The different characteristics of successful versus average negotiators

Behaviour Change

The average negotiators went in armed for battle, hardly taking note of any anticipated areas of agreement. The experts, in contrast, mapped out a series of dance steps they might be able to take with the other side, devoting more than a third of their planning comments to finding common ground.

As the negotiators started discussing options and making proposals, a second difference emerged. Most people think of arguments as being like a pair of scales: the more reasons we can pile up on our side, the more will tip the balance in our favor. Yet the experts did the exact opposite: They actually presented fewer reasons to support their case. They didn’t want to water down their best points. As Rackham put it, “A weak argument generally dilutes a strong one.”

The more reasons we put on the table, the easier it is for people to discard the shakiest one. Once they reject one of our justifications, they can easily dismiss our entire case. That happened regularly to the average negotiators: they brought too many different weapons to battle.

“There is another reason.”

By the tenth, the listener has stopped taking notes. Cost saving. Speed. Innovation. Morale. Competitor activity. Strategic alignment. The moon’s position over Berkshire. Average negotiators bring volume because volume feels like preparation. Somewhere in the list is a strong case, weakened by the company it keeps.

Expert preparation looks less impressive on paper. What does the other side need to protect? Where do interests already overlap? Which one or two reasons genuinely support the movement being requested? What could be traded without damaging the outcome?

This restraint can feel dangerous. If one reason fails, surely nine spares would help. In practice, a weak claim gives the listener permission to dismiss the speaker’s judgement, then doubt everything nearby. “That saving is fantasy” becomes “their whole case is fantasy”.

Suppose a candidate asks for higher pay. Market evidence and expanded responsibility may make a coherent case. Adding commuting costs, a colleague’s rumoured salary, loyalty, inflation, a difficult project, personal ambition and the price of childcare creates several separate arguments. Several are real. They do not all support the same claim.

Prepare common ground before clever rebuttals. State the strongest reason plainly. Ask enough questions to discover whether it is strong from the other side too.

The candidate states the market comparison and the expanded responsibility, then stops. The manager asks about the comparison. They discuss the evidence instead of reason number eleven.