“Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.”

—Seneca

I used to work with a boss who was the master of the conversational pause. Do you know anyone like this? It can get pretty uncomfortable talking with people who use silence skillfully.

My boss left lengthy gaps between thoughts as she considered what to say and what had been said.

Three seconds here. Five, six seconds there. The intermittent silences felt like an eternity, each awkward and mildly jarring.

Without fail, during these pauses, the other person would jump in or just keep talking to fill the space. Trust me, I know — because I was one of those people. I couldn’t help myself and would start babbling or over-explaining, invariably weakening my message or leverage in the conversation.

“The Pause” as Negotiation Tool

In every negotiation, there’s a moment of silence—a pause where the next words could determine the outcome. Most people rush to fill that silence, fearing the discomfort it brings.

But what if I told you that this pause can be your greatest ally?

Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, said, “Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.” In the silence of negotiation, power shifts. The person who controls the pause controls the narrative.

Control the Pause, Control the Narrative

Here’s why:

1.    Silence Builds Pressure: When you pause, you create a psychological tension that compels the other party to fill the void. Often, they’ll reveal more than they intended or concede ground.

2.    Silence Signals Confidence: Rushing to speak can signal desperation. A calm pause, on the other hand, demonstrates control and confidence—qualities that earn respect in any negotiation.

3.    Silence Gives You Clarity: In the quiet, you can reflect, consider alternatives, and craft a response that aligns with your goals.

Next time you’re in a negotiation, remember: Don’t fear the pause. Embrace it.

For more Stoic-inspired negotiation tips, read and subscribe to The Stoic Negotiator newsletter on Substack. And don’t forget to check out the new book, Time-Tested: The Stoic Negotiator’s Five Keys for the Modern Deal, now available in paperback, digital and audiobook formats.

Thanks for listening, and see you again soon.

Think about it for a few seconds.

According to studies of renowned behavioral scientists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, noted for their scholarship related to cognitive biases, most people would require at least $200 for a winning flip. But why? If the odds of winning or losing a coin toss are 50-50, why wouldn’t we accept the possibility of winning $101, or $150?

The answer is rooted in our tendency towards loss aversion and the prospect theory Kahneman and Tversky developed. Their research suggests that most people feel the sting of loss more intensely than the satisfaction of gain, so that they’d require the possibility of winning $200 to offset potentially losing $100.

So why wouldn’t we rationally accept a coin-flip wager where a loss would cost us $100 but a win would give us $101 or $150? In short, we hate losing more than we like winning. That is, it’s better to not lose $100 than to win $100.

This concept, called loss aversion, is an important psychological principle that skilled negotiators can use to their advantage. On the flip side (yes, a pun), if you’re not careful, loss aversion can cause us to fall for sunk cost and similar logical fallacies that lead to suboptimal decision-making.

The bias of loss aversion can impact our negotiations in various ways. For example, is it rational to refuse a negotiated offer – say, a dollar amount to settle a lawsuit – because, though not a bad deal, it is below your stated “bottom line” and you can’t bear taking a “loss”? Surely not. You might find it difficult to walk away from a lawsuit unless you receive an offer with a significantly higher expected value, even though your reluctance could mean making an illogical decision and leaving money on the table.

We hate to lose more than we like to win.

How would you feel about selling a stock or, say, your house, for less than what you paid, even if the proposed deal reflects current market conditions and an objectively reasonable offer? And have you ever noticed that it’s harder to give up a product or service after using it for a trial period? If so, your instinct to keep the product might be driven largely by your desire to avoid a loss.

Most every negotiation decision involves a trade-off: Each side has to give up something to get something else. Thus, the extent to which a proposal is framed as an avoidance of loss, or rather as a potential gain, can greatly influence how it is perceived and evaluated.

Thank you for reading The Stoic Negotiator™. This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Stoic Negotiator™ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

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?

Think about it: 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.

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?

Negotiation and conflict resolution are all, at the core, problem-solving and decision-making exercises. Thus, the lesson we can glean from the Stoics: If it is within your power to solve a problem or create a favorable result, then take action. However, if you are facing an obstacle over which you have no control, then let it go.

The Stoic Negotiator™ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In the meantime, today’s podcast episode:

We talk a lot about negotiation here, to be sure. That’s because we’re negotiating all the time, hoping to influence people or persuade others to see things our way. Trying to settle lawsuits, resolve business disputes, or get the best deal for that used car . . . you know that negotiation envelops us.

Especially as we reflect on 2022 and hope for perhaps a more peaceful, agreeable world in 2023 and into the future, remember: The principles we talk about here are applicable far beyond what you might think of as “negotiation” settings.

Yes, The Stoic Negotiator™ is inspired by ancient philosophies and, heck, its very title references negotiation. But the point of all of this – what we explore each week – is to focus on tools and mindsets you can use to resolve and manage conflict, and communicate as effectively as possible, in broader everyday contexts.

With that in mind, let’s close out the year by highlighting 5 mindset keys you can use – today! – to guide those difficult conversations and keep them from going off the rails:

* Empathy: Great negotiators have a knack for empathizing 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 use empathy – an ability to walk in the shoes of others – to see conflicts from all sides. 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 and expressed empathy, you’re setting yourself up to negotiate effectively and resolve conflict.

* Emotions: Managing, regulating, and channeling emotion is a principal theme familiar to any student of Stoicism. And that theme is common among skilled negotiators and dispute-resolvers, too. Recognize that emotions are involved in and guide decision-making, but strive not to let them divert you from making reasoned decisions. So acknowledge the emotions driving a disagreement. Channel your own emotions, to the extent you can, in a way that allows you sufficient space and calm to make rational decisions. Even though you can’t expect to control another person’s high emotions, you can still help by managing your own responses and at least not fanning the flames on the other side.

* Objectivity: Lacking an objective perspective can lead to prolonged disputes and prevent opposing sides from finding common ground towards resolutions. 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, so that there’s really no “right” or “wrong”? Whenever you can find objective facts and data to shed light on a dispute, seek them out. Although it can be difficult to change a person’s view of what is “true,” especially with respect to closely held beliefs, it’s virtually impossible to change someone’s subjective opinion.

* Humility: Humility is an under-the-radar secret weapon of some of the absolute best negotiators and problem-solvers. Humble negotiators – those who recognize that they don’t necessarily know everything about a dispute and could learn from the opposing view – benefit from being open-minded and have a knack for seeing both the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. Knowing what we know, as well as what we don’t know, helps us define the limits of our expertise in professional and personal endeavors. 

* Control: Finally, one of Stoicism’s most basic charges is that we separate that which we can control from that which we cannot. Distinguishing uncontrollable externals from controlled choices just so happens to be a highly effective everyday negotiation and conflict-resolution skill, as well. If it is within your power to solve a problem or create a favorable result, then take action. However, if you are facing an obstacle over which you have no control, then let it go.

And there you have it. As always, thanks for being part of The Stoic Negotiator™ community. We sincerely appreciate your support of this space and wish you all the best for 2023. Happy Holidays, and see you next year.

Thanks for reading The Stoic Negotiator™! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

— Rick Rubin

At the breakfast table a couple of weeks ago, one of our middle-schoolers was busy at work. He was reviewing 10 or 12 pages of notes, organized into what looked like an elaborate grid or spreadsheet.

“Wow,” I wondered aloud, “what is all of this? Impressive!”

“Oh, yeah, we’re learning about debate in school. We’re debating another team today that’s going to be tough. Plus, they have a much easier position to take,” he explained.

“What do you mean? And how do you use these blocks of notes?”

“They get to argue for why every school day should start later — which I actually agree with — and our team has to argue against a schedule change,” he sighed. “To get ready, I’ve made a chart of ‘pros’ and ‘cons,’ because we need to know their arguments even better than they do themselves.”

I learn something from these kids every day.

Upon closer look, I saw that he had collected notes supporting both sides of the debate, including citations to primary and secondary sources. On the morning of the debate, the boy was reviewing every angle of the discussion he could imagine, rehearsing his approach, and preparing to counter any tack the competition might lob his team’s way.

People sometimes ask me how they should prepare for mediation or negotiation. Of course, adequate preparation will vary by context, but this debate prep technique highlights some key points that will help you from the jump:

* Do your research. Before entering that car dealership, perform your due diligence thoroughly. Know all about your target vehicle’s features, options, and price range. As you prepare to negotiate a salary increase, understand well the market for those offering similar services. If you’re preparing to buy or sell a house, there’s no excuse these days, with all of the information at our fingertips, not to examine comps in the house’s area and other relevant background details.

* Anticipate the other side. Consistent with sound debate prep, consider how you’d approach the discussion if you were on the opposing team. Why? You want to get in their heads so you’re prepared to present counter-arguments, of course. In addition, particularly when your discussion is part of a negotiation, considering the other side will help you empathize and appreciate the motivating factors that must shape your strategy.

* Rehearse. As you lead up to a negotiation, practice what you’ll say and how you’ll say it. The more confident you are in your presentation, the more persuasive you’ll be. Apart from your substantive points, presenting with confidence engages the other side and gives you an extra air of persuasiveness.

* Keep your mind open. Even when you have a difficult argument to make — or, in the case of our young debater, you have to advocate for a side you’re not completely sold on — try to remain open-minded. First, you might learn something that could change your mind. What if you’re actually mistaken about a fact or have been lead to a faulty conclusion? Then, if the other side has a good point, acknowledge it. You’ll gain credibility with them and, in turn, give the other side permission and incentive to listen to your contentions.

— Marcus Aurelius

Negotiation as Essential Element

A good friend was recently confiding in me and lamenting his need to shop for a car. “I’m excited to get a new SUV, because our sedan has been nothing but trouble,” he acknowledged, “but I just can’t stand shopping at these dealerships. Even using the online car-buying services, you still have to NEGOTIATE with these folks. Everything, right down to the floor mats!”

Viewed broadly, every transaction into which we enter is a negotiation. Sometimes the nature of the negotiation is readily apparent – like haggling over a new car’s price – and in other instances the negotiation is more implicit, like when we go to the grocery store, see a gallon of milk marked $3.50, decide that offered price is reasonable and pay the cashier.

Negotiation is an essential part of our daily lives. Whether you’re buying or selling in a transaction, there is a negotiation process involved, even if not explicitly or obviously so.

Think about it. Have you needed to resolve an argument or disagreement, persuade someone to see things your way, or make a decision at home lately? Of course. We all have, and those eventual resolutions – even between parents and kids, for instance, where unequal bargaining power is inherent – almost always require some form of negotiated agreement. How about at work? What determines your salary, or the amount for which you sell your products or services? Have you ever had a disagreement with a colleague that you needed to overcome, in collaborative fashion, in order to work together productively? Naturally, surely, you have.

Ever had to buy a cell phone, or sign up for internet service, and experience the joy of dickering with a customer service representative over an exorbitant enrollment fee, or a shipping add-on there’s no way in the world you should have to pay? Have you ever called your bank or credit card company to dispute a charge that you feel was unjustly or incorrectly assessed? Or has your health insurer balked at paying a complete doctor’s bill, such that you’ve been stuck in the middle between a physician’s or hospital’s billing department and your insurance company?

Let’s leave the rhetorical questions there.

As a mediator, I study and think about these challenges every day and regularly guide people through the negotiation process. In my typical engagement as a mediator, I help individuals and businesses settle their lawsuits out of court by harnessing the power of negotiation. 

Opportunities to Learn and Improve Your Skills

I firmly believe that consciously working to improve negotiation skills is beneficial for both our personal and our professional lives. Negotiation skills are specifically useful — essential, in fact — to lawyers and others engaged in structured dispute resolution processes, like mediation and arbitration, and who must know how to negotiate for just resolutions.

I also believe that these skills are relevant to everyone, and they can certainly be learned. I’ve found that some of the most basic Stoic principles and approaches are surprisingly useful guides to approaching negotiation.

Negotiation will come naturally to some people and seem more foreign to others. We all have relative strengths and weaknesses that make us who we are. And each of us can become more skilled and comfortable using negotiation techniques that suit us, and in simply recognizing negotiation maneuvers we encounter others employing.

That’s why this Substack newsletter is here, and I’m glad you’re reading. All I ask of you is that, if you like something you read, please share it with a friend or two. Thank you for being here, and see you next time.

—Seneca

Studying the Stoics, you’ll surely come across the concept Seneca references in this quote: negative visualization, or premeditatio malorum. In a nutshell, this concept consists of spending time contemplating the bad things that could befall us, or how our plans could go wrong. 

The “negative visualization” technique appears to contrast with some of the more familiar, feel-good, pop-psychology ideas like “the power of positive thinking,” or the notion that if we can imagine success, we can achieve it. Instead, the Stoics teach us through this mental exercise that anticipating calamities, or our worst fears coming to pass — like, say losing a loved one, suffering a disaster, falling ill of an incurable disease — we can gain a greater appreciation for what we have. 

With the perspective we obtain from this Stoic practice, we can make better use of our time and enjoy each moment to its fullest, because we’re prepared for the worst. Also, in the event a catastrophe does strike, we’ll be better equipped to handle it, because we’ve been training our minds to face such an event.

Interestingly, a related tool is useful in negotiation settings, as well. A common practice among skilled negotiators is to prepare for a negotiation, in part, by calculating the “WATNA,” or worst alternative to a negotiated agreement. That is, they assess the worst-case scenario they’d face should they not reach a negotiated resolution to the conflict at hand.

Say you’re locked in negotiations with a house buyer, and you view the offer on the table as less than ideal. But even if not ideal, is the proposed purchase agreement better than your worst-case scenario? If so, perhaps locking in the sale would help you cut your losses. You’re on the verge of being hired for a new job, but you can’t quite get the top salary you wanted. But have you considered your WATNA? How long might you be out of work if you reject the pending offer? How slim are your other available options? What else could become part of your worst-case scenario if you walk away?

I frequently run through this exercise with parties at mediation. You say you don’t like what’s being offered in this negotiation because you were hoping for more. You think you can do better elsewhere, or at another time. But might you do worse if you walk away from the proposed agreement? How would that look, and how would you feel if things take a turn for the worse down the road?

Particularly with loss-averse parties — like most of us by human nature, frankly — there is a powerful draw to this approach. Visualizing what we could lose through misfortune, or other causes outside of our power, helps us prepare for the unexpected by taking action on what we can control today.

Though premeditatio malorum might seem a pessimistic approach, the Stoics did not see it that way. Instead, they used it – just as we can, to confront challenges in negotiation and other settings – to face the future with the confidence and optimism that they were capable of handling any eventuality.

—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.

“Fortune falls heavy on those for whom she’s unexpected. The one always on the lookout easily endures.”

—Seneca

You’ve all read those notices on the back of 18-wheelers reminding us, “If you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you.” In other words: Get out of my blind spot!

Our cars have rearview and sideview mirrors, of course, so we can see what’s next to and behind us on the road. Newer cars offer blind spot warning systems, using radar or cameras to monitor the sides and rears of our vehicles and indicate when other cars or objects are near. You might notice a light on your mirror or a “beeping” sound when someone or something lurks close by.

What’s the purpose of these blind spot warning systems? Of course, they’re there because, even if we adjust our mirrors just so, we can’t always visualize absolutely everything around us.

In other words, we all have blind spots. We can’t trust everything we see, and we can’t rely only upon what we see.

This “blind spot” analogy is relevant in conflict resolution. We all have individual preferences, backgrounds, and cognitive biases that shape our perspectives and opinions. Each of us has a unique life experience and accompanying lens through which to view the world.

To untangle a dispute, it can be helpful to try to understand the other side of the coin. Why? Because, just like our rearview mirror systems, our points of view are susceptible to missing information. Maybe we’re not getting the whole picture, or perhaps we can’t see it from where we sit. (You see heads, the other person sees tails, and you’re both right — you’re looking at the same thing, but from opposite sides.)

As a mediator, I spend a lot of time with disputing parties helping them realize they have blind spots. Think of me as those warning lights on the side of your mirrors.

You’re saying you’ll win in court if this case goes to trial instead of settling, but are you 100% sure of that? Or could you be missing something? Are you seeing the whole picture, or just what your mirrors are showing you? Similarly, what might your counterpart be overlooking that you could highlight or help explain? Can you trip the other person’s blind spot warning system?

Mediation — a structured negotiation process — gives parties a formal opportunity to turn their heads and actually check their blind spots. You can check your blind spots in everyday conversations, though, too.

Say you’re having a disagreement with a spouse or family member, or with someone at work. What parts of your position — and the other person’s — depend on subjectivity and guesswork? Are you arguing about facts or opinions? What facts might you be missing, and which of your opinions are reasonably debatable?

There’s not always something in your blind spot, but you have to check to be sure. And if something is there, wouldn’t you be better off knowing?

Speaking on a March 2019 podcast with Sam Harris, professor, best-selling author, and Nobel Prize-winning economist and psychologist Kahneman discusses a key idea in behavioral psychology that is highly relevant in negotiation and mediation settings. There are two essential ways of changing human behavior. On the one hand, you can apply pressure, including promises, threats, and arguments; on the other, you can make choices easier for people by removing obstacles, conflict, and stress.

Kahneman, referencing social psychology pioneer Kurt Lewin, observes that when you make it easier for people to do the right thing they are more likely to, perhaps even effortlessly and without conflict. Kahneman notes that pressure creates conflict, and removing obstacles diminishes conflict, reduces stress, and generally makes things easier for people. Kahneman lauds the basic, albeit non-intuitive, psychological rule that if you want people to behave in a certain way, you make it easy for them. This is the best way to effect change.

The distinction between applying pressure and removing obstacles to make behavior easy can be seen, for example, in the difference between “opt-in” and “opt-out” organ donation choices people make on drivers’ license applications. Since it takes less effort to opt out than to opt in, people will tend to follow the path of least resistance and be more likely to donate organs if they can do so without having to make an affirmative election.

And why is all of this important to mediators and negotiators?  It implicates another idea central to behavioral economics Kahneman has studied extensively and, as he put it: “You should choose the frame that leads to the better decision and to the better outcome.”

Polished negotiators and mediators know this “framing” principle, understand it well, and use it to guide them in resolving conflict. Frame your proposals in the way that makes it easiest for the recipients to act in the way you would like them to. Instead of asking yourself how you can pressure – or even incentivize – your counterpart to act, consider why they aren’t going there themselves. When you have an answer to that question, remove the obstacles you reasonably can and give the other side an easy choice.

If you are unaware of how framing impacts decision-making, you become vulnerable to cognitive biases that can steer us to sub-optimal choices. Of course, being conscious of framing and other heuristics doesn’t immunize us from making cognitive errors, as Kahneman is quick to acknowledge, but we should at least be aware of those predictable tricks our minds want to play on us.

“You can tell the character of every man when you see how he gives and receives praise.”

—Seneca

Last week at a mediation, the opposing attorneys began by introducing themselves.

“I’ve heard so many great things about you,” Attorney #1 remarked genuinely to the opposing counsel, Attorney #2. “My law partner says you’re always reasonable, easy to work with, and fair in negotiations.”

Those two, simple, sincere lines set a tone for our mediation that carried us through to a successful resolution, even though the underlying case was factually and legally complex.

Imagine yourself, as Attorney #2, receiving those kind opening words to start a negotiation session. How would you feel? How would you respond? More importantly, how would you conduct yourself over the course of the mediation?

Most people would be flattered, and then perhaps respond with a thank-you, a reciprocal compliment, or both.

More importantly, you’d likely also be struck by a strong desire to fulfill the speaker’s expectations. Knowing that your negotiating colleague holds you in high regard, you would — more than ever — want to conduct business in a manner consistent with your reputation. You’ll want to be, in fact, reasonable, easy to work with, and fair.

In our example, whether he knew it or not, Attorney #1 was using the theory of cognitive dissonance to his advantage.

Basically, the theory is that people don’t like to hold clashing, inconsistent beliefs. We aren’t comfortable when our thoughts or behaviors conflict with each other. To relieve this discomfort — the cognitive dissonance — we try to find ways to ensure that our thinking and actions are consistent and balance is restored.

So when a negotiator like Attorney #1 starts a discussion by earnestly highlighting his counterpart’s reasonableness, collegiality, and fairness, several good things happen. First, the negotiating parties will tend to like each other more and build rapport and trust between them.

A discussion of this nature also sets the tone for the parties’ actual conduct. In a sense, Attorney #1 establishes expectations for Attorney #2’s behavior, and Attorney #2 will, naturally, want to behave consistently with the descriptors. If Attorney #2 were to negotiate unreasonably or unfairly, for example, that action would create cognitive dissonance in her mind. To avoid that scenario, most likely, Attorney #2 will be especially attentive and want to make sure she lives up to her stellar reputation.

Delivering genuine compliments costs the deliverer nothing but frequently opens up a path to collaborative negotiating. It seems such a basic point. But besides simply making the recipient feel good and generating reciprocal positive feelings, compliments can even, building on our aversion to cognitive dissonance, subtly establish negotiation norms that help tremendously towards resolving conflict.

—Marcus Aurelius

“So you understand what the other side is asking for, and why, right?” I asked the defense attorney as we started our mediation.

“Nah. We don’t really care about that, and we’re basically disregarding it,” he said. “We’re looking at this case much differently, and our offers will reflect that.”

And so it began.

Shortly thereafter, defense counsel made an initial offer that was approximately 1% of the plaintiff’s initial demand. Nearly three hours later, not surprisingly, the parties adjourned the mediation without an agreement. I’m a good mediator, but I don’t work miracles.

The defense attorney’s attitude reflects a most basic, but all-too-common, deficiency of poor negotiators. How can you enter a negotiation not caring about the other side’s perspective? When seeking consensus, why would you be indifferent to what another person — the other person upon whom agreement depends — considers important?

To the contrary, gaining an understanding of the other side should be one of your primary goals.

Marcus Aurelius’ words above are among the most important to anyone seeking to resolve conflict with another person. “Entering the mind of the speaker” is a skill that nearly all top-notch negotiators and conflict-resolvers possess.

Before defending your position or striking back at your counterpart, take the time to digest the opposing perspective.

An appreciation of the other side’s priorities, and seeking to view a challenge from your opposition’s shoes, will always serve you well. Besides giving the other person the gift of attention and understanding, acknowledging the other side can unlock new ways of looking at conflict and discovering more creative, mutually agreeable resolutions.

Think about it for a few seconds.

According to studies of renowned behavioral scientists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, noted for their scholarship related to cognitive biases, most people would require at least $200 for a winning flip. But why? If the odds of winning or losing a coin toss are 50-50, why wouldn’t we accept the possibility of winning $101, or $150?

The answer is rooted in our tendency towards loss aversion and the prospect theory Kahneman and Tversky developed. Their research suggests that most people feel the sting of loss more intensely than the satisfaction of gain, so that they’d require the possibility of winning $200 to offset potentially losing $100.

So why wouldn’t we rationally accept a coin-flip wager where a loss would cost us $100 but a win would give us $101 or $150? In short, we hate losing more than we like winning. That is, it’s better to not lose $100 than to win $100.

This concept, called loss aversion, is an important psychological principle that skilled negotiators can use to their advantage. On the flip side (yes, a pun), if you’re not careful, loss aversion can cause us to fall for sunk cost and similar logical fallacies that lead to suboptimal decision-making.

The bias of loss aversion can impact our negotiations in various ways. For example, is it rational to refuse a negotiated offer – say, a dollar amount to settle a lawsuit – because, though not a bad deal, it is below your stated “bottom line” and you can’t bear taking a “loss”? Surely not. You might find it difficult to walk away from a lawsuit unless you receive an offer with a significantly higher expected value, even though your reluctance could mean making an illogical decision and leaving money on the table.

We hate to lose more than we like to win.

How would you feel about selling a stock or, say, your house, for less than what you paid, even if the proposed deal reflects current market conditions and an objectively reasonable offer? And have you ever noticed that it’s harder to give up a product or service after using it for a trial period? If so, your instinct to keep the product might be driven largely by your desire to avoid a loss.

Most every negotiation decision involves a trade-off: Each side has to give up something to get something else. Thus, the extent to which a proposal is framed as an avoidance of loss, or rather as a potential gain, can greatly influence how it is perceived and evaluated.

The Stoic Negotiator™ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

—Judd Apatow

Although for some it’s counterintuitive, a reputation as a “generous” negotiating partner can serve you well as you go through life, personally and professionally. The more others view you as a collaborator in the negotiation process, the more apt they are to help you and work toward common resolution goals. There are several things at play here, which you’ll notice in mediation and less formal negotiation settings, that are deep-seated in human nature.

·      Negotiators are more apt to help people they like than people they don’t like, and people seek out a sense of “fairness” at the bargaining table.

·      Whether it’s out of a feeling of obligation or reciprocity, we generally like equilibrium and balance.

·      Your reputation as a net “giver” or a “taker” will quickly precede you, and whether in the future you work with the same people or just with people aware of your reputation – which tends to spread more quickly and widely than you might think – how others perceive your style can have a direct impact on your chances of success or failure down the road.

— Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes

As we’ve discussed elsewhere, in negotiation settings, focusing on the objective issues in dispute, rather than getting bogged down in personal attacks and one-sided arguments, often leads to effective dialogue. Effective dialogue, in turn, leads to mutual understanding and, ideally, ultimate resolution.

Though discussions grounded in fact and objectivity are preferable to those featuring ad hominem insults and baseless critique, negotiation is a quintessentially human exchange. It’s always important to understand the other side’s perspective in a disagreement, both in your search for “truth” and in order to persuade your counterpart. Even if you’re 100% correct about an objective, provable fact, that’s not always enough to win an argument or convince someone to see things your way.

Sometimes a conflict’s resolution has absolutely nothing to do with substantive issues and everything to do with effectively managing “soft skills” and what might appear to be non-objective details.

It can be tempting to – and you should – come into a mediation or negotiation with hard numbers, financial calculations, and cogent arguments that you think prove an objectively “correct” result. However, remember that how you package your analysis and frame your proposals can also be determinant.

* Do some people respond better to being asked to do something, as opposed to being told to do it?

* Are you more inclined to do something for someone you like or someone who’s threatened and antagonized you?

* Might some of us respond to a request less favorably, say, on a dreary Monday morning before our first cup of coffee, than we might on a Thursday afternoon before a long, holiday weekend?

* Are you more willing to listen to someone who has first taken the time to empathize with and listen to you?

* Can an artful negotiator frame an idea or request in such a way that the other person doesn’t even realize a request is being made?

Surely. Absolutely.

Questions like these are endless, and certainly it helps to know the tendencies and preferences of your negotiating partner when devising your approach. As a mediator, I spend a tremendous amount of time guiding parties as to what “packaging” of a proposal might be best received. My suggestions depend on a range of factors dictated by the particular situation and personalities involved in the underlying dispute.

When seeking to resolve a conflict: Be prepared to address the problem, aim for a mutual understanding of any substantive disagreements, and then try to anticipate those factors — beyond the facts and figures — that matter most to an effective resolution.

A variant of George’s “do the opposite” approach can be a useful tool in negotiation and mediation settings, too. How? It can help you combat common cognitive biases that infect our sound analysis and thinking, and thus allow you to become a more effective negotiator.  

Considering the opposite of your negotiation position helps fight the common tendency to overvalue our own viewpoints and undervalue opposing views. Labels such as “confirmation bias” and the “ostrich effect,” among others, can be used to describe our predispositions to listen to only the information that confirms our positions and to disregard negative or conflicting information. As Thinking, Fast and Slow researchers Kahneman and Tversky have comprehensively described, we seek out and selectively interpret information in a manner that confirms our beliefs, and we proverbially stick our heads in the sand and pretend that potentially damaging information does not exist.

Effective negotiators thoroughly understand their best and worst alternatives to negotiated agreements. To reach that understanding they must be able to view their disputes objectively and appreciate both the positive and negative aspects of their bargaining positions. A “devil’s advocate” exercise – essentially, arguing the other side of your case – helps us move beyond a propensity to misjudge the relative weight of our side’s strengths and weaknesses.

Instead of allowing ourselves to dig in to our positions at the expense of considering other information and probabilities, and using George Costanza’s “do the opposite” as a guide, we can aim to view our dispute from perspectives other than our own. This enables us to empathize with our counterparts, giving us a better understanding of why they think and feel as they do, which is critical to effective dispute resolution.

If you are able to see the opposite side of your disagreement, negotiation, mediation, or other dispute, you will ultimately gain a more realistic, balanced assessment of your position. Such an assessment will help stave off overconfidence, a frequent byproduct of cognitive biases, that can leave you vulnerable to negotiating counter-attacks and -strategies.

In your next negotiation, take a cue from George Costanza. In appreciating the opposing side you will gain a useful tool to sharpen your arguments, anticipate and defuse counterarguments, and negotiate with greater success.

“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?

—Viktor Frankl

In the autobiographical Man’s Search for Meaning, Austrian psychiatrist, neurologist and philosopher Viktor Frankl describes his experiences as a World War II concentration camp internee. Frankl shares excruciating details of how he persevered and remained mentally strong — and motivated to survive — despite having to endure unthinkable horrors as a camp prisoner.

Choice, Free Will, and Control

Among the many important lessons he instills, Frankl’s beliefs about choice and free will evoke Stoic tenets we’ve discussed before. One of Stoicism’s most basic charges is that we separate that which we can control from that which we can not. Frankl, despite his experiences of daily suffering and torture, physically, mentally, and spiritually, was able to maintain his zest for life and retain his ability to think freely.

Where Frankl was unable to change his circumstances, and though physically a prisoner, he clung to his internal freedom and perspective. Frankl chose to find meaning in his existence and suffering, and he developed a certain attitude of acceptance. Of course, he did not give up hope for survival, and from there he incredibly figured out his own way of making it through each day.

In many aspects, Frankl approached his dire situation as perhaps a Stoic would have. Once he accepted and faced the reality of his circumstance, Frankl was able to adopt a certain indifference and resilience that propelled him forward. An essential step in his struggle to survive was a degree of accepting that which he couldn’t change. That, in part, gave him an almost superhuman hope so many around him — understandably so — had lost.

Thoughts for Negotiators

In your typical negotiation, you won’t be facing life-and-death circumstances like Frankl was as a concentration camp inmate. However, we can learn from Frankl on so many levels.

First, it’s always important to know what’s possible and negotiable — for you and for your counterpart — and what’s simply unchangeable. That is, you must identify what you can control.

Additionally, good negotiators know that they’re most effective when able to think clearly and free of provocation. When you feel yourself tempted to bark back at an angry counterpart, no matter what that person says or does, you have the power to choose a different response.

It’s never easy to resist or respond calmly in the face of someone or something that generates a strong emotional reaction. Unfortunately, we rarely make our best decisions under duress or reacting in haste. Exercising patience, judgement, and restraint is often not the path of least resistance.

It’s a natural tendency to react under negotiation pressure and either give in to frustration or respond reflexively. Nonetheless, that response is yours to make, and you alone control which path you choose.

—Marcus Aurelius

You’re convinced you’re right, but for some reason the other side just doesn’t get it. You’ve explained your position over and over again, but you’re still not getting anywhere.

You know the feeling. The mobile phone provider is insisting on charging you that international fee you switched off three months ago, again a month ago, and a third time last week. Your ten-year-old still doesn’t get why playing video games for 8 hours on a beautiful spring Saturday is a bad thing. The attorney on the other side of your mediation is looking at the same medical report you are, but for some reason what to you looks like a slam-dunk before the judge to her is a reason to investigate your client for fraud.

Either they aren’t listening, they don’t understand what you’re saying, or maybe they don’t even care about your point of view. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, you feel like you’re wasting time talking to your counterpart, and pressure to reach a constructive resolution seems to be intensifying by the minute.

It’s incredibly frustrating, right? If you’re like most people, these scenarios probably make you, at minimum, anxious, frustrated, or both. Do negotiation logjams make your blood boil, cause you to shake your head and sneer, or quicken your pulse and breathing?

Depending on the source of the disconnect and many other variables, if involved in such a situation while mediating or negotiating you’ll likely be bombarded by emotional responses. Even if the subject matter of the underlying disagreement is of a cold, mechanical and objective nature – like a business matter to which you have no personal attachment – it’s natural that the disagreement itself will evoke an emotional response. And that’s okay. You’re human, after all.

But what’s not okay is giving in to that emotional response and letting your amygdala overpower your brain’s rational response. Recognize that emotions are involved in and guide decision-making, but endeavor not to let them divert you from making reasoned decisions. Science teaches us that though we humans are rational creatures, our primitive, “reptilian brain” sometimes leads us astray, particularly in the heat of the moment, and causes us to react in ways that can override our cool-headed, logical brains. Although our amygdala-centered, emotion-based limbic system has helped maintain the survival of the human species for millions of years – no small feat! – it’s not going to keep you calm and collected during a heated negotiation.

I’ve rarely, if ever, seen a hot, emotional exchange between disputing parties lead directly to rational discourse and decision-making during a negotiation. It doesn’t work with your kids or your spouse, it doesn’t score you any “wins” when commenting on provocative social media posts, and it certainly doesn’t result in compromise from your negotiating counterpart. Again, recognizing the emotions involved is important, but it’s critical that effective negotiators then go further and identify a logical process for communicating with the other side and working toward productive resolutions to disputes. There are various ways we can do this, and frequently it takes a skilled third party, like a mediator, to intervene and help the parties manage their emotional and rational responses. 

So acknowledge the emotions at play – both in your counterpart and in you – and then process them and take rational action to further resolution between the parties. When your emotions overtake you, in personal or professional disputes, your chances of reaching a satisfactory agreement on any matter plummet. This approach is very difficult to master, and you alone might not be able to control your emotions all the time, but these skills can be improved with practice and hard work.

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.]