Decision-Making
Never Negotiate Naked
The most successful negotiators aren’t born—they’re prepared.
Updated August 3, 2026 Reviewed by Abigail Fagan
Key points
- Research proves the outcome of your negotiation is largely decided before you even begin speaking.
- You won't get a great deal if you don’t know your absolute bottom line and their best alternative.
- The best negotiators see the big picture, prioritize long-term relationships, and protect their reputation.
We've all been there: a big negotiation is coming up, and you feel the pressure to be prepared; however, you are unsure exactly where to start. It's a familiar cry for help, and the good news is that there is extensive research on the topic. Using that research, we have developed a powerful framework to prepare you for any negotiation.
To help you remember, we call it the S-O-S framework, for Self-Assessment, Other Party Assessment, and Situation Assessment. By preparing in all three areas, you maximize your chances of success and enter any negotiation with confidence.
Self-Assessment: Know Yourself
Most people think of negotiation as a conversation, but research consistently shows that 80% of your success is in the preparation. The better prepared you are, the better your outcome will be. [1]
Your self-assessment begins with identifying your BATNA or Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement [2], which we have rebranded more descriptively as your CARD (Credible Alternative Readily Doable). This is your plan if you don't get a deal. Your CARD is a real, objectively possible course of action that exists outside the current negotiation. For example, years ago, we purchased a car through a broker and received a great price. A colleague inquired about the deal we got on the car and then contacted our broker to obtain a quote for a new car she was interested in. She received a great quote with a promise of delivery within 24 hours of finalizing the paperwork. That evening, she went to a dealership to test drive the car (always a good idea). The next morning, she drove the new car to work. She had purchased the vehicle from the dealer for $800 more than the broker had quoted her. (Not a good idea!) Why did she buy the car at a higher price when her CARD was to wait 24 hours and get the same car for $800 less? There are several possible reasons, but according to many psychologists, it was probably "the falling in love" effect—once she drove the car, she was not about to go home without it, despite the higher price tag.
Next, determine your reservation price,[3] also known as your bottom line or walk-away point. We use a more descriptive and insightful name for it—the “Worst Possible Deal” you will accept. Unlike your BATNA, your reservation price is a subjective and internal calculation. For instance, if you are negotiating a salary for a new job, you might be willing to accept a lower wage for a position in a city you love or one that has a lower cost of living. Conversely, you might require a higher salary for a less desirable location.
Finally, identify your target. This is the best, most aspirational yet realistic outcome you can hope for.
With your BATNA, Reservation Price, and Target, you have a clear framework for decision-making. To refine that framework further, be sure to make a list of your interests—the things you absolutely must have, those you hope to have, and the ones you are willing to concede. This will give you flexibility and a clear understanding of what truly matters.
It is important to distinguish between positions and interests. Your position is what you say you want; your interest is the underlying need behind that position. For example, telling the car salesperson you won’t pay more than $20,000 for a new car is a position. The interest behind it might be your need for reliable transportation to commute to work.
Recognizing the difference leads to creative solutions. In the car example, if a suitable new car is not available within your budget, you might explore a certified pre-owned option that meets your need for reliable transportation. By focusing on interests rather than hardline positions, you will expand the possibility of a mutually beneficial agreement.
Other Party Assessment: Know Them
First, consider who the other party is in relation to you. You wouldn't negotiate with your boss the same way you negotiate with a family member. Your approach—be it collaborative, competitive, accommodating, avoiding, or compromising—will vary depending on who you are dealing with.
Next, research and try to determine what the other party's CARD is—ask yourself what the other party will do if they don't get a deal with you? Understanding their best alternative can give you leverage. It might reveal that they need the deal more than you do, or that you are the best (or even only) option available. Their BATNA is your competition. Knowing it helps you highlight your unique value.
Situation Assessment: Know the Context
The final piece of preparation is the Situation-Assessment. All negotiations take place within a specific context. Ask yourself whether the outcome will be public. Will it set a precedent for future deals, particularly with other parties? Is this a single transaction, or do you anticipate future negotiations with this entity?
Two critical factors in all negotiations are your reputation—protect it vigorously—and your relationships. By sacrificing either for the sake of a deal, you might win the battle, but you’ll lose the war.
By understanding these three S-O-S elements—Self-Assessment, Other Party Assessment, and Situation Assessment—you can enter any negotiation well-prepared and with the confidence needed to achieve a successful outcome.
References
Thompson, L. (2020). The mind and heart of the negotiator (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Blount White, S., & Neale, M. A. (1991). Reservation prices, resistance points, and BATNAs: Determining the parameters of acceptable negotiated outcomes. Negotiation Journal, 7(4), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000331.
