How Do You Negotiate Better in a Zoom-First, Crisis-Prone World? Lessons from Max H. Bazerman’s Negotiation: The Game Has Changed

What’s the Smart Way to Use Anchors, BATNA, and Fairness Without Damaging Relationships? A Practical Review of Max Bazerman’s Modern Negotiation Playbook

Negotiations now happen across cultures, online, and amid constant disruption—so old tactics can fail. Learn how Bazerman updates anchoring, BATNA/ZOPA, value creation, and ethical choices for today’s contexts. Keep reading to get a step-by-step modern negotiation toolkit you can apply immediately—how to set a defensible first offer, pressure-test your BATNA, create more value than “splitting the difference,” and stay credible when negotiating online.

Recommendation

As political, economic, financial, and technological upheaval sweeps the world, negotiators can no longer afford to work with a generic, one-size-fits-all set of deal-making tools. Today, forging new partnerships and agreements requires deft processing of ever-evolving contextual information — including economic, political, and technological shifts — that may affect negotiations. Harvard Business School professor Max H. Bazerman’s treatise on the new art of negotiation outlines the strategies you need in your modern bargaining toolkit to create value while preserving long-term relationships.

Take-Aways

• Negotiating in today’s world requires understanding new contexts and norms.
• Extreme anchoring could earn you a reputation as an unreasonable negotiation partner.
• Find equitable and fair negotiating solutions to preserve valuable relationships.
• Negotiators aren’t always rational. Understand the role of biases and emotions.
• Identify value-creation opportunities to achieve better negotiation outcomes.
• As negotiations move online, upholding ethical standards becomes more difficult — and important.
• To preserve relationships, approach disputes by working toward a fair or mutually beneficial solution.
• Prepare for future negotiations and potential crises by doing your homework.

Summary

Negotiating in today’s world requires understanding new contexts and norms.

If you’re using the same old negotiation strategies today that were popular decades ago, it’s time to update your toolbox. While many of the longstanding principles of negotiation remain valid today, the contexts in which modern business people operate have changed — and will continue to do so. Today, effective negotiation requires cultivating the ability to glean insights about stakeholder expectations from contextual information. For example, you must understand the cultural norms of those you’re negotiating with and the types of negotiation styles they view as appropriate. Too, you should never underestimate how economic, political, cultural, relational, behavioral, and technological changes can reshape negotiating norms.

“Fundamental transformations in our world have changed the game we are playing. We need to understand the context created by these changes and adapt core negotiation concepts to take account of our new context.”

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, companies forged new trade partnerships and moved negotiations into the digital space using technologies like Zoom. The shift to virtual deal-making opened up new considerations, such as the “channel richness” of the negotiations — that is, the volume of “verbal and nonverbal communication” that everyone involved in a conversation transmits. For example, when using Zoom, you can garner more nonverbal information — like facial expressions — from your negotiating partner than you would if negotiating by phone. Your ability to grasp the challenges and opportunities that this and other new contexts present will directly shape the effectiveness of your negotiation tactics.

Extreme anchoring could earn you a reputation as an unreasonable negotiation partner.

When negotiating, your initial offer, or anchor, can impact the outcome of your negotiation. Determining a prudent initial offer hinges on properly understanding the contextual negotiating game you’re playing. Researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman demonstrate the effectiveness of anchoring as a negotiation tactic in a study that involved spinning a roulette wheel rigged to land on only 10 or 65. When the wheel landed on 10, the researchers asked a group of participants to guess whether the percentage of African countries that are members of the United Nations was higher or lower than 10%. These respondents gave an average estimate of 25%. When the wheel landed on 65, the researchers asked a second group of respondents to guess whether the percentage of African countries with United Nations membership was higher or lower than 65%. These respondents guessed 45% on average. The roulette wheel anchored the respondents’ judgment, even though it had no bearing on the question.

“The context matters a great deal when you are deciding whether to make the first offer and, if so, how extreme it should be.”

While extreme anchoring can sometimes be effective — the Chicago Bulls paid Michael Jordan a salary of $30 million for the 1996/97 season, $10 million more than the previous highest NBA salary, after Jordan opened negotiations with an extreme demand of $52 million — this approach can backfire, making you appear unreasonable and damaging your relationship with your negotiation partner. For example, when the Trump administration demanded Mexico pay the full cost for a border wall between the two nations, Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexico’s then-president, canceled a meeting with Donald Trump and, ultimately, refused to pay any costs associated with the border wall. If you have less power in the negotiation, be wary of your counterpart leveraging anchoring as a tactic. For example, women tend to earn less than men. When hiring, employers frequently ask women to share their current salary — the anchor — and use those figures to justify continuing to pay women less than men.

Before entering into any negotiation, know your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) — such as alternate partnerships you could consider if you cannot make an investment deal with the start-up you’re currently pursuing. Finding a solid alternative can help you set your reservation price — that is, the highest price you’re willing to pay or the lowest price you’re willing to accept. Consider, too, your negotiation partner’s BATNA and reservation price. Estimating these metrics will help you determine a “zone of possible agreement” (ZOPA) and settle on a reasonable anchor.

Find equitable and fair negotiating solutions to preserve valuable relationships.

Not everyone views negotiation as a game that requires outmaneuvering your partner; some negotiators seek a more equitable solution for both parties. However, creating a 50-50 split isn’t always simple. As former FBI negotiator Chris Voss explains in his book Never Split the Difference, if someone is holding two people hostage, negotiating the release of just one is not a successful outcome. Voss argues that compromising can put an end to the quest for better solutions.

When entering a negotiation, you should first define the “pie” you are splitting, explains Barry Nalebuff, a Yale School of Management professor and author of Split the Pie. Splitting a pie equitably requires dividing any surplus value that surpasses both parties’ BATNA equally. For instance, say a pizza shop offers two friends, Alice and Bob, a 12-slice pizza, but only if they can decide how to split it. If they can’t, Alice will get four slices and Bob, two. Nalebuff argues that the pair should take the “no agreement” divide (four and two) as a given for the first half of the pizza and view the second half of the pizza — six slices — as a surplus to divide 50-50. This outcome leaves Alice with seven slices and Bob with five. However, among friends, choosing not to divide the whole pie 50-50 from the get-go could damage the relationship.

“Negotiators often split resources 50-50 not because doing so is the fairest or best option but because they have learned that such ‘social heuristics’ help them get along better with others.”

When considering a 50-50 approach, reflect on whether your negotiating partner hails from an individualist or collectivist culture. Collectivists tend to favor equality and harmony more than individualists, and they seldom use a value beyond their BATNA to define an equitable split. How strong is your economic position and your bargaining power? If you are, say, selling goods that are in short supply and high demand, splitting the difference between both parties’ offers doesn’t make sense if you could get a higher price from another buyer. What is the nature of your relationship with the other party? If you have a close, ongoing relationship with your negotiating partner (for example, a spouse or next-door neighbor), you might agree to a 50-50 split to preserve a sense of equity. Pursuing a 50-50 split — however you choose to define that — can often reduce conflict, which is why many negotiators choose this approach in lower-stakes scenarios.

Negotiators aren’t always rational. Understand the role of biases and emotions.

In 1974, Kahneman and Tversky published a paper in Science that challenged the dominant assumption that people make rational decisions. They demonstrated the ways that heuristics and biases influence decision-making. In 1979, Kahneman and Tversky published a paper in Econometrica, showing that people tend to feel the impact of losses more intensely than gains. Understanding the power of loss aversion can help you frame your proposals in a negotiation setting. For example, if you’re trying to sell home insulation, focus on how much money potential buyers stand to lose if they don’t buy home insulation rather than emphasizing how much money they could save by purchasing it.

In 2011, Kahneman explored human decision-making more deeply in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. He examined the work of psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West, who differentiate between two distinct modes of decision-making: When you engage in “System 1” processes, you make decisions quickly and automatically, often from a place of heightened emotion. When you use “System 2” processes, you make decisions in a slower, more conscious, and rational way. People tend to default to System 1 thinking under stress, but skilled negotiators leverage slow, conscious deliberation.

“Part of the solution for avoiding bias and making better decisions in your most important negotiations is to deliberate.”

Another common heuristic is the “mythical fixed pie” bias, which means people often fail to see all potential value-creation opportunities. Thus, they view the “pie of resources” as fixed rather than negotiable. Improve your negotiation outcomes by searching for hidden opportunities for both parties.

Identify value-creation opportunities to achieve better negotiation outcomes.

Consider employing the following five strategies to efficiently reach agreements, minimize conflict, create value, and enhance your negotiating power:

1. “Build trust and share information” — Prioritize transparency and collaboration over individual gains. Leaders should foster a culture of “value creation” rather than “value claiming,” urging people to search for creative, mutually beneficial opportunities.
2. “Ask questions” — Asking the right questions is crucial to understanding the other side’s priorities. For example, instead of saying, “Can you just tell me what you really want?” try, “It would be extremely helpful to know, of all the issues you mention, which is most critical to your team?”
3. “Give away some information” — If the other party appears unwilling to cooperate and trust is low, consider sharing some information about your priorities. Humans tend to default to reciprocity, so by sharing information, you might prompt your counterpart to do the same.
4. “Make multiple offers simultaneously” — If you’re hoping to understand the priorities of a tough negotiating partner, it can help to propose several possible solutions that are each of equal value to you but whose stakes differ. Your counterpart might not agree to any of your suggestions but could choose one as a starting point for further discussion.
5. Create a “post-settlement settlement” — If you are unsatisfied with a negotiated deal, you could suggest meeting your counterpart one final time to try to create more value and improve the outcome for both sides without annulling the original agreement.

As negotiations move online, upholding ethical standards becomes more difficult — and important.

It’s important to behave ethically and commit to telling the truth when negotiating — with rare exceptions. One such exception occurred in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis: The United States secretly agreed to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet Union’s withdrawal of nuclear missiles from Cuba while publicly denying any connection between the two events. The US saw its lie as necessary for preventing all-out atomic warfare. As you’re unlikely to encounter such an extreme situation, you should embrace honesty and treat your negotiating partners as you’d like them to treat you.

“When we negotiate online, we are more anonymous, which will lead some negotiators to feel licensed to behave less ethically because they don’t expect their reputation to suffer.”

Today, negotiations often occur on digital platforms — a trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. When you sell a product on eBay or offer services on TaskRabbit or Upwork, you negotiate with anonymous individuals. Online negotiations create a greater risk of fraud, as people feel bolder about misleading strangers. Thus, you must take steps to protect yourself. One potential strategy is to use video forms of communication whenever possible to reduce the feeling of anonymity people have online. For instance, Slice Insurance asks claimants to make short videos on their phones describing their losses, believing that people are less likely to lie on video than in writing.

To preserve relationships, approach disputes by working toward a fair or mutually beneficial solution.

In their book Getting Disputes Resolved, negotiation experts William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg suggest three approaches for resolving conflict: First, assert your legal or contractual rights (these can be open to interpretation); second, remind the other party of their dependence on you, using a power imbalance to your advantage; or third, prioritize the interests of all parties, searching for mutually beneficial solutions that can help you protect your relationships. Max H. Bazerman adds a fourth approach to dispute resolution: pursue fairness. Understand that each party might have a different definition of a “fair” solution, so you must align expectations to reach an acceptable solution.

“While power and rights are the lenses through which disputants most commonly assess what they view to be a just outcome, interests and fairness are the lenses that are most likely to be associated with ethical outcomes.”

To prevent disputes from arising in the first place, consider pursuing a “contingent contract,” making the terms of your agreement valid only if the other party upholds certain promises. Contingent contracts offer benefits in several situations. For instance, if you are a seller, contingent contracts enable you to differentiate yourself by providing performance guarantees. If you are a buyer, they can help you ensure sellers deliver on promises. As a buyer, requesting a contingent contract can help you determine whether sellers believe their claims or are bluffing. Moreover, contingent contracts can align buyers’ and sellers’ incentives, ensuring everyone remains motivated to achieve the agreed-upon goals. Finally, contingent contracts can reduce financial risk for buyers, as there is less at stake if the seller fails to deliver promised outcomes.

Prepare for future negotiations and potential crises by doing your homework.

Preparation ensures you’ll make better decisions. Be negotiation-ready by taking the following five steps:

1. Engage in “meta-preparation” — Prepare for crises before they happen, taking steps to train those within your organization for decisions they’ll have to make if negotiations take a bad or unexpected turn. For example, you may consider running a negotiation simulation.
2. Prepare to create value — Design scoring systems to help you evaluate trade-offs, clarify your priorities, and assess the merits of different outcomes, ensuring negotiators are prepared to maximize value creation for both sides.
3. Prepare for difficult questions — Think about the questions the other side might ask — especially those you’re reticent to answer — and plan your responses.
4. Prepare for the worst — Gather a group of informed colleagues and have them imagine the worst-case outcome of a negotiation. Conduct a “premortem” by considering how the negotiation could arrive at that point and how to avoid such a scenario.
5. Consider context — Reflect on the other side’s interests, norms, likely behaviors, and possible alternatives to striking a deal with you. Attempting to understand the culture and politics of your counterpart’s organization can help you better contextualize any unfamiliar behaviors you might encounter as you work toward an agreement.

About the Author

Max H. Bazerman is the Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He has written several books including Better, Not Perfect and Complicit.