Anchor High, Never Split the Difference
Find the ceiling; a reflexive split leaves six figures on the table
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 3
- Confidence
- 92%
A framework for the number-setting moment: anchor egregiously high because counterparts instinctively split the difference, and never reflexively split back. When an unfavorable change appears in paperwork, reverse it with a face-saving question rather than a compromise. Use it whenever concrete figures or terms are on the table.
Origin
Warwick cites Chris Voss ('never split the difference') and negotiation research from the 1970s showing egregiously high anchors won 75% more. He illustrates it with a Hollywood writer whose 'aggressive' attorneys countered a $700k offer with $1.3M and settled at $1M — proving they weren't aggressive enough and never found the ceiling.
Core principles
- 01The higher you anchor, the better you perform — egregious anchors won 75% more in studies
- 02Never split the difference reflexively; splitting is lazy negotiating
- 03You never found the ceiling if both sides moved the same amount
- 04Reverse an unfavorable term by asking 'was that a mistake?' rather than compromising
How to run it
- 1
Anchor egregiously high
When you must state a figure, aim far above 'reasonable.' Asking for $150k more sometimes gets you $70k; asking for $50k more gets you $15k.
Pro tip Frame it softly: 'I was kind of in the ballpark at this' so the high anchor doesn't read as belligerent.
Watch out If you already committed to a range earlier, re-anchoring is harder — tie it to expanded scope instead.
- 2
Refuse to split the difference
When they move halfway, don't automatically meet in the middle. A same-sized concession on both sides means neither side found the ceiling.
Pro tip Ask 'if you were in my shoes, what else would you explore?' to keep pushing when talks stall.
Watch out Reflexive splitting can cost tens of thousands or more.
- 3
Reverse bad terms with 'was that a mistake?'
When paperwork silently downgrades an agreed term, don't offer a compromise — simply ask whether it was a mistake, giving them a face-saving exit to fix it.
Pro tip This assumes good faith and lets them correct without losing face, recovering the full amount.
In the wild
A studio offered a writer $700k; his 'most aggressive attorneys in LA' countered $1.3M and settled at $1M. The studio came up $300k and the attorneys came down $300k — a perfect split.
→ Warwick's verdict: they never found the ceiling. Had they anchored at $1.5M or $1.7M, the deal might have landed at $1.1M or $1.2M.
A CRO agreed to six months of on-target earnings ($700k OTE) as severance, but paperwork came back saying six months of base salary only (~$187.5k). Instead of splitting the ~$90k gap, he asked 'we discussed on-target earnings — was that a mistake?' The CEO said yes and told the attorneys to fix it.
→ He recovered the full amount and later collected $350,000 over six months when fired, instead of losing ~$90k to a reflexive split.
Common mistakes
Anchoring 'reasonably'
Research shows reasonable anchors leave far more on the table than egregious ones; you get a fraction of what you ask for, so ask for more.
Splitting the difference on a bad-faith change
Offering to meet halfway on a silently downgraded term legitimizes the downgrade; 'was that a mistake?' recovers the whole thing.
Is it for you?
Best for
Negotiators at the concrete-figures stage, especially reviewing offer paperwork or severance terms
Not ideal for
Very senior candidates who should avoid re-anchoring with any number at all, and relationship contexts where hard anchoring backfires
From the transcript
“the studio came up 300,000 and the attorneys lost 300,000.”
“That was lazy negotiating.”
“I said instead, simply ask, was that a mistake?”
“75% more than those who just try to be reasonable.”
From the episode
The tactical playbook for getting 20-40% more comp (without sounding greedy)
Jacob Warwick (Executive Negotiator)