In Getting To Yes (2nd edition, Houghton Mifflin, 1991) with William Ury and Bruce Patton, Fisher describes a four-step process for "negotiating agreement without giving in."

1. Separate the people from the problem. Let us take the case of a couple who wish to build a house. They have certain limitations: size of the lot, finances, and perhaps in some parts of the country the weather. They find that they can agree on certain basic designs but end up fighting over some of the specifics. Usually an architect (mediator) is called in to listen to the needs of both parties and draw up a plan. In this way the couple focuses on the plan rather than personalizes the problem. Gandhi once said that our task was to eliminate the antagonisms, not the antagonists.
   
   
2. Focus on interests, not positions. Fisher contends that in any conflict, there are certain common self interests. Speed Leas speaks of common "needs." Fisher tells the story of two men arguing in a library. One wants the window open "to get some fresh air." The other wants it closed "to avoid a draft". Ultimately they find themselves locked into their positions, open versus closed. The librarian's solution is to open a window in an adjacent room which affords fresh air without creating a draft.
   
   In families we often learn not to get locked into a win-lose position of being intransigent in our position just because we are the parent. We may have learned that being arbitrary escalates a conflict into a battle of wills, but focusing on the result leads to a solution. You may have had some experience akin to having one child cut the pie and the other choose the piece in order to make it "fair." These common ways of dealing with conflict create win-win situations without our remaining locked into static positions.
   
   Gandhi spoke of satyagraha or truth force—looking for the truth in each side's position. Inherent in this strategy is understanding that each person shares some portion of the truth, something which Gandhi taught us in his political stance in India. Fisher, like Gandhi, suggests that the next step is to look for alternatives that meet some common self interests and reflect some of each person's portion of the truth.
   
   
3. Invent options for mutual gain. Fisher suggests a process akin to "brainstorming" to look at the "l00 possibilities." This is not the time to judge the practicality of the options but to get as many of them on the table as possible. New possibilities may resolve old problems. A successful example is the "Green Revolution," which introduced new agricultural technology into third world countries. More food was produced rather than having the "pie" cut in smaller pieces. (Yes, there are now different problems to be solved as a result.)
   
   Another part of the process—used by Paulo Friere, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi—has come to be called conscientization or consciousness raising. As we look at the problem, diagnose it, plan actions to try to alleviate or solve it, and finally reflect on those actions, we live out a rhythm of action and reflection which enables us to broaden our perspective and to look at our action steps critically. This leads to Fisher's fourth and final step.
   
   
4. Insist on using objective criteria. In international negotiations we often speak of "verifiability." How do we know that "they" will play by the rules of the game that we have mutually established? In football there are referees—and in baseball, umpires—charged with making sure that some criteria and accountability are built into the process. In family settings there is some clear understanding of what happens if a teenager stays out beyond curfew. Hopefully these consequences are mutually agreed upon.