Stop Negotiating Your Position

Whether you've been leading teams for a few years or navigating boardrooms for decades, there comes a moment - sometimes in a high-stakes meeting, sometimes in a quiet corridor conversation - when you realise the discussion has stopped being about the problem, and started being about who blinks first

I am Vinod Wadhwani and this is Life Acumen at work

I’m a long-time executive coach, who works with corporate leaders to help them in seeking new perspectives, while focusing on tangible benefits to them and their organization. On this podcast, I share insights from the coaching conversations I have had with corporate leaders, and the specific challenges they faced in their work life. 

Today I am joined by my co-host Racheal and together we will be exploring a topic that will resonate deeply with many senior executives: Stop Negotiating Your Position

Racheal, welcome to the show!

Thanks Vinod. 

Vinod: Have you ever walked out of a negotiation with the deal done… and still felt like something important got broken in the room?

Racheal: That’s such a real feeling. On paper, everything looks resolved. But underneath? Trust is thinner, energy is gone, and somehow nobody feels like they actually won.

Vinod: Exactly. And that’s what we’re getting into today: why smart, capable leaders so often end up in standoffs that waste time, damage relationships, and produce second-rate outcomes - even when everyone involved genuinely wants progress.

Racheal: And the trap has a name.

Vinod: It does. Positional bargaining. It sounds technical, but once you see it, you start seeing it everywhere - in budget fights, boardroom clashes, performance conversations, partnership negotiations, even those quiet executive meetings where two agendas collide without anyone saying so directly.

Racheal: Not just formal negotiation, then. This is everyday leadership.

Vinod: Very much so. And the reason it matters is that most leaders don’t examine it closely. They just assume this is what negotiation is supposed to feel like: tension, posturing, compromise, bruised egos, and eventually some middle-ground answer that nobody loves.

Racheal: Which, to be fair, is how a lot of us learned it. You ask for more than you want, I offer less than I’m willing to give, and we meet somewhere in the middle.

Vinod: Right. It feels practical. It feels like realism. But here’s the problem: once I state a position publicly, I start to identify with it. Moving away from it no longer feels like thoughtful adjustment - it feels like backing down.

Racheal: It becomes emotional, even if everyone is pretending it’s purely rational.

Vinod: Exactly. What began as a discussion about the problem quietly turns into a contest of will. And the irony is, the smarter you are, the more dangerous that can be.

Racheal: Because smart people are excellent at defending themselves.

Vinod: Or, more specifically, excellent at constructing elegant reasons why their original position was correct all along. Intelligence can make rigidity look principled.

Racheal: That line should be on a mug in every boardroom.

Vinod: Honestly, yes.

Racheal: So let’s talk about why this hits senior leaders especially hard. Because the stakes are different when you’re leading at that level.

Vinod: They are. If you’re a CXO, a business head, a founder, a board member - you’re negotiating constantly. With investors, regulators, customers, partners, senior talent, your own board, your own peers. And in those conversations, there are always two things at stake at once.

Racheal: The immediate outcome… and the relationship.

Vinod: Exactly. The decision, the deal, the resolution on one hand. And on the other, the relationship that has to continue after this conversation is over. Positional bargaining tends to damage both. Even when you “win” on terms, you often lose something less visible but more valuable - trust, goodwill, credibility, ease.

Racheal: And probably speed too.

Vinod: Absolutely. That’s a cost people underestimate. When both sides are locked into positions, every move becomes a signal. Every concession has to be interpreted. Every shift gets scrutinized for weakness. The whole process slows down. For senior leaders, that’s not a side issue. It’s a real operational cost.

Racheal: So let’s make this concrete. Can you give a corporate example that really shows what positional conflict looks like when it goes public.

Vinod: Yes, the one that comes immediately to my mind is the Infosys board crisis in 2016 and 2017. It’s one of the clearest illustrations of how costly this can become. On one side was Narayana Murthy, the co-founder and moral force of the company, raising serious concerns around executive compensation, the Panaya acquisition, and governance. On the other side was the board, including CEO Vishal Sikka and the independent directors, who believed the company was on the right path.

Racheal: And what could have been a governance dispute became something much larger.

Vinod: Exactly. It escalated into positional warfare. Mr Murthy made public statements. The board responded publicly. Sikka eventually resigned, saying he couldn’t continue under what he described as a continuous assault. In the end, there was a near-complete board overhaul, NandanNilekani returned as chairman, and an enormous amount of energy — internal and external - was consumed.

Racheal: What’s striking there is that the original concerns may well have been valid, but the method of conflict made resolution much harder.

Vinod: That’s the key point. I’m not making a judgment here about who was right on the substance. The lesson is about the mode of conflict. Once positions hardened, and especially once they became public, neither side could soften without appearing to lose face. Mr Murthy couldn’t retreat without seeming to abandon principle. The board couldn’t yield without appearing to validate what it had resisted.

Racheal: So it stops being “What’s the right solution?” and becomes “Who gets to remain credible?”

Vinod: Precisely. A problem-solving conversation turns into a contest of credibility. And what’s so interesting is that the eventual resolution - Nilekani’s return - wasn’t really about one side winning the stated argument. It reflected a shared interest that had been there all along: the long-term stability, reputation, and strength of Infosys.

Racheal: Which is such an important distinction. The real shared interest was available the whole time. It just got buried.

Vinod: Exactly. And by the time it resurfaced, a great deal had already been lost.

Racheal: Can you give us an example from history - which is a different setting from corporate leadership - but could make the same principle very clear.

Vinod: Let’s look at the Camp David negotiations in 1978, Egypt wanted Sinai back. Israel wanted security and a stable peace. If both sides had stayed locked in public posture and rhetoric, the talks could easily have collapsed.

Racheal: Instead, the mediation worked underneath the positions.

Vinod: Yes. It kept moving toward the interests that actually needed to be addressed for a lasting agreement. And that’s the essential shift: negotiation is often not about persuading the other side to stop caring about what they care about. It’s about getting precise enough about what they care about that a structure can be built around it.

Racheal: That’s such a useful phrase - built around it.

Vinod: Because that’s what effective negotiation really is. The Camp David Accords, and then the 1979 peace treaty, reflected that kind of structure. Not a superficial compromise, but an arrangement that addressed the deeper concerns underneath the stated demands.

Racheal: So let’s stay with that distinction, because it’s really the heart of the episode: positions versus interests.

Vinod: Right. A position is what you say you want. An interest is why you want it.

Racheal: And those can be very different things.

Vinod: Very different. Once you understand the underlying interests - the concerns, constraints, needs, risks, incentives - the problem often becomes more solvable than the positions made it look.

Racheal: Give me a business example.

Vinod: Imagine two business units fighting over budget. One says, “We need 20 million dollars for headcount.” The other says, “That money has to go to product development.” If you stay at the level of position, it looks zero-sum.

Racheal: One gets it, one doesn’t.

Vinod: Exactly. But if you ask what sits underneath those asks, a different picture emerges. Maybe the first team needs enough capacity to meet customer commitments without burning people out. Maybe the second has a product deadline tied to a revenue milestone. Those interests do not necessarily cancel each other out.

Racheal: Which means the solution set suddenly gets larger.

Vinod: Yes. You can start designing around the real constraints: phased hiring, temporary resourcing, shared timelines, performance-triggered allocations. None of that appears if the conversation stays stuck at “my number versus your number.”

Racheal: That’s why I like your framing here. This isn’t softness. It’s design.

Vinod: Exactly. It’s not idealism. It’s engineering. You are not denying conflict. You are solving it at a deeper and more useful level.

Racheal: And then there’s the Disney-Pixar example, which is such a clean case of this done well.

Vinod: It really is. By 2006, when Disney acquired Pixar in a deal worth about $7.4 billion, the relationship between the two companies had already been strained for years. Disney had distribution scale, brand reach, and the theme-park ecosystem. Pixar had become one of the most creatively successful animation studios in the world.

Racheal: And the friction wasn’t just financial. It was about control, sequels, creative direction - identity, really.

Vinod: Exactly. So what makes the deal so instructive is that it wasn’t structured as a simple price negotiation. Pixar’s creative leadership, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter, were given real authority in the combined animation business. Catmull became president of both studios. Lasseter became chief creative officer. Pixar’s culture was protected rather than swallowed.

Racheal: That tells you both sides had understood something deeper than valuation.

Vinod: Right. Disney’s interest wasn’t simply to buy Pixar’s assets. It needed to revive its animation pipeline and restore creative credibility. Pixar’s interest wasn’t only a strong price. It was continuity of culture and meaningful influence over the work they had built.

Racheal: So the structure of the deal answered the interests, not just the stated demands.

Vinod: Exactly. And that’s why it became more durable than a transaction. It became a strategic partnership that worked.

Racheal: Okay, but this is where I want to push a little - because interest-based negotiation can sound so elegant that people start treating it like a universal answer.

Vinod: And that would be a mistake. This framework is powerful, but it can absolutely be oversold. Not every conflict is a problem-solving situation. Some are genuine power contests.

Racheal: Meaning the other side is not trying to solve something with you. They’re trying to beat you, pressure you, or outlast you.

Vinod: Exactly. Some actors are operating in bad faith. Some are misleading. Some are deliberately obstructive. In those cases, exposing your interests too openly can create vulnerability rather than progress.

Racheal: And sometimes the interests really are incompatible.

Vinod: Yes. Not hidden. Not misunderstood. Just incompatible. In those situations, no amount of elegant dialogue is going to produce a magical win-win. Sometimes you’re in a genuinely distributive fight, and clarity of position is protective.

Racheal: That’s where your Oracle–PeopleSoft example comes in.

Vinod: Yes. The 2003–2004 takeover battle is a strong counterexample. Oracle pursued PeopleSoft with sustained hostile pressure for roughly eighteen months. PeopleSoft resisted. Oracle kept pushing. The deal eventually closed at about $10.3 billion - not because both sides uncovered a beautiful shared interest, but because positional force was effective in that context.

Racheal: Not warm. Not collaborative. Effective.

Vinod: Exactly. Which is why the real discipline here is diagnostic. Before you go into a difficult conversation, you need to ask: is this a problem-solving situation, or a power contest?

Racheal: That’s such an important fork in the road.

Vinod: It is. If there’s relationship value, if underlying interests might be reconciled, if objective standards could help, then positional bargaining is usually inferior. It wastes time, harms the relationship, and produces less intelligent outcomes than the situation actually allows. But if it’s a genuine power contest, you need to recognize that too - and protect yourself.

Racheal: So how does an executive actually do this better in real life? Because this is the point where listeners are thinking, “Great, I buy it. Now what do I do on Tuesday morning?”

Vinod: Fair question. The first move is simple, but powerful. Before any difficult conversation, take five minutes and ask: what does the other side actually need?

Racheal: Not what are they asking for. What do they need.

Vinod: Exactly. Then ask the same of yourself: what am I actually trying to protect? Not what position am I taking - what matters underneath it?

Racheal: That alone would probably improve half the meetings people dread.

Vinod: It would. Then, once you’re in the conversation, listen for the interests behind the positions. When someone gives you a hard no, don’t immediately counter. Ask, “Help me understand what’s driving that concern.”

Racheal: I love that because it doesn’t sound weak. It sounds serious.

Vinod: Exactly. And the goal is not manipulation. The goal is information. The answer usually tells you more than the stated position ever could.

Racheal: And then there’s the idea of objective criteria, which I think is incredibly helpful because it de-personalizes conflict.

Vinod: Yes. When you make a proposal, anchor it in something external - market data, precedent, industry norms, third-party analysis. That gives both sides something to examine that isn’t simply your preference versus mine.

Racheal: So now we’re not fighting each other. We’re testing the proposal against reality.

Vinod: Exactly. That shift matters enormously.

Racheal: And then there’s my favorite principle in the whole episode: be hard on the problem, soft on the human.

Vinod: It’s one of the most useful disciplines in leadership. Preserve the relationship as a separate asset. You can be completely firm on the issue and still warm toward the person. In fact, the best negotiators often seem almost uncanny in their ability to do both at once.

Racheal: Which, honestly, can feel like a superpower when you see it done well.

Vinod: It really can.

Racheal: Before we close, there’s one idea here that I think lands emotionally, not just intellectually - this confusion leaders often make between firmness and rigidity.

Vinod: Yes. I see that all the time. Leaders assume that moving off a position means weakness, and holding it means strength. But that’s not necessarily true. Sometimes what looks like firmness is actually ego. And sometimes what looks like flexibility is actually precision.

Racheal: Because you’re moving on the position while staying anchored in the interest.

Vinod: Exactly. The best leaders know what they are truly trying to protect. Because they know that, they can move on the surface without losing the substance. They can adjust the form while holding firm on the core.

Racheal: That’s not weakness.

Vinod: No. That’s precision.

Racheal: And maybe that’s the real takeaway here: the goal isn’t to win the argument. It’s to reach an agreement that’s wise - one that serves what matters, survives contact with reality, and doesn’t wreck the relationship for the next conversation.

Vinod: Exactly. Because in any negotiation worth taking seriously, the point is not victory theater. It’s a durable outcome. One that protects what actually matters, holds up over time, and leaves the room usable after you leave it.

Racheal: Which is such a good test, by the way. If you “won,” but now the relationship is damaged, the team is exhausted, and the next conversation is going to be harder… did you really win?

Vinod: Often, no. There was probably a better outcome available. The question is whether we were willing to look for it.

Racheal: That feels like the perfect place to land.

Vinod: So here’s the closing thought: when a negotiation gets tense, ask yourself whether you’re defending a genuine interest - or just protecting a position because it’s become part of your identity. That one distinction can change the entire conversation.

Racheal: And maybe save a deal, a team, or a relationship that didn’t need to break in the first place.

Vinod: Exactly.

Racheal: That’s it for today. Thanks for spending this time with us.

Vinod: We’ll see you next time. And until then, stay firm on what matters - and flexible about how you get there.