Insist on objective criteria to evaluate options

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.

How to do it

1. Identify relevant objective standards before the negotiation: market rates, legal precedent, professional norms, independent appraisals.
2. Propose the standard before proposing a number: "Let’s use market rate as our benchmark — what does your data show?"
3. If you disagree on the right standard, negotiate the standard first, then apply it.
4. Be willing to accept an unfavorable outcome if the agreed standard produces it — credibility depends on consistency.

Evidence

Using 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. (observational)

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.

Sources

• 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.