In our work, whether we’re teaching MBA students at the Knauss Business School or training senior executives through the Barkacs Group, we often ask the deceptively simple question: “You’re going into a high-stakes negotiation tomorrow. What’s your goal?”
The answers are almost always inward:
- “I want a 10% raise.”
- “I just need something realistic, so it’s not a deal breaker.”
These answers have a hidden flaw: they are all about the negotiator. This egocentric bias at work, that is, the tendency to get attached to our needs, costs, and fears. Neurologically, it is easier to focus on our own “floor” than to imagine the “ceiling” of the other side.
But negotiation skills require the opposite. You need to stop looking in the mirror and start looking through the magnifying glass.
Beggar vs. Detective
To understand why internal goals fail, consider two points.
Beggar
The beggar enters into negotiations focused on scarcity: rent to pay, budgets to meet, approvals to secure. They ask what it takes to survive. If the other party is willing to give more, the beggar will never discover it. Before the conversation began, they negotiated against themselves.
Detective
The detective refuses to limit his expenses. Their mission is external: “How much will this person pay, or minimum, before they leave?
The detective knows that the size of the deal is determined not by their needs, but by the needs of the other party. booking pointi.e. their “worst deal”.
A conceptually sound goal
When students or leaders struggle to identify a goal, we give them Barkey’s Golden Rule:
Your destination should be their booking point.
This is the “conceptually correct” answer because of how ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) works. If you set goals based on your own needs, you stand in the middle of the ZOPA and refuse to walk to the edge. You are gifting the remaining value to the other party.
If they were willing to go for $100, but you only asked for $85 because you “had to,” you’ve given them $15 for free.
Finding the Invisible Boundary: S‑O‑S Triangulation
Since we don’t mind readers, how do you rate a goal you can’t see?
You will return to S‑O‑S frame (self, other, situation)– in particular other party’s assessment. You triangulate their capture point using three coordinates:
- Their CARD (Trusted Alternative). If they don’t deal with you, who else can they go to? Weaker alternatives mean a deeper reservation point.
- Market and macro pressures. Industry standards, quotas, shortages, time – anything that increases their need for you.
- Social proof and history. How did they behave in past negotiations? Do they split the difference or hold tight?
When these data points overlap, a “ghost” of their occupancy point appears. You’re not looking for a “fair” number; you are defining their limit.
Anchor on the convenient side
Once you’ve calculated their limit (let’s say their “worst deal” is $100), you’re faced with the final tactical step.
You don’t start with $100. To claim the full value, you tie to the favorable side of their limit. If their maximum value is $100, you can open from $115.
Many negotiators hesitate here, fearing that they will offend the other side. But here it is the illusion of victory leads people astray.
If you open at $100 and refuse to move, the other side will feel squeezed. But if you open at $115 and let them “agree” to $100, two things happen:
- You get full value.
- They feel successful. They believe they have earned a $15 discount.
Even if the result is maximally convenient for you, the process will be fair.
The Power of Strategic Empathy
Conceptually, mastering the right goal is action strategic empathy. It requires you to put your fears, needs, and judgments aside to focus fully on the reality of the person in front of you.
It’s not a monster. It’s professional. This ensures that you are not someone who sacrifices dignity for not looking beyond yourself.
When you stop negotiating from your floor and start identifying their ceiling, you stop reacting to the deal and start managing it.
Barki Challenge
Think about the negotiations you are expecting (e.g. salary, contract, procurement, whatever). Before deciding what you want, do some detective work. Use the S‑O‑S framework to evaluate their “worst tradeoff.” Write this number down. Then create an opening bid on the favorable side of this limit.
Notice how confident you feel when your goal is grounded their the truth, not yours worry.
