Build and Defend Newsletter 37

One email a week - something from which I hope you'll get real value. We talk about things we can build, and how to defend them. That can apply to cybersecurity, physical buildings, digital products, and .... just about anything. It gives me a lot of latitude in what I can write about, but the two concepts are important for progress - as individuals, and as society.

Today's topic is: building and defending your ability to negotiate.

Somewhere along the way, a lot of otherwise capable adults decided that negotiation was something done by hostage specialists, people buying second-hand cars, and Michael Douglas in a very expensive suit. For everyone else, there was the price, the deadline, the salary, the renewal, the scope of work, and the slightly apologetic acceptance of whatever had been put in front of them. Then, in the shower the following morning, they delivered a magnificent counteroffer to the shampoo bottle.

Negotiation is not necessarily a confrontation. It is a conversation about whether terms can work better. Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes there is no discretion. Sometimes the best available deal really is the one on the table. But if you never ask, you have made that decision for the other person. Very considerate of you. Potentially rather expensive.

🔨 BUILD: Prepare Before You Perform

The most useful negotiation tool is not a stern expression or a sentence you memorised from a former FBI agent friend. It is knowing what you want before somebody asks you to decide.

Before the conversation, write down five things:

Your target: What outcome would make this a good agreement? Be specific. “A better deal” is not a target. A revised fee, a later deadline, or a clearly defined set of deliverables is.
Their likely interests: What might matter to them besides the obvious number? Certainty, cash flow, speed, fewer revisions, a longer commitment, or less administrative work? Treat these as questions to investigate, not mind-reading.
Your alternative: What will you actually do if there is no agreement? Choose another supplier? Stay in your current job? Reduce the project? Wait? Negotiators call this your BATNA: best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It is a plan, not a bluff.
Your walk-away point: At what point is the whole package worse than your realistic alternative? Include time, risk, obligations, and switching costs, not just the headline price.
Your trades: What can you offer that costs you relatively little but matters to them? What could they offer that matters to you?

A walk-away point is not automatically the same thing as your opening offer. One is a private limit. The other starts a discussion. And an imaginary competing offer is not an alternative.

Buidl the ZOPA (If Possible): Where a Deal Can Actually Happen
Once you have those five things, look for the ZOPA: Zone of Possible Agreement. This is the overlap between the terms you can accept and the terms the other person can accept. It is not simply the distance between your opening offers, and it is not a fancy name for meeting in the middle.

In a straightforward price negotiation, there is a zone if the most the buyer will pay is at least as much as the least the seller will accept. If the buyer's genuine ceiling is below the seller's genuine floor, there is no price-only overlap under those conditions. More enthusiastic nodding will not create one.

You know your own limit, or should. You usually do not know theirs. Start with an estimated ZOPA, not an invented certainty. Use comparable deals, your understanding of their alternatives, and questions such as: “Which terms are fixed?” “Would a different delivery date help?” “What would make this workable for you?” Their opening demand is information, not proof of their final limit.

Write down three things: where I think the overlap lies; what evidence supports that; and what I still need to find out. Keep your own reservation point private unless you have a considered reason to disclose it. Understanding the zone does not require handing over your entire negotiating brief.

It is possible that no ZOPA exists - in this case, you would not be able to reach a deal. That's okay. It means that no matter how much you negotiate you won't be successful, and neither will the other party. If that's the case, you can explore a different package, perhaps change the scope and/or ask them to look at theirs, or look at a different payment schedule, or more flexible timing. This may create an agreement both sides prefer to their alternatives. In that case, the ZOPA is a set of acceptable packages, not just a strip of prices. If no workable package exists, no deal is a legitimate outcome. You are looking for common ground, not manufacturing it by quietly abandoning your own interests / limits.

The image illustrates a pricing negotiation range where the seller’s range, from “Seller’s Worst Case” to “Seller’s Desired Price,” overlaps with the buyer’s range, from “Buyer’s Desired Price” to “Buyer’s Worst Case,” with a green “Zone of Possible - Picture from Wikipedia

Negotiate the Package, Not Just the Number
Suppose a client asks you to deliver a project sooner and for less money. Your first instinct might be to defend your fee. Fair enough. But there are more variables than price. “I can meet that budget if we remove the second workshop and limit revisions to one round. If the full scope is essential, we can keep the original fee and move delivery to next month.” That is not being difficult. It is making the trade visible. (It's also the adult thing to do if you value your time.)

The same principle applies to a job offer: salary, leave, flexibility, responsibilities, development budget, and a documented review date may all matter. Not all will be negotiable, and a vague promise of a future review is not the same thing as a pay rise. For example, when I joined my previous company, I asked for LESS salary, and MORE stock. That paid off for both myself, and the company. Handsomely. On both sides.

Ask what is flexible. You may discover that the person opposite you has no authority over the price but can change the service, timing, or terms.

Make the Ask, Then Let it Breathe
“Based on these comparable quotes and the scope, I was expecting something closer to X. What flexibility do we have?” Then listen. Do not immediately offer a concession because three seconds of silence felt like the final scene of a Western and you thought you saw a tumbleweed out of the corner of your eye. Use evidence you can explain: comparable work, market rates, results delivered, or the cost of a changed requirement. A confident number is not automatically a defensible number. If the answer is no, ask a useful question: “Is the constraint the total budget, the timing, or the policy?” You are trying to understand the problem, not wear somebody down.

🛡️ DEFEND: Protect Your Options, Not Your Ego

The point is not to win every negotiation. The point is to avoid accepting terms you do not understand, cannot sustain, or will resent for the next eighteen months.

Defend Your ZOPA: It Shouldn't Be a Sliding Window
You start with a sensible boundary. Then comes a small concession. Then another. Then an extra deliverable, a longer payment period, and a request to “just be flexible”. Eventually the deal still looks close to the last offer, but it is nowhere near the one you decided was acceptable.

That is the sliding-window problem. Each new concession becomes the starting point for the next discussion, and your original limit quietly falls out of view. The window has wheels. Apparently you are pushing it. And building a motor to make it go faster.

Strictly speaking, you cannot defend the whole ZOPA as though you own both sides of it. What you defend is your boundary and the assumptions behind it. The other person's limit is theirs. Your job is not to force an overlap by moving your own floor or ceiling every time they apply pressure.

Keep the original baseline. Record your acceptable package and walk-away point before the conversation. Compare each revised offer with that baseline and your alternative, not just the previous offer.
Make concessions conditional. “If we reduce the fee, we need to reduce the scope.” Movement should be a visible trade, not a donation you hope will end the conversation.
Count the whole package. An unchanged price with extra work, slower payment, or more risk may cross your boundary just as surely as a lower price.
Pause before changing a limit. If new evidence genuinely changes the economics or your alternative, reassess deliberately and write down why. Discomfort, fatigue, and “we have come this far” are not new evidence. (Your opponent who is a skilled negotiator may try to force these onto you, too, so be aware of that.)
Be willing to find no overlap. “That package doesn't work for me. I can offer this alternative; otherwise, we should leave it here.” Calmly. No dramatic exit music required.

A ZOPA can genuinely change when circumstances change, or expand when you discover a better trade. That is useful negotiation. Changing your boundary simply because somebody keeps asking is something else. Be flexible about the route to an acceptable agreement, not casually flexible about what makes it acceptable.

Defend Against Urgency Theatre
“Today only” might reflect a genuine deadline. It might also mean somebody would prefer you not to compare alternatives. Ask what expires, why it expires, and whether you can have the terms in writing. If the decision is consequential, “I need time to review this” is a perfectly grown-up sentence.

You may lose the offer. That is a real possibility, not something a motivational quote can remove. Decide whether that risk is preferable to making a rushed commitment you cannot properly assess.

Defend Against the Moving Finish Line
You agree the price. Then come the extras, the extended lock-in, the new cancellation terms, or the “small” request that adds a weekend of work. Reassess the package when the package changes. “That wasn't included in the scope we priced. I can quote for it separately, or we can replace one of the existing deliverables.” Useful, polite, and substantially cheaper than agreeing while quietly developing an eye twitch.

Defend Against Winning the Wrong Contest
You can squeeze a supplier until they cannot afford to do good work. You can extract a concession from a colleague and spend the next year repairing the relationship. You can save a trivial amount and lose an afternoon you would never have sold for that price. Not every transaction needs haggling. Respect fixed prices, genuine constraints, and a clear no. The person handling your request may neither set the policy nor have authority to change it. The objective is a workable agreement, not a story in which you emerge as the undisputed champion of a hotel reception desk.

Defend Against Your Own Sunk Costs
Three calls, a proposal, and a pleasant lunch do not oblige you to accept a bad deal. Equally, deciding beforehand that you must demonstrate your willingness to walk away can make you reject a perfectly good one. Compare the actual offer with the actual alternative. Remember what you wanted before your ego joined the meeting. For legal commitments, regulated matters, or a deal whose downside you do not understand, bring in the appropriate professional. A guy who writes an internet newsletter every week is not a lawyer, nor does he play one on TV. (If you want advice on cybersecurity or AI, or tech, then definitely.)

💰 STACK: Your One-Page Negotiation Brief

No new subscription required. Copy this into a note:

The decision: What exactly am I agreeing to?
My target: What would a good outcome look like?
My evidence: What supports the request?
Their interests: What do I need to ask rather than assume?
My alternative: What will I actually do without this agreement?
My limit: What package would be worse than that alternative?
Possible trades: Price, scope, timing, payment terms, flexibility, risk, or commitment.
My opening question: One clear ask, without an apologetic monologue.
The close: Who will confirm the agreed terms, responsibilities, and dates in writing?

AI is useful as a rehearsal partner. Give it an anonymised version of the brief and ask:

Play a reasonable counterparty with different priorities. Ask me one question at a time. Push back on my assumptions without inventing market facts. After the rehearsal, identify unsupported claims, unnecessary concessions, and questions I failed to ask. Do not decide my walk-away point for me.

Do not paste confidential contracts, client details, or employer information into your AI chat. They hate that. (They also hate the potential for typing in passwords, and will tell you every single time.) Verify anything the model claims about market rates or legal rights. A rehearsal can improve your preparation; it cannot tell you what the real person is thinking.

🔗 LINKS

A Negotiation Preparation Checklist
Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation offers a fuller version of the preparation process: your interests, their interests, alternatives, authority, and objective criteria. Useful before a consequential conversation.

Negotiation Preparation Strategies
A practical explanation of setting a target and translating your alternative into a walk-away point. Especially useful when the deal involves more than one number.

Skills Needed for Negotiation: BATNA Analysis
A closer look at alternatives, including the easily missed distinction between an option you hope exists and one you can realistically use.

Getting to Yes
The book required for my negotiation class at Johns Hopkins. I managed to get my B+ up to an A-, by negotiating. It was - unknown to the students - the last test.

💬 ONE THING

Choose one negotiation you already know is coming: a renewal, project deadline, job conversation, quote, or request for additional work. Before the conversation, write down your target, your realistic alternative, and one possible trade. Then prepare one clear question. You do not have to become Gordon Gekko. You just have to stop assuming that the first set of terms is the only set anyone is allowed to discuss.