Use differences to trade smart instead of splitting the difference
People assume differences cause fights, then try to erase them by splitting the difference. The better move is to use differences to create value. If you care more about speed and they care more about certainty, you can design a plan that gives you speed where it matters and gives them certainty where it matters. If you like risk and they don’t, you can trade risk for revenue with contingent terms that adjust as reality unfolds.
Consider scheduling and fees. A consultant wants payment tied to results; the client wants a predictable budget. They design a fee with a modest base plus a clearly defined success bonus. Another example: licensing a product where the manufacturer fears a big upfront fee but is happy to pay more once sales climb. Tie higher rates to revenue above a threshold; low rates while risk is high. Now both have reasons to cheer success.
A micro‑anecdote: two roommates divided chores miserably until they listed what they hated least. One liked cooking but loathed dishes; the other didn’t mind dishes and liked vacuuming. They traded, then set a rule that if one was traveling, the other could bank credits instead of arguing.
The underlying mechanics: ask for preferences to expose the shape of value, not just whether an option is acceptable. Use contingent contracts to align incentives across different forecasts and risk appetites. Price protection and upside explicitly so neither side feels tricked. This is how you dovetail—by letting differences do the work rather than forcing sameness that satisfies no one.
List where your values, timing, and risk appetites truly differ. Offer two or three packages you’d accept and ask which they prefer to expose where dovetailing is possible. Then suggest contingent terms that trade risk for upside or speed for certainty, and write clear formulas so both sides see the fairness. Use differences to build a bigger pie instead of slicing the current one thinner. Try this on your next deal with uneven priorities.
What You'll Achieve
Internally, you’ll shift from zero‑sum thinking to creative trade design. Externally, you’ll craft deals with better incentives, less friction, and higher satisfaction for both sides.
Trade low‑cost high‑value differences
Audit where you differ
List differences in what each side values: time vs money, risk tolerance, cash now vs later, prestige vs convenience, certainty vs variability.
Design contingent deals
Tie parts of the agreement to outcomes: bonuses if metrics are hit, higher payments after cost recovery, opt‑outs if targets miss. This trades risk for potential upside.
Ask for preferences, not acceptability
Offer two or three options you like and ask which they prefer. Preferences reveal where you can dovetail, acceptability hides that information.
Price protection fairly
If one side shoulders more risk, make sure the upside or fees reflect that burden, using clear formulas so it feels just.
Reflection Questions
- Where do our forecasts or risk tolerances differ the most?
- Which two options could I offer to learn their true preferences?
- How can I tie payments or roles to outcomes we both care about?
- What’s a fair way to price the extra risk someone carries?
Personalization Tips
- Sports: A veteran accepts lower base pay with big playoff bonuses, trading risk for upside the owner can stomach.
- Startup: A contractor takes equity for part of a fee, with a clawback clause if milestones slip.
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
Ready to Take Action?
Get the Mentorist app and turn insights like these into daily habits.