“Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.”

Why it was said

Roger Fisher and William Ury set out this yardstick at the start of the book's first chapter, then use it to show why positional bargaining, in which each side stakes out a position and concedes from it, tends to fail on all three counts.

What it actually means

The three criteria turn 'did we win?' into better questions. A wise agreement meets the legitimate interests of both sides as far as possible and lasts. Efficiency means getting there without a long contest of stubbornness. The relationship matters because most negotiations are with people we will deal with again: a colleague, a supplier, a family member. Positional bargaining fails each test: it locks people into positions instead of interests, it rewards stalling, and it turns the deal into a contest of wills. The rest of the book is the alternative.

How to use it

1. 1After your next negotiation, score the result on the three criteria: wise, efficient, relationship intact.
2. 2Before you name a position, write down the interest behind it and the other side's likely interest.
3. 3If talks stall on positions, propose a fair standard both sides can accept, such as a market price or an expert's estimate.