Make and counter first offers smoothly, after enough rehearsal that the words come easily.
Picture someone who has decided to ask for S$6,400 a month and has the reason ready. When they say it to the other person, the words catch, their voice rises at the end like a question, and an apology slips in.
Reading about first offers is easy. Saying one aloud to another person and then staying quiet is hard. You get better by practising out loud with someone who pushes back. The exercise below has three short role-plays to run with a friend, partner or colleague, and it takes about 25 minutes in total. The aim is that the real conversation is not the first time you have said the words.
You need a partner and a quiet space, or a video call. Before you begin, decide which of you plays which side first, and make sure each of you has a phone or notebook to note lines that worked.
There are two roles. The opener makes an ambitious first offer with a reason, using the approach from Lesson 4.3, "Open with an ambitious number and a reason". The responder reacts the way a real counterpart might, with a question, a counter or a pause.
Read each scenario aloud before you start it, so you are both working from the same facts. Each one runs for about three minutes, and you stop at three minutes even if there is no deal, because you are practising the opening exchange and don't need to finish the negotiation. Run all three scenarios with one person as opener, then swap so that each of you opens all three.
In the salary scenario, the opener is a candidate who has just been offered S$5,400 a month for an operations analyst role (all figures in these scenarios are invented, chosen so the exercise works). Their research shows similar listings at S$5,000 to S$6,300, they have a specific skill the role asked for, and their target is S$6,000. The responder plays the recruiter, who has some room but has been told to keep costs down.
In the rental scenario, the opener is a tenant paying S$2,600 whose landlord wants S$2,900. Similar units nearby list at S$2,550 to S$2,750. The tenant wants to stay and has a clean payment record. The responder plays the landlord, who wants more money but does not want an empty unit.
In the freelance scenario, the opener is a freelance designer quoting for a company's annual report. Their usual fee for a job this size is about S$4,500, and the client has mentioned a tight deadline. The responder plays the client's marketing manager, who has a budget she will not reveal.
Once you have both opened all three scenarios, run each one again with the responder going first, using a deliberately extreme opening number. This is an extreme anchor. In the salary scenario the recruiter offers S$4,600, in the rental scenario the landlord asks for S$3,300, and in the freelance scenario the client says the budget is S$1,800.
The other person responds using the method from Lesson 4.4, "When they open with an extreme number". Calmly name the number as outside what the market data shows, go back to the criteria, and re-anchor with your own figure and reason. Do not make a counter-offer from the middle or show outrage, and once you have given your own figure and reason, stop talking.
In the rental scenario, for example, the tenant might say that S$3,300 is well above the listings of S$2,550 to S$2,750 for similar units nearby, propose renewing at S$2,600 on a two-year lease, and then say nothing more.
When you have done all three, swap roles and run the extreme version again, so that each of you responds to all three extreme anchors.
After each round, spend thirty seconds noting what made the opening sound credible or arbitrary. Five things usually make an opening credible:
a reason in the same sentence as the number a source the other person could check, such as listings or published ranges a steady voice that does not rise at the end silence after the number, with no apology or second explanation a number inside the range the evidence supports
An opening that sounds arbitrary usually misses one of these. A number with no reason sounds like a guess, a reason that comes after a pause sounds like a defence, and a number far outside the evidence sounds like either inexperience or a trick.
When you have finished the rounds, ask your partner which of your openings was hardest to argue with, and why. Their answer is often different from what you expect, because the opening that felt most confident to you may have sounded rushed to them. If one scenario went badly, run it again before you stop.
You are finished when each of you has opened all three scenarios once, responded to all three extreme anchors once, and written a short note on what worked. As your last step, look back over every round and write down the one opening line that sounded the most credible.
Run all three scenarios, playing both roles, and write down the opening line that sounded most credible.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).