Being able to effectively negotiate is one of the most important life skills you could develop. The art of negotiation is not only relevant for high stake commercial transactions or hostage situations. It’s pervasive in our everyday lives – from negotiating your salary and house price to where you and your friends go for dinner.
Fundamentally, the art of negotiation is about communicating with others effectively to achieve a pre-determined outcome. It’s about optimally dealing with differences and disagreements.
From this standpoint, we are all negotiators – whether we like it or not.
In this Sapiens Maximus article, we provide you with the ultimate toolkit for becoming an effective negotiator. Pay attention – what follows can transform your life.
Content Breakdown
How NOT To Negotiate: Positional Bargaining (A.K.A. Haggling)
Most of us are positional bargainers. That is, we adopt a position, stick to it, and if absolutely necessary compromise to reach an agreement. It’s like haggling at an Indian bazaar where each offer is met with a counter-offer until both parties can live with the deal reached. Our level of negotiating sophistication is essentially limited to starting high and occasionally coming down (or starting low and occasionally going up – depending on the dynamic).
While this negotiating style might be the most common, it’s the least efficient. This is how someone who never read this Sapiens Maximus guide would negotiate. By the end of this guide, you’ll realise just how sub-optimally you’ve been negotiating your whole life. In particular, this approach of positional bargaining has at least four overlapping problems.
1. Positional Bargaining is Adversarial.
When parties cling to positions that are fundamentally at odds with each other, the dynamic is necessarily adversarial. More for you means less for me, and vice versa. It’s a zero sum game. The adversarial dynamic has a number of negative implications – as further discussed below. However, per our discussion in the rest of this article, this doesn’t have to be the case.
2. Positional Bargaining is Often Ego-Focused.
As parties increasingly defend their position (and attack the opposite one), they become more emotionally invested. The more emotionally invested they are, the harder it is for them to adopt a rational approach. Egos take over. The focus shifts from reaching a reasonable outcome to beating the other person. Any changes become personal victories or losses. Finding a mutually beneficial agreement becomes almost impossible.
3. Positional Bargaining is Detrimental To Relationships.
This hardly comes as a surprise – especially in light of the previous two points. When your win is my loss (and vice versa), our relationship is unlikely to emerge unscathed regardless of the outcome. The process has turned us into adversaries rather than collaborators. While this might not matter in the Indian bazaar, it’s a critical consideration when the relationship is more substantive, whether that’s in your personal or professional life.
4. Positional Bargaining is a Lose-Lose.
This is the logical extension of the points already discussed. If I ‘win’ by forcing you to accept my offer, you will resent me. While this might not practically matter if we’ll never interact again, it’s a meaningful loss if I care about our relationship.
Being a “hard bargainer” could also come at a reputational cost. How likely is it for people to compromise with you or accept your demands if they’d be automatically perceived as “losers” or “weak” as a result? Conversely, if I’m forced to accept your poor offer, I’m likely to remember this. Next time the dynamic changes, I might try to screw you over.
However read, haggling and negotiating from fixed positions is a poor strategy for everyone involved.
From Positional Bargaining to Principled Negotiation
If positional negotiation is sub-optimal, what’s the alternative? A good starting point is Ury and Fisher’s principled negotiation style. Principled negotiation effectively means negotiating on merits. Getting to Yes sets out the four key components of this superior negotiating strategy.
1. Principled Negotiation Tip #1: Separate the People from the Problem.
When negotiating, it is essential to not take things personally. Usually, referring to a problem – such as “the room is messy” – is perceived as a personal attack. This is especially the case when adversarial positional negotiation is adopted. The key however is to separate the people from the problem.
In other words, what should be attacked is the issue at hand – i.e. deriving maximal value for both parties – instead of each party attacking the other. Rather than trying to score points, focus should instead be on collaborating with the other side.
If practically possible, the starting point should be: how can I work with (rather than against) the other party to optimally settle our differences? As Ury and Fisher put it, you should be hard on the problem but soft on the people.
Arm Wrestling Experiment
It is not uncommon for negotiation workshops to start with some variation of an arm wrestling exercise as an icebreaker. Instructions are simple:
(1) You get one point if the back of your partner’s hand touches the table.
(2) You want to get as many points for yourself as possible within a given time period – for example a minute.
People automatically assume adversarial positions. In their minds, it’s a zero sum game where your win is my loss and vice versa. As a result, no one person ever manages to score more than few points. However, occasionally, there’s a team that cracks the code and scores much higher than anyone else.
So what does that team do differently? Its team members work together so that they allow each other to score as many points as possible within the prescribed time period. It’s a genuine win-win that leaves both of them better off.
Bottom line? Aim to collaborate whenever you can. Focus should be on solving the problem not on beating the other person.
2. Principled Negotiation Tip #2: Focus on Interests, not Positions.
Positional negotiation focuses too much on positions when focus should instead be on the interests driving these positions. Why does someone take a particular stance? What are the deeply held beliefs, preferences and interests shaping the discussion? In contrast to scratching the surface by focusing on positions, this focus switch is key to unlocking substantive negotiations.
A simple (mundane) example can illustrate. You might want the window open. I might want it closed. We could endlessly go back and forth on what a reasonable compromise might be. Maybe half open? Three quarters? One thing is clear: this hardly makes any sense. It’s effectively operating in the dark. Fundamentally, why do you want the window open? Why do I want it closed?
You might want the window open because you’re feeling hot on a summer day. Conversely, I’ve had bad experience with bugs and I don’t want any of them to get in. Once you understand the interests underpinning the positions, you could see if there is a way to reconcile seemingly conflicting positions.
In this scenario, what if I could get a fan from the storage room? This would seemingly satisfy your interests without compromising mine.
Key point is this: conflicting positions might have compatible interests underpinning them. You should never negotiate at the superficial level of positions. Instead, you should focus on the fundamental interests at play – whether that’s security, economic wellbeing, recognition or anything else driving someone’s actions.
3. Principled Negotiation Tip #3: Invent Options for Mutual Gain.
Positional negotiation focuses on splitting a fixed pie. It’s a zero sum game where more for you automatically means less for me and vice versa. However, if you understand underlying interests per the discussion at Principle 2 above (i.e. Focus on Interests, not Positions), you realize that the pie doesn’t have to be fixed. You could go beyond traditional haggling and invent options that mutually benefit both parties. In other words, you could enlarge the pie.
Ury and Fisher use a simple yet illustrative example. Two sisters are fighting over an orange. Adopting standard positional negotiation, they end up splitting the orange in half. After taking her half, the first sister ate the fruit and threw away the peel. The second threw away the fruit and used the peel for baking. If the sisters understood the underlying interests and thought of ways to actualise mutual gains, they could have each had a whole (metaphorical) pie instead of pointlessly splitting one.
Once you understand the fundamental interests underpinning a position, you could start looking for ways to give the other person what they want without sacrificing what you’re after. Sometimes that’s possible, other times it’s not. But it’s your objective as an expert negotiator to look for the opportunity if it exists.
4. Principled Negotiation Tip #4: Insist on Using Objective Criteria.
This sounds more scientific than it has to be. Essentially, it’s about rationally assessing a given position on the basis of facts, not opinions. The key benefit in adopting this approach is departing from the battle of wills dynamic. If you are trying to negotiate on the basis of robust scientific or otherwise credible evidence, the chances of reaching a fair final agreement are higher.
The Law of the Sea Conference: An Impasse
Ury and Fisher discuss a real-life example from the Law of the Sea Conference. The United States was asked to pay an initial fee per site to be able to mine certain seafloors. The U.S. however insisted that it should not have to pay any mining fees. As both sides held on to their positions, agreement seemed out of reach. This is a classical example of positional negotiation where focus is on subduing the other party. In the most optimistic, realistic scenario, the parties could have arbitrarily met somewhere in the middle.
On the Power of Objective Evidence
The impasse was resolved however when the parties decided to rely on objective criteria – the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)’s economic model for deep-seabed mining.
The model objectively showed that the initial fee per site requested would make it economically non-viable for a company to mine. At the same time, it showed that the U.S. position (which was primarily driven by mining companies) wasn’t entirely reasonable. In fact, evidence suggested that a more modest initial fee would be economically viable and arguably justified.
Relying on the robust MIT model, the parties managed to reach an agreement. Importantly, no one was perceived as “backing-down”. The agreement reached was reasonable and fair on the basis of the evidence provided.
Objective criteria might not always be available or applicable. Sometimes, subjective judgments are inescapable. The fundamental principle however is to try and support your position with as much credible evidence as possible. If scientific evidence exists, then all the better.
Beyond Principled Negotiation: When Rational Toolkits Are Not Enough
Ury and Fisher’s work – particularly the principled negotiation approach – is groundbreaking. Since its original publication in 1981, Getting to Yes has revolutionised the literature on the art of negotiation.
Principled Negotiation: A Key Pitfall
While principled negotiation presents a more sophisticated approach than the all too common positional bargaining, it doesn’t go far enough. In particular, principled negotiation places too much emphasis on logic and practicality. More fundamentally, and similarly to a wide array of academic fields (such as economics), it assumes that Homo Sapiens is primarily a rational being.
In reality, this is far from the case. Evidence of Homo Sapiens’s habitual irrationality is mounting. For example, in 2011, Daniel Kahneman published one of the most iconic books on the subject: Thinking, Fast and Slow. The book discussed Homo Sapiens’s many cognitive biases. Ways in which our System 1 (i.e. the fast, instinctive and emotional part of the brain) takes irrational shortcuts at odds with our more restrained System 2 (the slower, more deliberative and logical part).
How can you effectively use principled negotiation when you’re dealing with someone who isn’t particularly rational? How can you separate the person from the problem when occasionally THE PERSON IS THE PROBLEM? Is it feasible to discuss “objective criteria” when dealing with a ruthless megalomaniac who wouldn’t hear any of it?
The Art of Negotiation & Emotional Intelligence
The rational tools of principled negotiations, while helpful, need to be complemented by a practical toolkit for dealing with people’s irrationalities and emotions. You need to be able to influence people – and sway their minds – with a distinctly non-rational arsenal.
This is what Chris Voss provides in Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It. Voss developed many of his techniques while he was an international FBI hostage negotiator. Dealing sometimes with un-cooperating and highly irrational people, Voss found that the principled negotiation approach had its limits. Instead, Voss had to rely on emotional manoeuvring to (1) establish trust and rapport and (2) achieve his objectives.
Below, we discuss what we think are some of Voss’s most powerful tactics. Where relevant, we also add our two cents.
1. EQ Negotiation Tip #1: Become an Active Listener.
A critical starting point in every negotiation is (1) understanding the other side and (2) making them feel understood.
Negotiations often consist in talking over one another, endlessly quarrelling and trying to shove our point down the other person’s throat. Instead, what you should do is let the other person talk. You should give them all the airtime that they could possibly want.
By doing so, you automatically start establishing a rapport with them as Homo Sapiens universally craves feeling heard and understood. In the meantime, you’d be collecting valuable information that could guide your negotiations.
What is key here is not merely listening, but actively listening. This goes beyond the nodding, eye contact and verbal acknowledgments such as “uh-huh”. Fundamentally, it’s about exclusively focusing your attention on the other person and what they have to say. It’s about not passing judgments in the first instance but rather understanding – where they are coming from, and where they might want to go.
Although simple in theory, active listening is by no means easy to implement. Next time you are interacting with someone, try to give them your undivided attention. Don’t interrupt, but actively and intensely listen. Try to understand without passing judgments. If you manage to do this, your ‘negotiation’ would be off to a good start.
2. EQ Negotiation Tip #2: Leverage Tactical Empathy
Closely connected with active listening is, arguably, the most important negotiating skill of all: developing empathy for the other side. Empathy is NOT sympathy. Empathy = understanding while sympathy = understanding + agreeing. Big difference. You could develop empathy for anyone since it’s merely about putting yourself in their shoes, sensing their emotions and appreciating where they are coming from. You could still massively disagree with them – as Voss surely would in the context of hostage negotiations.
Developing empathy and understanding are critical first steps to making the most out of any negotiation. What is it like to be the person I’m dealing with? What would be my concerns? Aspirations? Once you intimately understand the other person’s position, you need to make them feel understood.
3. EQ Negotiation Tip #3: Get Them to Say the Magic Words.
In addition to actively listening to the other person, the culmination of tactical empathy is getting the other person to say the magic words: “That’s Right”.
So how do you do it? The key is to summarize their thoughts, with an emphasis on their concerns, so completely and accurately that they feel like you’ve read their mind. For most of us, even if we understand the other person’s views, we are reluctant to articulate them. It’s almost as if doing so gives the other person’s position credence. In reality, labelling & vocalizing negatives diffuses them.
The way to progress in negotiations is not to ignore the other person’s views or try to swipe them under the rug. Instead, we should acknowledge them so that the other person feels heard. Only then can we proceed to substantively address them if needed.
Sometimes, merely (1) understanding the other person and (2) making them feel understood is enough for you to get what you want. When you get a person to say “That’s Right”, the negotiating dynamic changes. Impasses are resolved. The other person almost magically becomes more compromising and accommodating.
While this might sound a bit too theoretical, it’s been battle tested on countless occasions by Voss. We recommend you experiment with it yourself. You’ll almost certainly be positively surprised.
4. EQ Negotiation Tip #4: Adjust Your Tone of Voice.
This is fairly intuitive. A dismissive, angry and/or rushed tone of voice would make it nearly impossible to build trust and rapport with the other party.
For you to be able to effectively negotiate, it’s critical that you adopt the right tone. As a default, it generally makes sense to use the playful/positive voice. When you do, you indicate to the other party that you are an easygoing, good-natured and genuine person. However, you also need to exude low-key confidence. In other words, the message is clear: you are nice but not a pushover.
Alternatively, where appropriate, you could adopt what Voss calls the “late-night FM DJ” voice. Calm, slow yet confident. This tone aims to create an aura of competence, authority and trust. Critically, it shouldn’t make the other person defensive. While there are of course other tones that you could use, we find that oscillating between (1) the playful/positive voice and (2) the late-night FM DJ one works like magic.
5. EQ Negotiation Tip #5: Be a Mirror.
Mirroring, as the name suggests, is about imitating the other person – whether that’s in their speech pattern, body language or otherwise. One way you could implement this is by repeating the last couple of words someone just said, or the most important ones.
Homo Sapiens has evolved to bond with what’s similar and question what’s different. By mirroring the other person’s behaviour and/or speech pattern, you start to subconsciously build a rapport. When combined with the strategies already discussed, mirroring could help with the transition from adversaries to collaborators.
Voss refers to a study conducted by psychologist Richard Wiseman on two groups of waiters. One group used mirroring while the other used positive reinforcement. Astoundingly, the mirroring group got 70% more tips.
6. EQ Negotiation Tip #6: Ask Calibrated Questions.
Once you have built trust and rapport using the techniques already discussed, you could start leveraging the power of calibrated questions. These are essentially open-ended questions that (1) make the other party feel in control while (2) forcing them to consider your position.
Make a conscious effort to start any calibrated questions with “how” or “what” rather than “why”. “Why” questions tend to be universally perceived as implicit accusations and they could trigger defensiveness (e.g. “why are you wearing orange shoes” or ” “why did you do that?”).
Below, we include couple of examples of calibrated questions to illustrate:
- Let’s say you are negotiating on behalf of your company. When the other party lowballs you during negotiations, you could simply ask them in your playful/positive voice: “What would my other investors’ reaction be if I accepted your offer?”.
- You might more generally be faced with unreasonable demands – for example, an unrealistic timeline. You could genuinely ask, with the impression of honestly looking for an answer: “How would I be able to deliver on this timeline without sacrificing the high quality of the work you’re used to?”.
When using calibrated questions, it is critical for you to come across as genuine and collaborative. This is why calibrated questions are best used when rapport and trust have already been established. Otherwise, they could come across as passive aggressive attacks. When you ask the questions, make sure you adopt the right tone of voice and body language.
7. EQ Negotiation Tip #7: Use “No” Strategically.
Some of the classic literature – particularly in relation to sales skills – argues for the power of repeatedly obtaining a “yes”. For example, the pitch would get the “victim” to say yes to a number of obvious questions, before asking the real substantive question – at which point the customer would have (allegedly) been conditioned to say yes.
In reality, Homo Sapiens is much more comfortable in saying “no” than “yes”. Yes is potential commitment or agreement. Whenever Homo Sapiens says “yes” to an obvious question, he feels like he is almost walking into a trap. On the other hand, saying “no” allows Homo Sapiens to protect his autonomy. When saying “no”, Homo Sapiens feels in charge. He is not giving away or agreeing to anything.
See below for a table contrasting the two approaches.
| “Yes” Questions | “No” Questions |
| Is now a good time to discuss? | Is now a bad time to discuss? |
| Do you want to get this over the line? | Have you given up on this? |
| Could you please explain this to me? | Would it be too much to ask you to explain this to me? |
By phrasing “yes” questions as “no” questions, you give the other party a better sense of control and autonomy. In turn, this would be more effective in getting you what you want.
8. EQ Negotiation Tip #8: Use Emotional Anchoring.
Anchoring bias is our propensity to attach too much weight to the opening statement – for example, an opening price. We then unjustifiably and instinctively adjust from that starting point or “anchor”. As a result, the opening statement tends to generally shape the parameters of the discussion.
Beware Of Price Anchoring
At Sapiens Maximus, we aren’t big fans of price anchoring. Any price you put out there should be carefully thought out and justified. However, you need to be aware of price anchoring whenever someone else uses it on you.
If someone starts with a wild, seemingly unjustified number, ask them a calibrated question: “How did you reach this number?”. Alternatively, you could ask them a “no” oriented question: “Would it be too much to ask you to explain your reasoning?”. Make a deliberate effort of not letting any anchor influence your judgment. Focus on the merits and fundamental value determinants.
The Power of Emotional Anchoring: An Example
In addition to being aware of price anchoring tactics, a powerful tool you could use yourself is emotional anchoring. Practically, you could start with a self-deprecating, quasi-extreme statement.
For example, you might see that there’s a ton of business class seats available on the plane & you want to get a free upgrade. Once you find the decision-maker (e.g. the head stewardess), you start by emotionally anchoring her using the appropriate tone of voice: “This is probably the most inappropriate, selfish request you will hear today. I’m sure you get it all the time and you’re sick of it”. Once you say that, pause for a second. Let the stewardess’s imagination run wild. After a short pause, use a “no” oriented question: “Would it be too much to ask you for a business class upgrade?”.
If you use emotional anchoring appropriately, together with the right tone of voice (most probably the positive/playful one) and the right body language (a confident smile with eye contact), you’d be amazed at how often this would work. Just make sure that the circumstances are right. The stewardess is unlikely to give you an upgrade (no matter how persuasive you are) if there’s a bunch of other passengers next to you listening to the conversation.
9. EQ Negotiation Tip #9: Find the Black Swan(s).
Nassim Taleb originally popularised the concept of Black Swans in his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. As the title suggests, a black swan is a rare and unpredictable outlier event with an extreme impact.
In the context of negotiations, a black swan is an unknown fact which, if discovered, could materially change the dynamic of the discussions. Sometimes, a black swan could be an unknown unknown which makes it even more difficult to identify and use to your advantage.
Black Swans in Negotiations: An Example
You might be negotiating to acquire a business. The business is terrific – it’s on an upward trajectory with tremendous room for growth. Price seems very reasonable, even low.
Couple of key questions you should be asking yourself: is this too good to be true? Why would the seller be selling? In this instance, the black swan could be that the seller is strapped for cash. The seller needs an immediate cash injection for their other businesses or they might go under.
If you accidentally uncover this during negotiations, you could leverage the knowledge to negotiate an ever better deal.
Discovering black swans during negotiations is easier said than done. An obvious way to try and do so is to research your counterpart(s) as much as possible. However, in reality, most black swans could be discovered during the negotiation itself. Use the tactics shared in this article to (1) lower your counterpart’s guard and (2) get them talking. Establish rapport + build trust. Ask calibrated questions. Listen intently. By doing so, you materially increase your chances of identifying black swans (if they exist).
Bottom Line
We discussed how most of us have spent our lives negotiating sub-optimally. We start from a position and we haggle. The dynamic is often a zero sum game: the other person’s win is my loss and vice versa. This is not only inefficient but also costly as it takes its toll on our relationships.
This article has showed you that there are better ways to negotiate. It has given you not only a superior rational toolkit, but also a powerful emotional arsenal. When combined, these tools should give you all the raw material you need on your journey.
However, at Sapiens Maximus, we firmly believe that knowledge by itself isn’t power – applied knowledge is. Absorb this article. Revisit it as needed. But most importantly, apply its strategies. With sufficient practice, the strategies shared in this article should turn you into a formidable negotiator.
Becoming an excellent negotiator is only one part of becoming a Sapiens Maximus – the best version you could be. To learn more about the Sapiens Maximus ideal, make sure to check out our very first article: A Hero’s Origin Story.
As always, we wish you good luck on your journey to strength in adversity, calm amidst the storms, relentless resilience and uncompromising health.
Your self-proclaimed family,
The Sapiens Maximus team
Sources & Further Readings
1. Getting To Yes: How To Negotiate Agreement Without Giving – Fisher & Ury
2. Never Split The Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It – Chris Voss