What is a BATNA and why does it matter?

Your BATNA is your best alternative if no agreement is reached. It shows when walking away is better than accepting the offer. Define it before negotiating.

Is this the same as Getting to Yes?

Yes. It applies the core principles from Fisher and Ury’s Harvard Negotiation Project to prepare for workplace conflict.

What's the difference between this and a compromise?

A compromise splits a fixed amount. Interest-based negotiation looks for needs that matter differently to each side. A trade can then serve both sides better than a split.

Does it work when one side has far more power?

Only partly. The method cannot create leverage. It clarifies what you need, what is negotiable, and where conceding would hurt most.

Interest-Based Negotiation

Interest-based negotiation moves beyond fixed demands. It reveals options that protect what matters to both sides.

Separate positions from interests
Create options for both sides
Decide against shared criteria

Interest-based negotiation in 4 steps

Positions state what each side demands. Interests reveal why it matters. Use those interests to find options, then test them against shared criteria.

Separate people from the problem
Name the conflict without treating the people or teams as the problem.
Clarify interests
Ask about the goals, needs, and limits behind each demand.
Create options for mutual gain
Generate options that could serve important interests on both sides.
Agree on criteria
Test the options against data, standards, or conditions both sides accept.

Example: negotiating a release date

A product and platform team look for a shared path:

Separate the problem
Instead of calling each other blockers, the teams name the conflict: a promised launch date versus an unresolved reliability risk.
Clarify interests
The product team needs to honour a customer commitment. The platform team needs to avoid unstable operations and added on-call pressure.
Create options
They consider a staged rollout with a feature flag, close monitoring, and a small initial user group.
Agree criteria
Before expanding the rollout, they set thresholds for errors and response time, plus a clear rollback condition.

Both teams protect their core interests. Shared measures show whether the solution works.

When this method helps

Use when teams have different priorities and must implement the solution together.

Limits and when to pause

Not every conflict has a mutual-gain solution. Protect firm boundaries, test objective criteria, and know your alternative if no agreement is reached.

Where Reflacto uses this method

Choose the situation you want to reflect on:

Key benefits

Moves the conversation from positions to interests
Creates workable options for both sides
Tests decisions against shared criteria

Questions Reflacto asks

Reflacto turns the method into these concrete reflection questions:

1Which teams are involved in this conflict?
2What are the main priorities and constraints for each team?
3Where do their goals align or conflict?
4How can you frame this as a shared problem to solve?
5What compromise or mutual benefit is possible?

Common questions about interest-based negotiation

What is a BATNA and why does it matter?: Your BATNA is your best alternative if no agreement is reached. It shows when walking away is better than accepting the offer. Define it before negotiating.
Is this the same as Getting to Yes?: Yes. It applies the core principles from Fisher and Ury’s Harvard Negotiation Project to prepare for workplace conflict.
What's the difference between this and a compromise?: A compromise splits a fixed amount. Interest-based negotiation looks for needs that matter differently to each side. A trade can then serve both sides better than a split.
Does it work when one side has far more power?: Only partly. The method cannot create leverage. It clarifies what you need, what is negotiable, and where conceding would hurt most.

Origin and Reflacto's adaptation

Roger Fisher and William Ury presented principled negotiation in Getting to Yes (1981). Bruce Patton, originally credited as editor, is a co-author in current editions. All three belonged to the Harvard Negotiation Project.

Also known as: principled negotiation, the Harvard negotiation method

What Reflacto changed

Getting to Yes covers negotiation in general. Reflacto applies its four elements to conflict between teams in one organization. Its questions cover each team’s priorities, aligned or conflicting goals, and a mutually beneficial compromise.

Primary sources and further reading

Editorially reviewed by Daniel Schmeiß

Last substantive review: August 30, 2026

Related reflection methods

Compare another method that approaches a similar situation from a different angle.

Compare all methods