Dr. Terry Garza is a research scientist for an international food organization. His organization's sole purpose is to develop methods to increase production of the developing world's food supply. His organization discovered a substance that, when added to the soil, dramatically reduces the amount of moisture needed in the soil to grow a variety of staple crops. It would effectively allow currently fallow and drought‐parched land to grow crops. It also has the promise to slow the process of the land turning into desert (“desertification”) and produce crops with less water, potentially saving millions of lives lost due to famine and drought.

This new substance can only be found in the Sri Lankan star fruit, which grows on trees in certain parts of Sri Lanka. The trees, which bear fruit only once every two years, are in a deserted and remote part of the country, making them highly inaccessible for easy harvesting. All efforts to transplant the trees or expand production have been unsuccessful. The process for obtaining the soil additive from the star fruit requires the seeds inside the star fruit to be turned into a fine powder.

Garza learned that the biannual harvest was completed and controlled by the Sri Lankan Ministry of Agriculture, which would sell the batch to the highest bidder. Knowing the importance of the powder and the potential lives that might be saved by using it in the right way, he was eager to purchase the next harvest. He was authorized by his organization to spend up to $2 million.

His excitement was tempered when he learned that he was not the only one interested in the star fruit harvest. His competition was Ecobil, one of the biggest and most successful biotech firms in the United States. Ecobil was a well‐funded leader in genetic engineering processes, biomedical technology, and the creation of new products for the agricultural and health sciences. Garza set up a time to meet with one of their representatives, Dr. Anita Maxwell, to explain how important it was that he obtain the star fruit, and to dissuade her from making a bid.

When Garza met with Maxwell she told him that her firm had an annual multimillion‐dollar budget for the development of new products. She had spent millions of dollars on the research and development of a new drug that would not only reduce blood cholesterol levels but also reduce cholesterol buildup. Unfortunately for Garza, the drug required a new substance that could only be found in the Sri Lankan star fruit. Maxwell was firm in her insistence that she would bid whatever was required to get the star fruit for Ecobil. Too much had been invested, and too much was at stake.

Garza and Maxwell's meeting became extremely tense as they both insisted they needed the supply of star fruit for their mission. The two‐hour conversation was reduced to a volley between what each of them wanted—the star fruit. After an embarrassing shouting match, Garza remembered to find his quantum anchor to steady himself, took a deep breath, asked for a break, and took a short walk. He then remembered to think more carefully at why he needed the star fruit.

When Maxwell and Garza met again after a break, they both apologized for their anxious exchange and began to speak about the engineering process in which they would use the star fruit. Garza pointed out that his organization would be producing a soil additive, created when the seeds of the star fruit were pulverized into a fine powder. The powder from the seeds of an entire harvest would produce enough soil additive to reclaim land supporting more than twenty thousand people. When she heard this, Maxwell stood up from her chair and exclaimed that her new drug required the pulp but not the seeds from the fruit.

This was a real turning point for each of them as they excitedly agreed to make one bid to the Ministry and share the entire product— Maxwell's company would take the pulp and then share all the seeds with Garza's organization. They had forgotten to think about what they needed as opposed to what they wanted.

***

In terms of our quantum model, the first chapter was built around the question of who we are. This chapter delves into the question of what we want and why we want it.

Just like Dr. Garza and Dr. Maxwell, any negotiators become fixated on a particular goal—what it is we want, that number, that quality, that particular product—before ever really exploring why we have that goal and if it is what we truly need. When we enter a negotiation it becomes the focus for us and we never really challenge that. Just like the way the lens of a camera closes its aperture to focus in on a particular subject, when we focus in on a single goal, other possibilities become blurry and fade away into the background.

When we get stuck in this mindset, we lose out on a lot of opportunities to get that need met through different goals. Too prematurely we equate success with one particular thing. Our lens is too constricted to open ourselves up to other alternatives and get a clear picture of the context.

We tend to underestimate the intangible forces that are really driving the need to accomplish our goal. This is why in a quantum method we spend a lot of time on that unseen component that is driving our fixation toward that goal. We like to look at the cognitive dimension, the social dimension, and the emotional, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Once you get clarity on the unseen needs, the goal itself becomes crystal clear. It also becomes more flexible once you understand what is driving that need.

This is the difference between “the artful deal” and “the art of manipulating a deal.” With “the art of manipulating a deal” you try to get people to relax so that you can impose your power upon them. It's about weakening the other, or reducing the vigilance of the other, so that you can build your surprise attack. It's a leveling technique, a way of opening up all of those human channels. This mindset assumes we need to show up as cunning. It's not about being a real, three‐dimensional person; it's about being on guard and projecting a ferocious side of myself that is not who I am or who I ever want to be. A true manipulator working “the art of manipulating a deal” actually uses fear and closes the aperture, leaving others with very few ways to move because fear is being used against them.

In contrast, a Quantum Leader seeking “the artful deal” knows that fear exists and fear is in most negotiations. They open the aperture and facilitate a sense of safety in the context of this fear, and find that their power to influence is actually expanded as a result. They have created an artful setting for this kind of relationship.

We require psychological safety to be at our most motivated, engaged, and committed. It is from this state that the most innovative, value‐creating solutions arise. However, the implicit, unconscious message around negotiation is that it's not psychologically safe. It's for this very reason that many people turn to manipulative tactics to inoculate themselves against feeling unsafe.

A Quantum Negotiator uses a different set of tactics that are not meant to coerce, but to build trust and psychological safety. Rather than aggressively asserting power, a Quantum Negotiator will spend time in the preliminary phase creating a positive relationship, encouraging curiosity, and jointly setting the agenda. We prefer to call these behavioral guidelines. Once you have practiced them enough, they become natural to who you are and are simply the way you show up.

***

Negotiation as a Battle

The conventional perspective of negotiation as a battle has its roots in a world with much more scarcity and much less possibility than today.

When Sun‐Tzu developed The Art of War in the fourth century BC, and Niccolo Machiavelli produced his laws of power in the sixteenth century, entire nations or empires were ruled by one single king or emperor. In order to maintain control, these tyrants drew more power and attention to themselves by showing a tough physical presence. They played political games with their courtiers, using time‐consuming maneuvers so as to appear threatening. They starved others of their attention so that they would crave even small concessions.

Of course, there are “tyrants” today with their small fiefdoms of centralized power who monopolize political and economic capital and intimidate others with destructive tactics. But this is rare today. With twenty‐first‐century social change and increasing access to political and economic expertise, the nature of power has changed significantly. We as negotiators now can engage others and benefit from a democratization of access and collaboration. Gaming others into traps is not very effective in leadership when colleagues, team members, or vendors have more access than ever to getting what they need—not only in terms of products and services, but also in satisfying customer and team relationships.

Most of us are not courtiers, military officers, or political ministers who fiercely compete for access to very limited elite economic, political, and social positions. The competition for power for us is not a vicious battle of all‐or‐nothing wins and losses. It was this way in the past, when the classic laws of power were designed. Power centers and sources were autocratic, highly controlled, and deadly competitive. The world today is much different.

In today's environment we need to develop relationships and wins with others to get what we want. Preparation does not mean mastery of a Machiavellian artifice to establish a powerful presence. Tactics such as “tough guy,” “hide‐and‐seek,” or “tricky games” often alienate others who want to be treated with respect and collaboration. There are more negotiators today who are changing the basic rules about how to develop a strong presence as a negotiator. Today, new rules and methods to establish a strong negotiation presence are from the world of sustainable high performance and human potential.

Most of us don't really have the time or capacity to learn the classic tricks even if they were successful. But when we are not prepared, we often default to the old classic notion that there are scarce resources and that if we don't win, we will lose. This creates a sense of powerlessness, frustration, and even despair. Eventually it will lead to physical and emotional burnout. That's the bad news—it's easy to default to classic tactics even though they get us nowhere.

The good news is that there are many examples of successful Quantum Negotiators who thrive in situations of uncertainty and limited resources even when the odds might be against them. The key is that those who do well as Quantum Negotiators make a conscious choice to understand their own anchors for buoyant performance under stress. This is much like the anchor to the sea floor for a buoyant ship. They develop disciplines around anchoring an optimistic mindset, physical stewardship, energy recovery, and emotional, social, and spiritual awareness about their own and others' needs. This supports a better understanding about what they and others want in a negotiation. It also provides insight about how to behave collaboratively with others to get what they need. Even those who have felt a lack of emotional and physical energy, who may have been debilitated by cynicism, apathy, or irritability, make the choice to establish habits of high performance to change their own outlook and presence.

Quantum Negotiators enhance their ability to understand and engage with others with an optimistic mindset. They are also aware that in some cases there are structural neurological or physical injuries that colleagues, family, or friends may experience. Quantum Leaders are mindful that someone may be in constant pain or distress in social interactions.

Depleted emotions and physical strength can impair one's ability to understand how many needs there are in negotiation. Quantum Negotiators prepare for healthy reflection, physical resilience, and stamina to explore what they need. They also offer attention to what others need to accomplish in a negotiation. Quantum Negotiators know that negotiation takes significant physical and emotional energy to understand others and to style‐shift if needed.

Quantum Negotiators think of the ways that their mental clarity, performance, and physical presence are often drained. They also rest so that they can anchor themselves to be buoyant enough to get what they need—for example, if their brains are fatigued or lack oxygen or hydration, they will take a break and recharge. They are aware of how they become too impatient or irritable when thinking about others under stress.

The results of not exploring a counterpart can often lead to no results—unless you just get lucky. Joseph Duveen, a 1920s art dealer, is a great example of someone who was impatient to explore what his counterpart wanted in an upcoming negotiation. All Duveen heard was that his client, Henry Ford, was planning to purchase the “world's greatest art collection.” Duveen had not discovered that Ford, although quite wealthy, had very modest tastes. In the end, Ford did not want to buy any of Duveen's superior paintings, but was thrilled with the colorful booklet of art reproductions Duveen brought to the negotiation. Duveen ultimately gave Ford the art book, and walked away from the negotiation empty‐handed. Without understanding what his counterpart wanted or why he wanted it, this negotiator did not get what he needed.

Leverage—Necessary to Getting What You Want

Having leverage is an essential requirement for getting what you want when negotiating with others. The word “leverage” was originally used as a noun to indicate positional advantage over others in a negotiation. Quantum Leaders, however, think of leverage as a verb—to lift up or engage untapped, invisible mental, social, psychological, and spiritual resources. They understand leverage not as “power over” others but as “power with” others.

The root of the word is lever. A lever is used to elevate something by utilizing a very simple machine idea with a focal point or fulcrum that can be used to lift or move a load or weight. Even when Quantum Negotiators have thought they may be weak or vulnerable in a negotiation, they have been able to elevate themselves out of a powerless situation through Quantum preparation.

In that sense leverage is a tool to transform limited time and resources. In short, leverage can be understood by evaluating how much each party in a negotiation needs or wants from an agreement. More specifically, it is about how relative the needs are between the parties and what the consequences are if an agreement is not reached.

In negotiation, leverage is a measure of which party, at any given moment, needs the other party relatively more. Picture two graduate students in a negotiation—Jose, who is selling his car, and Ricardo, who is looking to buy one. Jose can have positive leverage if Ricardo tells him, “I want to buy your car—I love the color.” Jose can have negative leverage if Ricardo threatens Jose by saying, “If you don't give me a discount like you promised, I will ruin your reputation.”

The amount of buyer leverage relative to the bargaining power and leverage of the seller depends on the perception, information, and insights that the seller and buyer have about the relative scarcity or abundance of the product from the perspective of the other. The relative leverage of either Ricardo as a buyer or Jose as a seller determines the price and terms of transactions and the nature of their negotiation relationships. Business procurement negotiators, for example, use their past purchase histories to get better deals from sellers.

Positive and negative leverage can be balanced using third‐party standards and norms to support the value of the buyer or seller. For example, in the car sale, the parties can use a Blue Book value to define or maximize their negotiation leverage.

Leverage for Quantum Negotiators relates to how relatively easy it is for each of the negotiators to walk away. If it is easier for Ricardo to find another car than it is for Jose to find another buyer, Ricardo has stronger leverage. In the end leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or, better yet, needs. Or, best of all, simply cannot do without.

In the Quantum Negotiation mindset, leverage creates more resources and opportunities. Quantum Negotiators evaluate their own and a counterpart's initial leverage by researching how relative the needs and wants are between them, as well as by researching the drivers of decisions. A disciplined evaluation of leverage goes beyond research about what the parties want and need but also how much they want and need it. This information is difficult to assess and is often reluctantly shared; however, the earlier that Quantum Negotiators find out the “how much,” the less likely their counterpart will be able to misdirect them about it later.

Leverage is only strong or weak in comparison to the interdependence of needs. In leverage terms, a Quantum Negotiator's needs and wants do not mean much independently. They only gain relevance when analyzed relative to the others parties' needs and wants. For example, if Ricardo as the buyer has limited time relative to Jose, the seller, Jose has positive leverage. Ricardo may state he is desperate to buy because of a limited time frame, even though Jose does not state that he also needs to sell quickly. Relative leverage shifts in the favor of Jose based on the perceptions disclosed in the negotiation. If Ricardo really wants the car, and does not know that Jose is also in a hurry, then Jose has stronger leverage. The perception of the negotiators' needs, not their “true” level of desperation, has an impact on the negotiation.

In addition to the parties' relative levels of need, Quantum Negotiation leverage also depends on what will happen to each party if they cannot reach an agreement. A strong Plan B or BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) increases leverage. A weak Plan B means weaker leverage. This leverage is also a relative term. Ricardo's leverage is dependent on other attractive cars to purchase in relation to Jose's potential credible buyers for the car. If both Ricardo and Jose have limited options, they have balanced leverage between them.

Leverage is not always a function of rationality. The factors of trust, respect, “liking,” gut feeling, affinity, and so on can play an important role here as well. If you can speak to what is important to the other party and create a sense of “I see you beyond your surface manifestation,” you are creating leverage. When people feel seen and understood more deeply, you're setting in motion a gravitational force.

In many ways the tradition in negotiation is to think of a leverage equation. In a linear, Newtonian world you have a finite resource, let's say 100, so it could be split 80/20 or 50/50, but in a quantum definition, there are infinite possibilities of how much leverage and opportunities there are in a negotiation.

Losing the Ability to Influence What We WANT

Eight years ago, Geetha took a director position at a software company with flexible working hours. She could determine her own work schedule and meeting times within a small, energized global organization. The office atmosphere was casual, hours were determined by clients' situations, and calls were often arranged within days or hours of requests. She loved her job and was rewarded as a valued, inclusive leader.

However, after Geetha received her promotion, her company was acquired by an ambitious “digital 2.0” company hoping to make the exponential leap all the way to a “digital 4.0” one. She was retained while many of her colleagues were laid off. Despite the disappointment of losing some of her best employees, she was excited to influence the direction of the new expanding enterprise.

Within a few months, Geetha became extremely tired and even depressed about her ability to engage with her new colleagues. Geetha became very anxious about having to bend her family life and clients' odd working hours around a new standard workweek rule. She was aware that her leadership influence and visibility would require working within the standardized rules, regulations, and policies. Geetha knew the transformation would be difficult, but she didn't think it would affect her so dramatically.

In a Quantum Negotiation coaching session, Geetha explored why she lost her ability to influence what she wanted from her previous management or her new one. For most of her career, Geetha had been an energized and capable negotiator, problem solver, and facilitator. She was surprised to find that she had become very aggressive, short‐tempered, and controlling whenever she met with her team or clients. She wasn't getting anything done, and she felt harsh resistance from others as she tried to push an agenda. It was exhausting.

Upon review of her Quantum Negotiation Profile she discovered that she had an unconscious prejudice about rules in general. She valued loyalty to her family and social network, and above all, loose rules about work time. Upon reflection, she realized that all her adult life she had been rewarded for her flexibility and creativity to work around the rules in both her career and family life. This was no longer rewarded, and thus she had become unanchored and adrift.

As part of her coaching session homework, she became more observant of the value her new colleagues placed on universal rules and procedures because this created a sense of fairness and consistency. Upon exploring the mindset of her new partners, she came to appreciate how they prided themselves on impartial laws, principles, and equal rights as their brand image. She began to see how her preference for favoritism and freewheeling rules was inefficient for a growing enterprise with new opportunities. She also realized that her lack of consistency about her work schedule was more time‐consuming than it needed to be.

With Geetha's new appreciation for the value of standard rules and rights, she could understand why she was losing her leadership edge. With this new motivation, she realized that she was behaving in a disrespectful and obstructionist way. Rather than complain and debate the way she wanted things to be, she practiced speaking more optimistically about the benefits of the standard policies announced each day. Another part of Geetha's coaching homework was to organize a more standardized time frame to speak with clients, for example. With practice, and by expressing optimism with colleagues and clients, she became more comfortable and engaged in the expanding global initiatives.

Now, Geetha loves her new job as the vice president of global operations despite the disruption in her career path posed by the acquisition. Her leadership and personal development required not only that she add more skills, but also that she “let go” of or unlearn habits and assumptions that had been successful in the past.

Geetha noticed WHAT she wanted was more important than sticking with her habitual way of getting it. She learned to style‐shift and plan for how she could encourage others to help her reach all her goals.

Analyze Fair and Objective Criteria

Quantum Negotiation continues to explore what the parties want in a negotiation by focusing on how to use mutually relevant criteria, rather than a battle of wills, to increase their power in a negotiation. This framework also addresses how the practices of independent, fair, and objective standards can be used to change the interaction from a coercive negotiation to one of understanding and problem solving. The preparation for this problem‐solving approach involves research on which fair standards can be used in the negotiation in place of manipulation tactics.

Quantum Negotiation builds on the notion that negotiation is a process of communication in which the parties aim to influence each other's perceptions, attitudes, and even intentions. Quantum Negotiation increases the negotiator's ability to encourage a counterpart to cooperate in problem solving.

It is critical to analyze fair and unbiased criteria of standards and procedures that can drive an objective and independent process for negotiation. When Quantum Leaders and their counterparts can yield to a market or industry precedent, a professional standard, a third‐party opinion, a traditional procedure, or an efficiency standard, the negotiation can be a problem‐solving experience rather than a contest of wills. If both sides can agree on an independent standard rule, for example, or a process that is fair and satisfying, it is more likely that the conclusion will be a sustainable outcome. If not, reaching agreement is likely to be far more difficult and contentious.