Roger Fisher, 1981

“Focus on interests, not positions.”

Roger Fisher, William Ury, and later Bruce Patton made this one of the central principles of Getting to Yes. A position is the stated demand; an interest is the need, concern, fear, or objective beneath it that gives the demand meaning. Two positions can appear incompatible even when the underlying interests allow several arrangements. Exploring those interests can expand the problem from a contest over one answer into a search for options that address timing, risk, recognition, cost, autonomy, or security differently. Read closely, the quotation is an operating claim rather than a decorative slogan. It asks leaders to connect an admired principle with the conditions, measures, and behavior through which customers and employees would actually experience it.

Negotiators can ask why a demand matters, what problem it solves, and what would make an alternative acceptable. They should share their own interests, generate options before committing, and use objective criteria to evaluate the resulting package. To make that connection visible, decision makers should name the choice the idea is meant to change, the evidence they will review, and the person responsible for follow-through. A principle becomes useful when others can observe its effect on work.

Interest-based negotiation does not eliminate power, deception, or genuine conflict. Some interests cannot be reconciled, and disclosure can create risk. A strong alternative, clear boundaries, preparation, and protection for confidential information remain essential. The strongest interpretation holds ambition and restraint together. Teams should ask who benefits, who carries risk, what evidence would disconfirm the current belief, and how a person affected by the decision can question it before costs become difficult to reverse.

Remote work, supplier disruption, data rights, and AI governance produce disputes that can harden into slogans. Separating the underlying needs from the first proposed policy helps organizations design trials, safeguards, and tradeoffs without pretending every disagreement is merely a misunderstanding. Before the next difficult meeting, each side can list its position, the interests beneath it, likely shared interests, independent standards, and at least one option that changes more than a single number. A practical review should compare the promise with outcomes, experience, and unintended effects. The final test is not whether the words sound inspiring, but whether they help the organization learn earlier, act responsibly, and create value that can withstand scrutiny. Results should be shared in plain language, including disappointments, so later decisions begin with accumulated evidence rather than a polished story that hides the conditions under which the earlier choice succeeded.