“Objectivity is a virtue, and one that is very difficult to practice.”

—Pierre Hadot

I’ve observed over the years that great negotiators have an ability to empathize with their counterparts. Even when they disagree with their adversaries, and whether or not they like their opposing parties at all, these negotiators seem to be able to see conflicts from all sides.

As so often is the case, negotiation skills that are effective in a conference room or courthouse also work to resolve conflicts in interpersonal relationships. But it takes effort to see a disagreement through the eyes of your spouse, child, parent, or sibling. When you clash with friend or colleague who clings tightly to an opinion you find irrational or outrageous, it can be difficult to imagine what could possibly possess that person to hold such a belief.

People who are able to empathize, though, can use this superpower to relieve conflicts and manage disputes. They recognize that understanding an issue from the other side’s perspective helps them to uncover the motivations, main concerns, and ultimate needs that must be satisfied to reach an agreement.

You know this, because you are an avid reader of The Stoic Negotiator and student of negotiation theory. You realize that empathy is a critical step towards greater objectivity. But what about the person with whom you’re engaged in conflict or sitting across the negotiating table?

You can lead that person to empathy, too, by asking certain pointed questions. We’ve touched on this before, and it bears revisiting. Because it’s an extremely powerful, yet under-appreciated, negotiation tool.

One such question I particularly like to use: What would you do if you were me?

You might be familiar with a flip-flopped version of this question, which we sometimes use to introduce an offer of advice: “If I were you, I would . . . .” Here, though, instead of you opining what action you’d take if you were that other person, you’re asking the person to consider what he or she would do in your place.

The beauty of this “what would you do” approach is that it: (1) is simple to execute; (2) shows deference to the other side, which will often engender reciprocal deference and respect; (3) shows your humility in seeking out the other person’s advice; (4) gives you an opportunity to better understand your counterpart’s thought process; and, finally, (5) subtly forces the other person to consider your perspective.

Ideally, with both sides of a conflict benefiting from a more balanced view of a dispute or negotiation, you’ll then be able to lay the foundations of what should be a more satisfying resolution.

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