The Stoic Negotiator™

Last week, I was mediating with a somewhat belligerent attorney who, I realized early in the process, had refused to recognize the other side’s point of view. The two parties had significantly different understandings of their case’s relevant facts and law, which resulted in an appreciable difference in their respective assessments of reasonable settlement values. This particular attorney was so confident in his version of the facts and legal analysis that he disbelieved opposing counsel didn’t see things his way and completely disregarded her alternative positions.

Recognizing the resulting settlement barrier, I turned to the belligerent party in caucus (a private discussion), acknowledged his contentions, and asked if he could at least empathize with the other side.

“Empathize?” he barked. “Why should I feel sorry for them? It’s their fault we’re here in the first place! I’ve explained this to them a thousand times, and if they still don’t get it, that’s their problem. So, no, I can’t empathize at all.”

And so on, and so forth.

So here’s the thing: you don’t have to feel sorry for — or even like — your counterpart to empathize. On the contrary, empathy is a powerful negotiating tool you can use to help get your way, and being empathetic is by no means a weakness. You can empathize with a person with whom you completely disagree, too.

Empathy is an understanding of how the other person feels, and of the cause for that feeling. Why is this important for a negotiator? So you can get what you need more effectively.

When you empathize with someone else, and recognize the other’s point of view, the person feels understood. Even more critically, the person feels you understand, which helps build rapport between you. And when you’ve built rapport, you’re setting yourself up to negotiate effectively and meet your needs at the bargaining table.

Bottom line: if you’re not empathizing with your negotiating counterpart, you’re missing a tremendous opportunity. On the other hand, when you empathize, you greatly increase your persuasiveness. At your next mediation or negotiation, listen carefully to the other side, work to understand and recognize their point of view – even if you disagree with and feel no sympathy for the opposition – and use empathy strategically to reach your objectives.

It’s silly to try to escape other people’s faults. They are inescapable. Just try to escape your own.”

—Marcus Aurelius

As a mediator, I frequently encounter parties that just plain don’t like each other. Sometimes, they actually hate and can’t stand to look at one another. Often, they can’t bring themselves to speak directly and choose instead to communicate completely through me as a third-party intermediary.

“I’ve got nothing to say to her and don’t want to hear it. She’s rude, self-centered, and obnoxious,” one litigant recently explained to me of an adversary.

“He’s one of the worst people I’ve ever met, and his company never showed me an ounce of respect,” another party told me of her ex-employer.

In our everyday lives, too, we encounter people who we think are flawed. Maybe you have a selfish uncle, or a rude landlord, or a former spouse in your life that gives you grief. We interact with strangers all of the time, too, and — let’s face it — those encounters aren’t all pleasant.

But what’s the point of dwelling on others’ imperfections? Even if you’re completely correct, and that other person is terrible in every way, how does that help you in a negotiation setting? Does it bring you closer to your goal? How often have you been able to resolve a conflict by changing a person’s nature or character?

In mediations, I try to help people see that focusing on others’ faults (as they perceive them) is counter-productive. Instead of wishing that the company rep was a better person, that your ex- wasn’t so selfish, or that your opposition wasn’t behaving so irrationally, refocus on how you react and respond. Remember, separating what we can control from what we cannot is a bedrock Stoic principal that can guide skilled negotiators.

As Marcus Aurelius reminds us, the only faults we have even a chance of escaping are our own.

Psychologist, professor, and author Adam Grant notes: “Confirmation bias is when your beliefs hijack your neutrality in selecting and interpreting data. To correct for it, err on the side of disconfirmation. Seek evidence that challenges your beliefs, and raise the burden of proof for evidence that affirms them.”

The human tendency toward confirmation bias – our inclination to seek out and favor evidence that supports our arguments, and to ignore or devalue contradictory evidence – can lead to damaging errors in judgment at the bargaining table. As a mediator, I see this impact negotiations all the time. Even the most sophisticated attorneys and businesspeople are susceptible, and they can miss key facts or arguments that later come back to bite them in court.

It’s easy to become so entrenched in one way of looking at a question that losing perspective is inevitable.

And confirmation bias can impact our everyday thinking, as well. Suppose you have a strong opinion on a given issue. What’s your view on today’s most controversial news story, global crisis, or political debate? Whatever your take, chances are you’ll be more likely to seek out, and interpret, information in a manner that supports your position. Social media algorithms and an explosion of accessible online news ensure that justification for your opinion is just a click away. It’s in our nature, of course, to like the confirmatory notions we encounter.

Grant’s prescription is not to deny that we are biased in this way. Rather, he suggests that we recognize this most mortal vulnerability, acknowledge competing viewpoints, and scrutinize our positions as if they were not our own. These suggestions apply in professional and personal contexts and help us separate opinion from objective facts.

When weighing a competing viewpoint: Instead of reflexively seeking to prove you’re right, consider questioning how you might be wrong. This is no small task, especially when embroiled in a conflict or disagreement, but one so important to sound decision-making and conflict resolution.

Failure to analyze your options and objectively project possible outcomes can lead to miscalculations and assessments of risk. So be wary of the “confirmation bias” trap.

Don’t throw good money after bad, don’t let past choices unduly influence future decisions, and avoid the “sunk cost” fallacy. It’s an easy trap to fall for, so you’ll need to stay vigilant.

What does this cognitive error look like, and how can you protect your interests during your next negotiation? First, an example, and then some quick thoughts:

* Suppose that months ago and well in advance, you bought an expensive ticket to the big game. Fast-forward to now. Turns out, your team has lost its star players to injuries and is terrible and non-competitive. The question isn’t whether they’ll lose, but by how much. 

* Come gameday, it’s snowing buckets, the wind chill is -10 degrees, and on top of it your daughter now has an end-of-year dance recital that afternoon (indoors, and after COVID-19, of course). Do you force yourself to go to the game, sit miserably in the snow, and miss the recital, since you’ve already paid good money for the ticket? Or do you look at your options anew, realize that the only reasonable choice is to attend your daughter’s recital, and unload or eat the ticket? 

* The fact that months ago you paid for the game ticket should logically have no impact on the choice you make today. That money’s gone, and going to the game doesn’t bring the money back. A bad choice is a bad choice, regardless of what happened in the past. 

* In mediation and negotiation, too, I regularly see sunk costs lead people to make illogical decisions. “I’ve already spent hours preparing for trial, so we might as well reject the offer on the table and go to court.” Or, “After waiting this long, what’s another few months fighting this case instead of settling (for a reasonable sum)?” Well, maybe you don’t take the offer, but don’t walk away just because you’ve already invested time getting ready for court or preparing for battle. That should not be relevant to the decision at hand, despite the emotional appeal.

* Independent of your prior investment, is what’s now offered a good deal or not? That’s the rational question.

It’s easy to let sunk costs lead us astray, and the fallacy of making prospective decisions based on these past costs is an alluring one. Just be aware of them and stay wary. The next time you catch yourself tending to make a negotiation decision about the future based on unchangeable bygones, stop and think: Are you allowing sunk costs to fool you into making an illogical choice?

Draw on the power of silence. You can try this one out not just in a formal negotiation setting, but also at home with your kids, spouse or partner, at work, at school, or in any discussion.

Silence can be a powerful tool for many reasons. One of the most critical -- and deceptively simple -- is that it gives us a chance to listen to what the other person is saying. I mean, actually LISTEN. Leaving some air space after your counterpart speaks lets you process what's being said without feeling a need to push back immediately.

When someone else is talking, do you find yourself thinking about what you'll say next before the other person is finished? True listening is crucial but can be challenging; periods of silence make it easier.

And you'll find, too, that when you're comfortable allowing for strategic silence in your discussion, your counterpart will be tempted to fill the void and continue speaking. Most people are bothered by a conversation pause and will face an instinctive urge to talk during a break of even a second or two. So go with it. Let them talk. Listen.

The more the other person speaks, too, the more he or she can "vent." You might be surprised how moving past that verbal and emotional venting will then allow you to:

* learn from what the other side is saying;

* make the other person more comfortable and feel he or she is being heard; and then

* use that information and person's comfort level to refocus on more productive discourse.

Often -- and this can be counter-intuitive -- the less a person speaks, the more control and power that person gains in a discussion.

So embrace the silence. It will be tempting to deliver counter-jabs and speak when the conversation lulls, especially during heated moments. However, if you can resist, and if you truly commit to listening and understanding what the other side is saying, the more effective you'll be in harnessing the power of silence and ultimately resolving your differences.

“When two people believe opposite things, chances are that one of them is wrong. It pays to find out if that someone is you,” advises billionaire investment guru Ray Dalio. 

When you find yourself disagreeing with someone, or in the midst of a dispute, seek objectivity. Is there an objectively right or wrong answer to the subject of your disagreement? Or is your dispute a matter of opinion, such that neither side is correct or incorrect, and both viewpoints are worthy of consideration?

When acting as a neutral mediator, I try to help people to see the other side of the proverbial coin, so they can more accurately and objectively assess the facts and law underlying a case. Even in less formal settings, and also in our personal lives, it pays to engage your “inner mediator” and seek out objective perspectives.

People occasionally can believe opposite things and both be right. They can disagree on certain points but still find enough on which they can agree so that their dispute is resolvable and the conflict ultimately disappears.

At other times, though, when two people believe opposite things, what if they are both wrong, in whole or in part? Or, rather, what if neither side is 100% right?

There are at least two sides to every story. An objective viewpoint often yields insight beyond our reflexive, yes-or-no, black-and-white ways of thinking.

Next time you find yourself ensnared in a disagreement with someone holding a strongly opposite view: (1) consider that if one of you is right, chances are the other is wrong (then, can you objectively determine which is which?); and (2) if you can stretch even further beyond your personal beliefs, consider whether a third or fourth possibility exists – that either both of you are partly right, or neither is completely right.

In other words: Consider that between greatly different and competing viewpoints, the “truth” – or, at least, a more objective solution – often lies somewhere in between.

Frequently, accurate assessment of the most likely outcome will lie not in the blacks or whites, but in the shades of gray.

In life our first job is this, to divide and distinguish things into two categories: externals I cannot control, but the choices I make with regard to them I do control. Where will I find good and bad? In me, in my choices.

These words of Epictetus set forth an essential — if not the most essential — philosophical tenet of Stoicism. Separating those things we can control from what we cannot. Identifying what is worth trying to change, and what is futile. Focusing our efforts and attention on what we can do, in each present moment, to move closer to our goals.

Distinguishing uncontrollable externals from controlled choices just so happens to be a highly effective everyday negotiation skill, as well. For that reason, this theme recurs frequently in discussion of useful negotiating tools.

And it requires practice to train yourself to ask, in the face of a challenging dispute with a difficult adversary, these critical questions: Is this something (or, someone) I can control? And, if not, how can I control my choices with respect to this immovable force and reach the best possible outcome?

Over the past 17 years or so that I’ve been a professional negotiator, I’ve learned a ton. About what tends to work in negotiation, what doesn’t work, and how people make decisions. Every day, I think about negotiation strategy and tactics, and how I can improve as a mediator and facilitator of conflict resolution.

As I’ve gained experience and constantly consider the art of negotiation, I’ve found myself increasingly drawn toward a Stoic approach to managing conflict.

What am I talking about, you ask? Great question.

We can all become better negotiators. Better resolvers of conflict at home and at work. More effective decision-makers and problem-solvers.

[If that sounds good to you, read more here.]

We can use Stoic lessons to help reach better outcomes and build stronger relationships in negotiation settings. We won’t get too deep into history lessons, and we don’t need to profile the great Stoic philosophers who have lived over the years. We also won’t get wrapped up in hypothetical theories or provide witty conversation bites for your next cocktail reception.

I’m no philosophy expert, and even a lifetime isn’t enough to study and master Stoicism. But we can all use ideas coming from or relating to this philosophy that are simply effective. They’re practical, they make sense. And I’ve seen them work to resolve disputes for literally thousands of parties. They help people get more of what they want and need from their relationships with others.

I’ve found that there are certain basic, Stoic principles that can directly inform our negotiation strategy and tactics. I will weave these principles through a number of practical negotiating tips and tools you can use virtually every day of your life. Learning from the ancient Stoics, and from others reflecting Stoic teachings, we can apply certain bedrock principles directly to negotiations and reach more consistently satisfactory outcomes in business and personal endeavors.

You could spend years reading the Stoics, studying the likes of Seneca, Epictetus, Zeno, Marcus Aurelius, Cato, and others. Perhaps you’ve already begun your journey, or maybe you’re now hearing of Stoicism for the first time. Either way, our goal here is shining a light on how a time-tested philosophy can influence and improve your negotiation skills and, thereby, your life and relationships.

[Read along, join the conversation, and find your inner Stoic.]