Negotiation has been a term I mostly associated with business or politics in the past, involving intense debates and advocating for the interests of each party. However, I began to appreciate and explore this concept more intentionally since last year, when I was exposed to a more diverse set of collaboration scenarios. Then, I realized negotiation is everywhere and understanding its history, philosophy, and practice is important for thinking about how humans interact in a world of complexity. With a background in behavioral science, human-computer interaction, and design research, I began to see deeper connections between negotiation with each of these fields.
Okochi Sanso Garden, Kyoto 京都大河内山庄
Evolution of negotiation theory
Two notable milestones in negotiation literature are Getting to Yes (1981) by Fisher and Ury, and Never Split the Difference (2016) by Chris Voss. The former focuses on identifying interests and creating value for both parties, while the latter recognizes the emotional nature of negotiation and emphasizes the importance of building tactical empathy to gather information and influence the other party's thinking.
The shift from objectively identifying a win-win solution to challenging the idea of seeking a compromise is fascinating and counterintuitive at first. As the title Never Split the Difference suggests, Voss believes it’s better to not make a deal if compromise is involved. Instead, drawing from his experience as a former FBI hostage negotiator, he focused on uncovering Black Swans, which are hidden pieces of information that can change the course of a negotiation and push the other party towards a deal. This became his primary strategy for finding unconventional solutions.
This evolution in negotiation philosophy is an interesting parallel with the shift from classical economics to behavioral economics — both evolved to recognize the limitations of purely rational and utility-maximizing models. Similar to Never Split the Difference, behavioral economics shifts the focus from simplified, rational economic models to a more nuanced understanding of human behavior, which is shaped by emotions, biases, and heuristics.
Konchi-in Temple, Kyoto 京都金地院
Human agency at heart
People want to be heard, understood, and respected. In Never Split the Difference, building tactical empathy in negotiation means ensuring sufficient trust and safety for a real conversation to begin. Since change represents uncertainty and people want to be in control, saying no to a proposal is the easiest way to maintain that control and the status quo. This completely changed my perspective on the nature of negotiation because it’s ultimately about addressing fundamental human needs with psychological principles. It’s not just about fighting for individual interests, it’s much more about building connections, helping each other feel in control, and identifying creative solutions together.
Another memorable idea is that “Yes” has multiple layers (i.e. counterfeit, confirmation, and commitment), while “No” is the gateway to “Yes.” Saying “No” allows us time to pivot and adjust, creating an environment for the one “Yes” that mattered and gives us an opportunity to convince others that the proposed change is more advantageous than maintaining the status quo. Then, negotiation is the process of helping the other party feel protected and safe, so they can consider other possibilities with a relaxed mindset.
This also resembles the dynamics of how humans interact with technology, especially with AI systems. When systems (e.g. algorithms) collecting human input (e.g. data) without making people feel heard, respected, or in control, it becomes difficult to establish a genuine conversation (e.g. engagement). An effective feedback and control mechanism needs to account for human motivation and provide a clear incentive structure, so that the value and impact of input is meaningful. When considering human-computer interaction through the lens of human-machine negotiation, it’s interesting that we’re applying similar psychological principles to help individuals maintain their agency as foundational needs.
Practice of tactical empathy
When it comes to tactical steps to build tactical empathy or uncovering the black swan, the approach mentioned in Never Split the Difference shared a lot of similarities with user experience research moderation practices. Methods like asking calibrated question, focusing on discovery and uncovering insights, and active listening are all familiar to researchers. Although the relationship between a user and a researcher isn’t a negotiating one, the process and desired outcome is similar. Both the negotiator and the researcher aim to uncover insights about the other party to deeply understand their needs, so they can identify unconventional solutions or framing that change the course of the conversation or strategy.
Finally, the practice of emotional labeling reminds me of methods used in psychotherapy. It involves identifying and verbalizing the predictable emotions of a situation, which helps build empathy and insights for both parties. Once the emotion is labeled, we can talk about them without getting wound up because using language to objectify negative thoughts make them less frightening and disrupt their raw intensity.
Nanzen-ji Temple, Kyoto 京都南禅寺
At its core, negotiation is not about being competitive and skillful in applying complex methods or tactics. It is all about creating the right environment for genuine connection and conversation to begin.