Insist on objective criteria to evaluate options
Agree on an independent standard — market rate, precedent, expert opinion — before applying it to the specific deal.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Agree on an independent standard — market rate, precedent, expert opinion — before applying it to the specific deal.
- Why it works: When each party insists on their preferred terms, the only resolution is power — who yields. Objective criteria displace this: if both parties commit to a fair standard in advance, applying it is procedurally legitimate and neither party loses face by accepting it. The negotiation shifts from "what do we each want?" to "what does the standard say?" — a more solvable question.
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Proposing objective criteria only when they favor you, which destroys the legitimacy the criteria are supposed to provide — the other party will not accept criteria selected for your convenience.
Why it works
When each party insists on their preferred terms, the only resolution is power — who yields. Objective criteria displace this: if both parties commit to a fair standard in advance, applying it is procedurally legitimate and neither party loses face by accepting it. The negotiation shifts from "what do we each want?" to "what does the standard say?" — a more solvable question.
How to do it
- 1Identify relevant objective standards before the negotiation: market rates, legal precedent, professional norms, independent appraisals.
- 2Propose the standard before proposing a number: "Let’s use market rate as our benchmark — what does your data show?"
- 3If you disagree on the right standard, negotiate the standard first, then apply it.
- 4Be willing to accept an unfavorable outcome if the agreed standard produces it — credibility depends on consistency.
What the evidence says
ObservationalUsing objective criteria converts the negotiation from a will contest to a reasoning exercise. Research on procedural fairness shows that people accept worse substantive outcomes when the process is perceived as fair — objective criteria create that legitimacy.
Honest caveat: Objective criteria can be cherry-picked — each party tends to favor standards that support their position. The principled move is to agree on the standard before knowing which direction it cuts.
- — Lind & Tyler (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Common mistake
Proposing objective criteria only when they favor you, which destroys the legitimacy the criteria are supposed to provide — the other party will not accept criteria selected for your convenience.
IX Coach helps you articulate what a "fair" standard would look like in your situation before you engage in the negotiation — so you’re reasoning from principle rather than advocating from position.
Practice this with IX Coach →