Published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, July 27, 2026
by Neil Senturia
Traditional negotiation strategy has a baseline premise that says never negotiate against yourself. Imagine you offer $20 for something, then there is the pause from the other side: “Let me think about it; I will get back to you later in the week.” Now, my friend, there is a marvelous moment for you to consider.
The problem set is the same whether it is $20 or $20 million. It is a deal you want to do. You are waiting, and you are nervous because you really need this deal, this opportunity, this job.
One possibility is the “pre-emptive strike.” Now before we enter the military strategy piece of this puzzle, consider the problem of momentum and uncertainty. In the specific, you do not know what the other side is going to do. You do not even know if they will return a phone call.
While you wait for the phone call, you create a dashboard of scenarios, the if he says this, then I will counter with that. You are sure there is a deal in there somewhere.
In military parlance, a preemptive strike is designed to significantly reduce the threat posed by the adversary’s impending attack. Now add one word: Change it to “perceived threat.” You don’t know for sure what the other side is thinking. Do you initiate and or do you wait?
Now let’s change the word from strike to “concession.” You initiate.
“Look, Bob, instead of $20, I will pay $23.50 but we close in 24 hours, do we have a deal?”
This is Newton’s First Law of Motion applied to behavioral economics. It states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
The outside force is changing your offer before Bob can react or respond to the first one. You do this because you want to avoid a fierce counterattack or worst case, a walk-away.
Maybe $20 was a bit aggressive but within the realm of reason. There is uncertainty and a high possibility of misinterpretation. Be patient, you don’t know, or rational fear enters, and it is time to consider the strategic concession.
The problem is nuanced. You do not know if Bob was good with $20. You are impatient and fear the possibility that Bob will call back and say, “Forget the whole thing, I have decided to go in a different direction.” Once he has stated that position, it requires significant mental effort for him to retreat from it.
You don’t know what the response was going to be (if any), but the preemptive concession keeps the ball in play and forestalls complete rejection. You need to avoid a finality, where you are a dead man walking.
“You know, Neil, we’ve considered your last offer, and we suggest you die and pound sand.” Neil says “Wait, he has a proposal, a counter, a concession” — but alas, too late. Bob has made up his mind, and he is now a true body at rest and does not want to reopen. He is moving on down the road.
Or, “Neil, $23.50 is fine. We accept, and by the way, we were just about to send you an email accepting the $20.” The threat of complete rejection was not imminent at all. Try getting a good night’s sleep after that one.
I never discuss politics, but sometimes imminent threats aren’t all they’ve cracked up to be.
Now one of my favorite true stories. It was a big-time mediation, and multiple millions were at issue. Both sides get in a room; there is an agreed-upon mediator. Back and forth, nine hours. Finally, at 7 p.m., there is a final offer to settle, 72 cents on the dollar.
Exhausted, the mediator says to both parties, take it or leave it, I’m going home. A short pause; the deal is done. Now here is the crazy part. On the way out of the room, the lead negotiator for the plaintiffs turns to his attorney and says, “Do you think we could have gotten 73 cents?”
At the end of the day, the key to business success comes down to one immutable principle of behavioral economics — the constant effort to avoid making stupid decisions.
Rule No. 834: Wudda, couldda, shouldda.