Kellogg faculty put the negotiating advantage with the side that opens and waits

Medvec's advice and the eBay study answer different questions. One is about who sets the agenda before anything is on the table. The other is about how fast you reply once something is.

In the design Kellogg Insight describes, the buyer is the party who opens with an offer, and the seller accepts, declines, or counters ^[13]. So the side that profited from waiting was the initiator, and the side penalised for waiting was the one holding someone else's number ^[16].

The two halves do not rest on the same evidence. Waisman, an economist and associate professor of marketing, worked with Jessica Fong of the University of Michigan across millions of one-on-one negotiations ^[12]. The first-move claim is given as what research has shown, and the article does not name a study or report how large either effect is ^[1][17].

Medvec's example of leading is a list. A person considered to head a major initiative asks that their title be upgraded to vice president so they have enough credibility, and opens the discussion of the project timeline, the key success metrics, and a salary consistent with the vice-president role ^[5]. "When you can lead, you want to lead; you will gain an advantage by creating the starting point, putting the right issues on the table, and being the one who frames the rationale," Medvec writes ^[6].

On the size of the effect, a used-goods marketplace has little to tell a promotion conversation. An eBay exchange turns on one number ^[13]. Medvec's example puts four issues in play at once ^[18]. The responder's position is the part that carries over. Medvec says the responder is in a relationship-damaging position because they will likely need to critique or adjust the initiator's first offer ^[4].

Thomas Lys, a professor emeritus of accounting information and management, locates the failure earlier than the first offer. "One mistake people make is that when they analyze a situation, they only analyze the situation from their own perspective," he says ^[9]. He calls the sense that we already know the issues, what our counterpart wants, and how the process will go confirmation bias ^[8]. "You shouldn't think of a negotiation as a zero-sum game," he says ^[11].

Inside a company, the line Medvec draws is easy to locate. Once the employer has expressed interest and wants to discuss what it will take, "you would absolutely want to speak first," she writes ^[3]. The manager controls when that moment arrives, and the candidate who waits to be asked for a number has not named their own terms first.