Sources checked 30 October 2026. The sisters, the supplier deal, the room and the scores below are teaching stories and worked examples, not results from a study or negotiation advice for your situation.
Two sisters both want the last orange in the kitchen. They argue for a while, then do the fair thing: they cut it down the middle. The first sister eats her half and throws the peel in the bin. The second sister peels her half, throws the fruit away, and grates the peel into a cake.
Each of them ended up with half of what she needed. Each could have had all of it. The orange was never the problem. The question they skipped was: what do you want it for?
The story comes from Getting to Yes, the 1981 negotiation book by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project. [1] It is a parable, not a study. But it points at a mistake that research suggests people make often, in shops, offices and homes: treating a negotiation as one fixed pie that can only be cut, when it can sometimes be made bigger.
Why did the fair split waste half the orange?
Splitting the difference feels fair, and fairness matters. But a 50/50 cut only answers one question: who gets how much of the thing? It never asks what is each person trying to get done?
Fisher and Ury call these two layers positions and interests. [1] A position is what someone says they want: "I want the orange." An interest is the reason behind it: "I'm hungry" or "I need zest for a cake." Positions often clash head on. Interests often don't, because people rarely want the same thing for the same reason.
In the orange story, the sisters' positions were identical, and their interests barely overlapped at all. One valued the fruit; the other valued the peel. Any split that treated "the orange" as a single thing destroyed value that was sitting in plain sight.
Illustrative: the parable from Fisher & Ury (1981). Shares show how much of what each sister needed she ends up with.
Is this an old idea?
Older than the book. In the 1920s, the management thinker Mary Parker Follett described three ways to settle a conflict: domination (one side wins), compromise (each side gives up part of what it wants) and integration (a solution in which both sides' desires find a place, so neither has to give anything up). [2]
Her own example was small. In a small room of the Harvard library, another reader wanted the window open; Follett wanted it shut. They opened a window in the next room, where nobody was sitting. One got fresh air, the other avoided the draught. Neither compromised, because neither was really attached to "this window, open" or "this window, shut".
In 1965, Richard Walton and Robert McKersie gave the two kinds of bargaining the names researchers still use: distributive bargaining divides a fixed amount, and integrative bargaining looks for gains for both sides. [3] "Expanding the pie" is the plain-language version of integrative bargaining.
Why do so many people miss it?
Because most of us walk in assuming the other side wants the opposite of what we want.
Leigh Thompson and Reid Hastie tested this in 1990. They set up negotiations in which the two sides had different priorities, so trades were possible, and asked negotiators what they believed about the other side. Most negotiators started out assuming that the other side's interests were directly opposed to their own, the fixed-pie assumption. Those who updated that belief, which often happened in the first few minutes, reached better joint outcomes. [4]
A follow-up review by Thompson and Dennis Hrebec pooled 32 experiments and found a related pattern: even when both sides wanted exactly the same outcome on an issue, negotiators often failed to notice and sometimes settled on something both liked less. They called it the lose-lose effect. [5]
There's an important caveat. These are mostly lab negotiations, often with students and with payoffs set by the researchers so that the hidden trades really exist. Real negotiations are messier. Sometimes interests genuinely are opposed, and a bigger pie is not available. The research shows that people tend to assume opposition too early. It does not show that every conflict has a win-win answer.
How does a pie actually get bigger?
Mostly by working with differences instead of against them. Three common ways:
Trade on priorities. Each side gives way on what it cares about less and gains on what it cares about more. Negotiation teachers call this logrolling. The sisters are the extreme case: one valued fruit, the other valued peel.
Add issues. A deal about price alone is a tug of war. A deal about price, volume, payment timing, delivery and contract length has room for trades.
Use different views of risk and time. A seller who is confident in next year can accept a bonus tied to results; a buyer who needs cash now can pay more later.
Here is the business example from the video. A supplier wants a long contract, because steady volume lets it plan production and staff. A buyer wants a lower price, because its margins are thin. Argue about price alone and you get a split: a slightly lower price, a short contract, two people who feel they half lost. Put both issues on the table and a better deal appears: two years of committed volume at a volume discount. The supplier gets the stability it values most; the buyer gets the price it values most.
Illustrative model with invented point values: the buyer cares most about price, the supplier about contract length. Not a pricing tool or advice.
The model above is illustrative, with invented point values. Its job is to show the shape of the idea: when two people value two issues differently, giving each side its priority usually beats meeting in the middle on both.
Doesn't someone still have to divide it?
Yes. Expanding the pie doesn't remove the dividing; it gives you more to divide. David Lax and James Sebenius called this the tension between creating value and claiming value. [6] Sharing your real interests helps the two of you find trades, but it can also be used against you by someone who only plays to win.
A few ways to handle that tension:
Share interests a step at a time and see whether the other side reciprocates.
Ask about priorities, not bottom lines. "Which matters more to you, price or timing?" is safer to answer than "What's the most you'll pay?"
Put several offers on the table at once that you would be equally happy with. The other side's choice tells you what they value.
Agree on fair standards for the dividing part: market prices, published rates, or a rule both accept in advance. [1]
And keep it honest. Expanding the pie is the opposite of a pressure tactic. If a "trade" only works because one side doesn't understand it, it isn't integrative; it's just a better-dressed win-lose.
What does it look like at home?
The same moves work in a kitchen or a shared bedroom. Two people share a room. One wants quiet in the mornings, to study before work. The other wants privacy at night, to make calls or wind down. Argue about "the room" and someone loses: a compromise where nobody gets quiet mornings or private evenings.
Ask why, and the conflict shrinks. Their needs fall at different times of the day. A simple schedule gives each person the hours they care about most, in full.
Worked examples from the video (a supplier deal and a shared room). The steps follow Fisher & Ury's method; the details are examples.
That's the pattern every time: positions on the surface, interests underneath, and differences between people turning out to be useful rather than a problem.
Can your next negotiation be expanded?
Not always. If there is truly one issue, one round, and two people who want the same thing for the same reason, it is a pie to divide, and fair standards are your best tool. But that situation is rarer than it feels. Before you split anything down the middle, ask a few questions.
A thinking aid based on the integrative-bargaining literature. It cannot know your situation; it is not negotiation or legal advice.
The question from the video sums it up: "What matters most to each of us, and what can we trade?" Ask it before you cut. Sometimes the best negotiation makes the pie bigger.
Sources
[1] Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Houghton Mifflin, 1981; later editions with Bruce Patton). The source of the orange story and of the positions-versus-interests distinction. A practitioner's book built on the Harvard Negotiation Project's work, not a controlled study; the orange story is a teaching illustration.
[2] Mary Parker Follett, "Constructive Conflict" (1925), reprinted in H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (eds.), Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (1940). Describes domination, compromise and integration, with the library-window example. A lecture and essay based on observation, not data.
[3] Richard E. Walton & Robert B. McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations (McGraw-Hill, 1965). Introduces the terms distributive and integrative bargaining. Developed mainly from labour-management negotiations.
[4] Leigh Thompson & Reid Hastie, "Social perception in negotiation", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47(1), 98–123 (1990). Two lab studies with student negotiators on a multi-issue task; most initially assumed opposed interests, and more accurate perception went with better joint outcomes. A lab setting with designed payoffs.
[5] Leigh Thompson & Dennis Hrebec, "Lose–lose agreements in interdependent decision making", Psychological Bulletin 120(3), 396–409 (1996). A meta-analytic review of 32 experiments on missed compatible interests. Mostly lab tasks; how often it happens in real negotiations is not measured directly.
[6] David A. Lax & James K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain (Free Press, 1986). Describes the tension between creating and claiming value. A conceptual book with case examples.
Watch the episode
One email when we publish. Research, product decisions, and what teams report back.
