We have now explored the triple challenge to negotiation success, and the corresponding hurdles to negotiation learning. We have seen that the former often leads to ambivalence, while the latter often lead to blocking. We realized that we have to be ambitious and humble to succeed.

The “Great Rationality Debate” is based on whether or not humans are rational. We have two systems of thinking at our disposal: Deliberation and intuition. These systems sometimes agree, but often demand different things. This is reflected in negotiation: Because of the paradoxical nature of the task, the two systems regularly recommend different approaches. This chapter explains the benefits and limitations of both intuition and deliberation, illustrated with case studies from all walks of life.

Because both negotiators face the paradox, they are stuck in a dilemma, much like the prisoner’s dilemma. They need the other side to succeed, and indeed can achieve win–win with them. But greed and fear typically lead to a lose–lose outcome instead. We differentiate one-off interactions from repeated interactions to draw lessons from game theory, pondering the significance of metaphors in our decision-making as well as historical examples. We learn of a practical strategy that can help us negotiate in repeated interactions, changing the nature of the game to the “stag hunt game.”

The second trap is the consequence of the strategic dilemma. Some negotiation behaviors come more naturally to us than others. If the task seems more coherent than it is, we might not notice the dilemma. This can lead to the illusion of competence. When we do not realize the full picture of the task and dilemma, we do not develop the full skill set needed to address them. This is especially true in relation to cooperation, an innate ability but one at which humans have to persevere in order to become highly skilled.

As learners of negotiation, the first step to overcome the blocking of our advance is to become aware of our limited understanding, know-how, and/or thinking. This is not a pleasant experience. Plato linked it to a “torpedo’s shock.” Such a moment of aporia, however, is necessary for us to realize the need to “flip the coin”: i.e. to look at the other, opposite site of what we already know to be true to complete our understanding, know-how, and/or thinking.

Each of the three challenges introduced in Part I sets up a specific cognitive illusion for the learner. Together they conspire to block our learning. The first trap arises from the tactical paradox: It is tempting to see only one side of the coin and overlook the other, as in an optical illusion. The task appears to be more coherent than it really is, thereby preventing learners from seeing the full picture and fully understanding the task in hand.

A brief assessment of how artificial intelligence (AI) will change negotiation and the way in which we learn about it in the near future, and a note of optimism to conclude.

The triple challenge of negotiation is the tactical paradox, the strategic dilemma, and the cognitive ambiguity. One challenge leads to the next. As a result, most people are ambivalent when it comes to negotiations. They might like some aspects but often strongly dislike others. This is perhaps not surprising, given that the Latin root of the word “negotiation” literally means “not fun.” And there is a very good reason for this. By its very nature, negotiation is two-sided. There is a duality at every level of the process: The task itself requires us to both create and claim value. Figuratively speaking we have to expand the pie and divide it. This means that we face a tactical paradox: We must work with the other side as well as against them – and so do they. Hence our success depends on their choice of tactics just as much as ours.

Lastly, as learners we need to cultivate the proper method of thinking about negotiation and learning. A three-step method from medical research is presented here, which we can adopt. Paradoxically, humility is crucial for success in this ambitious endeavor.

The trap is the illusion of accumen, which makes us believe that our thinking about the challenge at hand is already accurate, even though we might only follow our intuition or deliberation. This is aggravated by the difficulty of obtaining good feedback in a “wicked” learning environment, where there are no incentives to disclose valuable information when the transaction is concluded. Together, the three illusions can block our advance in learning to negotiate. Because we have correctly learned something (such as one side of the Yin & Yang, some of the tools from the toolkit, one method of thinking), realizing that its opposite can also be true is very difficult.

The second step to unblocking our advance as negotiators is to gain the relevant know-how. Here we explore specific and practical techniques recommended by researchers as effective, such as deliberate practice and memorizing techniques.

An explanation of the purpose of this book, highlighting what lies ahead. When I worked as a negotiator in international business transactions, I found much existing advice to be one-sided, focusing either on the win–win or the win–lose side of contracts when in reality most transactions consist of both. Part I: The basic paradox of the negotiation task means that we have to work with and against the other side. Because both sides face the paradox, they are jointly facing a dilemma: Their success is the result of their own choices as well as those of the other side. This leads to the third and deepest challenge: The ambivalence of thinking. Negotiators have to follow their own intuition as well as thinking deliberately to master the triple challenge of negotiation success. Part II: Each challenge sets up a specific trap for the learner. But if we identify these traps, they can turn into the three steps of negotiation learning, as Part III shows.