You will rehearse making and countering first offers until the words come easily.
Reading about first offers is easy. Saying "I'd propose S$6,400" to another human being, and then keeping quiet, is not. The words catch, the voice rises at the end like a question, and an apology sneaks in before you can stop it.
The fix is practice, out loud, with someone pushing back. This exercise sets up three short role-plays you can run with a friend, a partner or a colleague in about 25 minutes. All the figures in the scenarios are examples, chosen so the exercise works.
Find a partner and a quiet space, or a video call. Decide who plays which side first. You'll each need a phone or a notebook to jot down lines that worked.
Each scenario takes about three minutes. One person, 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 other person, the responder, reacts the way a real counterpart might: with a question, a counter or a pause. Stop after three minutes, even if there's no deal. The aim is to practise the opening exchange, not to finish the negotiation.
Read the scenario aloud before you start, so you're both working from the same facts.
The salary offer. The opener is a candidate who has just received an offer of S$5,400 a month for an operations analyst role. Their research shows similar listings ranging from S$5,000 to S$6,300, and they have a specific skill the role asked for. Their target is S$6,000. The responder is the recruiter, who has some room but has been told to keep costs down.
The rental renewal. The opener is a tenant whose rent is S$2,600 and whose landlord has asked for 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 is the landlord, who would like more but doesn't want an empty unit.
The freelance quote. The opener is a freelance designer quoting for a company's annual report. Their usual fee for a job of this size is about S$4,500, and the client has mentioned a tight deadline. The responder is the client's marketing manager, who has a budget she won't reveal.
Run all three with one person as opener. Then swap and run them again, so each of you opens all three.
Now reverse the pressure. Run each scenario once more, but this time the responder opens first, with a number that's deliberately extreme. The recruiter offers S$4,600. The landlord asks for S$3,300. The client says the budget is S$1,800.
The other person practises what lesson 4.4, When they open with an extreme number, taught: name the number calmly as outside what the market data shows, return to the criteria, and re-anchor with their own figure and reason. No counter-offer from the middle, and no outrage.
For example, in the rental scenario the tenant might say: "S$3,300 is well above the listings I've seen, which run from S$2,550 to S$2,750 for similar units. I'd propose renewing at S$2,600 on a two-year lease." Then they stop talking.
Swap roles and run the extreme version again.
After each round, take thirty seconds to note what made the opening sound credible or arbitrary. You'll usually find the same few things matter:
A reason given in the same sentence as the number A source the other person could check, such as listings or published ranges A steady voice that doesn't rise at the end Silence after the number, with no apology or second explanation A number inside the range the evidence supports
Arbitrary openings usually miss one of these. A number with no reason sounds like a guess. A reason that comes after a pause sounds like a defence. A number far outside the evidence sounds like either inexperience or a trick.
Ask your partner which of your openings they found hardest to argue with, and why. Their answer is often different from what you'd expect, because the one that felt most confident to you may have sounded rushed from the other side.
You've 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. If one scenario went badly, run it again before you stop. The aim is to make the words familiar, so that the real conversation isn't the first time you've said them.
The activity asks you to record the single opening line, from all your rounds, that sounded the most credible.
Run the three scenarios in 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).