Why you do that
Buy the book

Negotiate when they have more leverage than you

NegotiationLoss aversionAnchoring effectUltimatum game

When to use

You're negotiating with someone who has more options — a large client, a potential employer, a landlord.

What you'll get

A reframed negotiation strategy centered on their interests, a check on whether your walk-away reaction is rational or emotional, and two alternatives to the current sticking point.

The prompt

I'm negotiating with [COUNTERPART] who has more options than I do. Deal on the table: [CURRENT TERMS]. My ideal outcome: [WHAT I WANT]. My actual walk-away point: [YOUR MINIMUM]. What I think they want: [YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THEIR INTERESTS].

A few things worth working through:

- When we have less power, fear of losing the deal entirely tends to make us accept bad terms faster than the objective value warrants. Is my walk-away point actually as low as I've stated, or is fear doing some of the work?
- People often reject deals that are technically acceptable because they feel unfair — even when the alternative is nothing. If any part of this deal feels unfair to me, I should flag it now rather than let it trigger an impulsive rejection at the wrong moment.
- Negotiations stuck on a single number need other elements to trade. Are there things they want that I can offer without it costing me as much as the number I'm stuck on?

Help me: reframe this around what they actually want rather than what I'm asking for; tell me honestly whether my walk-away reaction looks rational or emotional; propose two alternative deal structures that get past the current sticking point.
Why this prompt works
The walk-away check is drawn from ultimatum game research — the point where people reject objectively acceptable deals because they feel unfair. Surfacing this in advance prevents an impulsive rejection at the wrong moment.

The psychology behind this

← Back to prompt library