“You must force yourself to consider opposing arguments. Especially when they challenge your best-loved ideas.” 

—Charlie Munger

Often, when conducting a mediation, I talk with the parties about using negotiation as a way to uncover options. A prepared party enters mediation with a solid understanding of how the world might look if the case doesn’t settle at mediation. That understanding should include each party’s best and worst alternatives to settlement, along with a recognition that the future is inherently unpredictable.

Thus, when it comes time to mediate, the logical goal should be to uncover ranges of possible settlement values.

This goal is apt whenever we negotiate.

There is no winner or loser in negotiation. So it’s not about beating your opponent. Entering a negotiation with a goal of winning, or not losing, just doesn’t fit. Try thinking of negotiating to gain information, understanding, and a measure of control.

Once you negotiate to the point of reaching your most attractive settlement proposal, then – and only then – you can rationally compare the alternatives of settling versus not settling. It’s really the same with any negotiation, where your rational decision must be comparing (a) the choice of agreeing on the terms available to (b) the alternative of an ongoing dispute.

That is, you negotiate to uncover your set of options, and those options inform your decision to agree or walk away.

Thus, it’s critical to remain patient and negotiate to the point of at least understanding the other party’s best offer. If you don’t know what they’re willing to offer – if you haven’t uncovered all your options – how can you make an educated choice about your future?

Get full access to The Stoic Negotiator™ at stoicnegotiator.substack.com/subscribe