First Dimension – Tactics
Tip 1 – NEVER make concessions against yourself
Philip Taylor, Season 5 contestant, provides a perfect demonstration of why you should never make concessions against yourself during a negotiation. In this particular situation, the apprentices were meeting with a top law firm to negotiate a price for catering their social work event. Overall, this negotiation was terribly unsuccessful, as despite the apprentices initially offering a price of £65 per head, they settled the deal on a price of £15 per head. There are many factors that can be attributed to the failure of this negotiation. First of all, the contestants were the only party to make any offers during the negotiation, meaning that they consistently made concessions against themselves. Instead of communicating with the other party and asking them what their ideal price for the service would be, the contestants just kept dropping their price lower and lower until it was agreed upon. Not only are the apprentices negotiating against themselves here, but they are showing the other party that they do not know the true value of their service. We can also infer that the apprentices initial aspiration price for the service (£65) was unreasonable due to the reaction from the other party. Therefore, it is evident that the apprentices entered the negotiation without adequate knowledge of what they were offering. If we had to swap places with this humbled businessman, here are some things we would do differently to hopefully secure a better deal. First, we would increase communication with the other party by asking more questions to better understand their aspiration price and how they value the service. Asking questions is crucial for both parties to exchange information (Rivas, 2020) and it also increases liking (Brooks and John, 2018). Secondly, we would avoid making repeated concessions and allow the other party to make an offer first. Although adaptability is important during negotiation (Saragih, 2025), it is also important to stand your ground. By making multiple concessions against yourself, you are showing the other party that, if they wait, they can get an even lower price without even trying.
Tip 2 – Avoid disrespecting the other party with a ‘hardball’ approach
On ‘The Apprentice’, the general aim of many negotiations is to just reach a deal and to do so quickly (Lewicki and Hiam, 2011). This means that in many instances, there is an evident ‘hardball’ approach, especially as there is often a time pressure for the task. Unfortunately for the apprentices, this has led to many insulting negotiations, with the true potential of the negotiation being hindered. For example, during Season 10, a group of contestants had to negotiate a price for 25 people to visit a castle and its grounds. The group leader for this task began the negotiation asking for an 80% reduction of the original ticket price, which was both disrespectful and unrealistic. Although this may have been an attempt at anchoring, where the final monetary outcome is reflective of the first offer made (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974), it resulted in just insulting the other party due to how low the offer was. The other party instantly refused the first offer, reiterating that there is a standard ticket price for all guests. Despite this, the group leader continued with his ‘hardball’ approach, pushing the original offer and refusing to back down. The group leader was not listening to the other party, a crucial aspect of building rapport (Saragih, 2025), therefore being unsuccessful in his negotiation attempts. In this instance, the hardball approach taken by the apprentice led to the ultimate failure of the negotiation. To avoid disrespecting the other party in your negotiation, here are some things to consider. Firstly, hardball tactics often lead to unproductive negotiations and are associated with risks such as losing a deal or reputation (Lewicki and Hiam, 2011) and therefore should be used with caution. Secondly, a rapport-building approach would’ve been preferable in this scenario as it would’ve enabled a better understanding of how the seller values the service to avoid insulting them and also a better relationship between the two parties. Finally, the contestants’ extremely low initial offer was probably insulting to the seller, potentially making her resistant to giving him a better discount. Overall, avoiding hardball tactics, building rapport with the other party and giving reasonable first offers are all things that can be done to improve the probability of having a successful negotiation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPq7iWdjCWA
Tip 3 – Know your BATNA so you know when to walk away
The ‘Discount Buying’ task which is repeatedly assigned by Lord Sugar requires candidates to go and find a list of specific items for the lowest price possible. However, a lot of the items that the apprentices are required to find are niche and unknown to them, meaning there is often a lack of knowledge about the value of the item. This has led to many instances where candidates end up overpaying for items and therefore forfeit winning the challenge. For example, in Season 19 (Episode 3), one team overpaid substantially for a silver pocket watch, as they did not know enough about the true value of the item to know whether the price that was offered was acceptable. A lack of knowledge about the value of an item translates to a lack of knowledge about your BATNA (the best alternative to a negotiated agreement) – at what point is it better to walk away and try and find the item elsewhere than accept the current deal (Lax & Sebenius, 2006)? Therefore, entering a negotiation equipped with plenty of knowledge about what you are negotiating allows you to know when it is better to walk away. If the other party is unwilling to budge on an unrealistically high price, then it is probably best to exit the negotiation. However, it should be acknowledged that this challenge must be completed under a time pressure, a factor which is known to affect the perception of one’s BATNA (Wheeler, 2002). This may be partially accountable for the failure of the task evident among many apprentices.
Tip 3 – Know your BATNA so you know when to walk away
The ‘Discount Buying’ task which is repeatedly assigned by Lord Sugar requires candidates to go and find a list of specific items for the lowest price possible. However, a lot of the items that the apprentices are required to find are niche and unknown to them, meaning there is often a lack of knowledge about the value of the item. This has led to many instances where candidates end up overpaying for items and therefore forfeit winning the challenge. For example, in Season 19 (Episode 3), one team overpaid substantially for a silver pocket watch, as they did not know enough about the true value of the item to know whether the price that was offered was acceptable. A lack of knowledge about the value of an item translates to a lack of knowledge about your BATNA (the best alternative to a negotiated agreement) – at what point is it better to walk away and try and find the item elsewhere than accept the current deal (Lax & Sebenius, 2006)? Therefore, entering a negotiation equipped with plenty of knowledge about what you are negotiating allows you to know when it is better to walk away. If the other party is unwilling to budge on an unrealistically high price, then it is probably best to exit the negotiation. However, it should be acknowledged that this challenge must be completed under a time pressure, a factor which is known to affect the perception of one’s BATNA (Wheeler, 2002). This may be partially accountable for the failure of the task evident among many apprentices.
Second Dimension – Deal Design
In Series 3 of ‘The Apprentice’, contestants demonstrate a perfect example of creating value, where they attempt to turn a distributive negotiation into an integrative negotiation. Their task was to negotiate on which sales area to occupy – with Sales Area 1 being clearly superior to Sales Area 2. Each team was able to discuss their approach before the negotiation begun. In this case, their negotiation was originally distributive as it involved only one issue: the sales area they would be getting. However, one team decided to bring other issues into the negotiation to make it integrative. For example, each team also had a specific amount of ‘seed money’ which they would be using for the task, which is something this team brought into the negotiation. The team decided that they wanted to occupy Sales Area 1, however they cleverly decided that regardless of which sales area the other team wanted, they would insinuate that they were doing them a favour by allowing them to have it. For example, despite not actually wanting Sales Area 2, the team would ‘allow’ the other team to have it in return for a small portion of their seed money (therefore integrating other things into the deal and creating value). Despite employing this excellent tactic during the negotiation, the other team entered the negotiation with an extreme hardball approach and instantly rejected the deal, meaning the negotiation was ultimately unsuccessful. However, in a different scenario, where there were other things to integrate into the negotiation, this tactic may have had greater success. Therefore, even though the team did not end up getting any of the other teams seed money, this was arguably the best approach they could’ve taken given the circumstance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrM_u0z5Wc0
The ’Discount Buying’ task, mentioned previously when discussing first dimension tactics, is also an opportunity for contestants to create value. The contestants, who are divided into two teams, are sent to a location where they must negotiate the price for and obtain nine items. The team who acquires all of the objects for the lowest price possible wins. One particular approach that has been consistently used by the contestants of many seasons adopts the norm of reciprocity, the idea that if you help someone, then they should help you (Hénaff, 2010). For example, in instances where contestants have to track down and buy vegetables (Season 19, Episode 3) and baked goods (Season 18, Episode 3), contestants have been able to significantly lower the other parties price by offering to pick the vegetables or bake the goods themselves. Therefore, by doing something for the other party (picking the vegetables or baking the goods), they are more likely to do something for you (lowering their price). This is a good example of an integrative agreement, with value being created for both parties involved due to the inclusion of non-monetary acts of service. While ‘The Apprentice’ contestants value getting the lowest price possible, the other party may value other things such as the time and effort that goes into preparing the products. Therefore, such an agreement benefits both parties and is likely to lead to a successful negotiation.
The ’Discount Buying’ task, mentioned previously when discussing first dimension tactics, is also an opportunity for contestants to create value. The contestants, who are divided into two teams, are sent to a location where they must negotiate the price for and obtain nine items. The team who acquires all of the objects for the lowest price possible wins. One particular approach that has been consistently used by the contestants of many seasons adopts the norm of reciprocity, the idea that if you help someone, then they should help you (Hénaff, 2010). For example, in instances where contestants have to track down and buy vegetables (Season 19, Episode 3) and baked goods (Season 18, Episode 3), contestants have been able to significantly lower the other parties price by offering to pick the vegetables or bake the goods themselves. Therefore, by doing something for the other party (picking the vegetables or baking the goods), they are more likely to do something for you (lowering their price). This is a good example of an integrative agreement, with value being created for both parties involved due to the inclusion of non-monetary acts of service. While ‘The Apprentice’ contestants value getting the lowest price possible, the other party may value other things such as the time and effort that goes into preparing the products. Therefore, such an agreement benefits both parties and is likely to lead to a successful negotiation.
Third Dimension – Setup
People often believe negotiation primarily occurs at the table and involves the use of tactics. However, in reality there are many other factors involved, away from the table, which powerfully impact the process (Sebenius et al, 2021). This is where we enter the third dimension of 3-D Negotiation. What is it you may ask? Well, in a nutshell, it looks at the setup. This includes actions that occur away from the table to help you shape the deal to your advantage and get you ready for tactical interplay (Lax & Sebenius, 2006). It includes the first and second dimension but also allows the negotiator to reshape the negotiation set up to their advantage (Lax & Sebenius, 2002). Although it is called the third dimension, it is the first step that should be carried out before entering a negotiation. It is important to note that while it is essential, on its own, it will not provide the best results. Only when combined with the right tactics, as described in dimension one and two, the right set up will result in favourable outcomes in your negotiations (Lax & Sebenius, 2006). Setting the table to ensure a successful negotiation requires ensuring the appropriate parties have been approached by the right people and the right interests have been engaged. In addition, the right issues need to be raised and addressed (Lax & Sebenius, 2003). These all need to be carried out under the most optimal timings and if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the right no deal options need to also be considered (Lax & Sebenius, 2003). Given the unique dilemmas inherent in each negotiation, it is important to note that there are no set ways of being ‘right’. When applying each strategy, the individual must acknowledge individual differences between each party (Elfenbein, 2015) and tailor them to the specific contexts of that negotiation problem. Failure in understanding the interests of each other is the main obstacle in the way of forming win-win negotiations (Sato et al., 2024).
In ‘The Apprentice’, contestants are divided into two teams and before each task is carried out, they are given time to review the task and formulate a plan. Here is when they should be setting the table. How can we ensure the right parties and interests are engaged to ensure we’re in the most promising situation before negotiating? Knowing your BATNA as well as how they value things is how this can be implemented which is achieved through research. To facilitate this process, a checklist is recommended as a tool for preparation (Simons & Tripp, 1997).
Let's look at another example of the ‘Discount Buying’ task from Season 19 (Episode 3) of ‘The Apprentice’. Before going on the hunt for their items, the teams were provided with resources such as a map of the area, local directories and a list of the nine items they were required to find. When negotiating a price for one of the items, issues arose as an item was purchased at a high cost due to limited options and time. When the task was completed and both teams gathered to evaluate the outcomes and identify the winning team, Lord Sugar revealed they should have walked away instead. This is a clear catastrophic example of failing to set up the table the right way. Had the team conducted more thorough research and selected, for instance, a location with alternative options nearby, they could have walked away more confidently, as their BATNA would have been clearer, rather than succumbing to the time pressure. Where they should have changed the parties whom they were negotiating with, by for example, having another potential seller or item nearby to avoid unnecessary travel, they kept the same setup and limited themselves to negotiating with the same party. Such actions away from the table would have changed and ultimately improved the design of their negotiation, a technique which tends to be a lot more effective than just skilfully playing the negotiation game handed to you. By altering the parties involved or the interests at stake, they would have been able to improve their BATNA and importantly, they would have been in a better position to walk away (Lax & Sebenius, 2003). However, it is important to consider the contestants time constraints within this task and that out of this context, in different situations, this strategy would be better implemented.
So, what can we learn from the previous contestants of The Apprentice?
References:
Abigail, D. M. Y., Eden, D., & Ideris, A. (2018). A review of distributive and integrative strategies in the negotiation process. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(5), 68–74.
Brooks, A. W., & John, L. K. (2018). The surprising power of questions. Harvard business review, 96(3), 60-67.
Hénaff, M. (2010). On the norm of reciprocity. Teoria e Critica della Regolazione Sociale/Theory and Criticism of Social Regulation, (4).
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2002). Dealcrafting: The Substance of Three-Dimensional Negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 18(1), 5–28.
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2003). 3-D negotiation. Playing the whole game. In Harvard business review (Vol. 81, Issue 11, pp. 64–138).
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3-D negotiation: powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals. Harvard Business School Press.
Lewicki, R. J., & Hiam, A. (2011). Mastering business negotiation: a working guide to making deals and resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Rivas, M. M. F. (2020). Negotiation: The impact of asking questions on negotiation outcomes (Master's thesis, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge).
Sato, M., Terada, K., & Gratch, J. (2024). Teaching Reverse Appraisal to Improve Negotiation Skills. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 15(3), 872–884.
Simons, T., & Tripp, T. M. (1997). The Negotiation Checklist: How to Win the Battle Before It Begins. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 14–23.
Saragih, H. S. (2025). Genuine small talk, rapport, and negotiation outcomes in B2B relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 40(1), 84-100.
Sebenius, J. K., Cook, B., Lax, D., Fortgang, R., Silberberg, I., & Levy, P. (2021). Dealmaking Disrupted: The Unexplored Power of Social Media in Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 37(1), 97–141.
Stoshikj, M. (2014). Integrative and distributive negotiations and negotiation behavior. Journal of Service Science Research, 6, 29-69.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Wheeler, M. (2002). Negotiation analysis: An introduction. Harvard Business School Pub.
In ‘The Apprentice’, contestants are divided into two teams and before each task is carried out, they are given time to review the task and formulate a plan. Here is when they should be setting the table. How can we ensure the right parties and interests are engaged to ensure we’re in the most promising situation before negotiating? Knowing your BATNA as well as how they value things is how this can be implemented which is achieved through research. To facilitate this process, a checklist is recommended as a tool for preparation (Simons & Tripp, 1997).
Let's look at another example of the ‘Discount Buying’ task from Season 19 (Episode 3) of ‘The Apprentice’. Before going on the hunt for their items, the teams were provided with resources such as a map of the area, local directories and a list of the nine items they were required to find. When negotiating a price for one of the items, issues arose as an item was purchased at a high cost due to limited options and time. When the task was completed and both teams gathered to evaluate the outcomes and identify the winning team, Lord Sugar revealed they should have walked away instead. This is a clear catastrophic example of failing to set up the table the right way. Had the team conducted more thorough research and selected, for instance, a location with alternative options nearby, they could have walked away more confidently, as their BATNA would have been clearer, rather than succumbing to the time pressure. Where they should have changed the parties whom they were negotiating with, by for example, having another potential seller or item nearby to avoid unnecessary travel, they kept the same setup and limited themselves to negotiating with the same party. Such actions away from the table would have changed and ultimately improved the design of their negotiation, a technique which tends to be a lot more effective than just skilfully playing the negotiation game handed to you. By altering the parties involved or the interests at stake, they would have been able to improve their BATNA and importantly, they would have been in a better position to walk away (Lax & Sebenius, 2003). However, it is important to consider the contestants time constraints within this task and that out of this context, in different situations, this strategy would be better implemented.
So, what can we learn from the previous contestants of The Apprentice?
- Do NOT make concessions against yourself - wait for the other party to respond to your offer first
- Be cautious when using a 'hardball' approach - it may not always give you the desired outcome and you may just end up insulting the other party
- Knowing the value of what you are negotiating is important
- It's okay to walk away from the negotiation if you have a better alternative elsewhere
- Making a negotiation integrative creates value and can facilitate positive outcomes for all parties involved
- The norm of reciprocity can be applied to negotiating - people are more likely to do something for you if you do something for them
- Know the goals and aims of your negotiation BEFORE you begin
- Make sure you are negotiating with the appropriate parties given the objectives at hand
- If a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, you should consider your 'no-deal' options
References:
Abigail, D. M. Y., Eden, D., & Ideris, A. (2018). A review of distributive and integrative strategies in the negotiation process. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(5), 68–74.
Brooks, A. W., & John, L. K. (2018). The surprising power of questions. Harvard business review, 96(3), 60-67.
Hénaff, M. (2010). On the norm of reciprocity. Teoria e Critica della Regolazione Sociale/Theory and Criticism of Social Regulation, (4).
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2002). Dealcrafting: The Substance of Three-Dimensional Negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 18(1), 5–28.
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2003). 3-D negotiation. Playing the whole game. In Harvard business review (Vol. 81, Issue 11, pp. 64–138).
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3-D negotiation: powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals. Harvard Business School Press.
Lewicki, R. J., & Hiam, A. (2011). Mastering business negotiation: a working guide to making deals and resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Rivas, M. M. F. (2020). Negotiation: The impact of asking questions on negotiation outcomes (Master's thesis, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge).
Sato, M., Terada, K., & Gratch, J. (2024). Teaching Reverse Appraisal to Improve Negotiation Skills. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 15(3), 872–884.
Simons, T., & Tripp, T. M. (1997). The Negotiation Checklist: How to Win the Battle Before It Begins. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 14–23.
Saragih, H. S. (2025). Genuine small talk, rapport, and negotiation outcomes in B2B relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 40(1), 84-100.
Sebenius, J. K., Cook, B., Lax, D., Fortgang, R., Silberberg, I., & Levy, P. (2021). Dealmaking Disrupted: The Unexplored Power of Social Media in Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 37(1), 97–141.
Stoshikj, M. (2014). Integrative and distributive negotiations and negotiation behavior. Journal of Service Science Research, 6, 29-69.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Wheeler, M. (2002). Negotiation analysis: An introduction. Harvard Business School Pub.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.