend his arguments through a few examples, the full scope and information can only be utilised in complex negotiations involving multiple stakeholders, multiple interests and with a lot of time at hand to reach the agreement

A excellent book about negotiation. There were 4 key rules of negotiaton that I remembered from this:
1.tSeparating People and Issues - Fisher and Ury's first principle is to separate the people from the issues. People tend to become personally involved with the issues and with their side's positions. And so they will tend to take responses to those issues and positions as personal attacks. Separating the people from the issues allows the parties to address the issues without damaging their relationship. It also helps them to get a clearer view of the substantive problem.
2.tFocus on Interests - Good agreements focus on the parties' interests, rather than their positions. As Fisher and Ury explain, "Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide."[p. 42] Defining a problem in terms of positions means that at least one party will "lose" the dispute. When a problem is defined in terms of the parties' underlying interests it is often possible to find a solution which satisfies both parties' interests.
3.tGenerate Options - Fisher and Ury identify four obstacles to generating creative options for solving a problem. Parties may decide prematurely on an option and so fail to consider alternatives. The parties may be intent on narrowing their options to find the single answer. The parties may define the problem in win-lose terms, assuming that the only options are for one side to win and the other to lose. Or a party may decide that it is up to the other side to come up with a solution to the problem.
4.tUse Objective Criteria - When interests are directly opposed, the parties should use objective criteria to resolve their differences. Allowing such differences to spark a battle of wills will destroy relationships, is inefficient, and is not likely to produce wise agreements. Decisions based on reasonable standards makes it easier for the parties to agree and preserve their good relationship.

Had to read this for Negotiations class. The class was better than the book, but nonetheless the book contains must-read fundamentals to understand the negotiation process that we all use in our day to day lives.

This should be required reading for all book editors and literary agents. (There’s a reason almost every law school assigns this!) Moves us away from the arbitrary practice of negotiating on the basis of positions (I say a number, you say a number, rinse, repeat, until we settle arbitrarily somewhere in the middle; “winner” is the more stubborn party) and to negotiation on the basis of principle (objective standards, each party’s interests), resulting in fairer agreements reached efficiently that lead to mutual gain and improve (or at least don’t damage) the relationship between the two parties. Refreshing and very helpful!

Read this book for grad school, so you know, it's not necessarily something I would've picked up on my own. Still, it's a great introduction to integrative negotiation strategies and the strengths of principle-based negotiation. "Getting to Yes" won't give you a thorough, in-depth examination of the concepts it introduces, and it certainly doesn't address all aspects of mediation—I found the authors' assessment of power dynamics to be particularly lacking and naive at times—but it does get the wheels in your head turning.

In a better world, _Getting To Yes_ would be required reading in secondary school. Every page is full of wisdom and suggestions for handling interpersonal interactions — or negotiations, since most bidirectional communication is in some sense a negotiation.

As someone who negotiates professionally, I’ve found the philosophy of _Getting To Yes_ to be exactly in sync with my own style. I’ve given copies of the book to people whom I mentor and even to those with whom I negotiate.

The audio version I listened to this time is an updated edition with some fresher examples and updated numbers. It’s still a classic.