Invent options for mutual gain before selecting
Generate multiple creative options without commitment before evaluating any — the solution space is usually larger than the initial positions suggest.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Generate multiple creative options without commitment before evaluating any — the solution space is usually larger than the initial positions suggest.
- Why it works: Positional bargaining treats options as competitive and limited. Principled negotiation creates a separate invention phase — a genuinely brainstorm-only session where neither party is held to anything generated. This removes evaluative pressure from the creative phase, enabling more options to surface. More options means more chances of finding one that genuinely works for both sides.
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Evaluating options as they are generated, which kills the creative phase — the pressure of evaluation makes people censor ideas before they can be explored.
Why it works
Positional bargaining treats options as competitive and limited. Principled negotiation creates a separate invention phase — a genuinely brainstorm-only session where neither party is held to anything generated. This removes evaluative pressure from the creative phase, enabling more options to surface. More options means more chances of finding one that genuinely works for both sides.
How to do it
- 1Agree explicitly: "Let’s spend 20 minutes generating ideas without commitment — nothing we say here is an offer."
- 2Generate at least 5-10 options before evaluating any.
- 3Include options that favor the counterpart — this signals good faith and often prompts reciprocal creativity.
- 4Evaluate only after the list is complete, using agreed criteria rather than arbitrary preference.
What the evidence says
ObservationalSeparating generation from evaluation is a well-supported principle in creativity and decision research. Its application in negotiation context is supported by research on integrative bargaining, where joint option generation produces better mutual outcomes.
Honest caveat: Effective joint brainstorming requires sufficient trust that premature concessions won’t be held against the generating party — structuring the session explicitly helps.
- — Bazerman & Neale (1992), Negotiating Rationally
Common mistake
Evaluating options as they are generated, which kills the creative phase — the pressure of evaluation makes people censor ideas before they can be explored.
IX Coach treats goal-setting and option generation as a divergent phase — expanding possibilities before you commit to any direction, rather than jumping to the first plausible solution.
Practice this with IX Coach →