Negotiating positions is the thing that makes negotiation hard
Roger Fisher and William Ury spent years at Harvard studying why deals fail — and found the same mistake every time.
In a positional negotiation, each side announces what they want and then defends it. One person wants the window open; the other wants it closed. They argue, compromise on a crack, and both leave irritated. Nothing about that conversation revealed why either person wanted what they wanted.
Fisher and Ury's insight, developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project and published in Getting to Yes, is that positions and interests are different animals. A position is a declared demand. An interest is the underlying need that demand is trying to satisfy. The person who wants the window open may want fresh air. The person who wants it closed may be sensitive to drafts. An open window in the next room satisfies both.
The concept of BATNA — your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement — is where this framework gets its teeth. Before any negotiation, you establish what you'll do if no deal is reached. Your BATNA sets your floor: any agreement that falls below it, you walk away from. Knowing your BATNA keeps you from making concessions out of desperation; knowing your counterpart's BATNA tells you their actual leverage.
Most people enter negotiations focused on positions. The ones who focus on interests instead tend to find deals the others didn't see.