All courses > Business administration > Entrepreneurship ::

Negotiation Skills for Entrepreneurs: Mindset, Goals, and Common Deal Scenarios

Capítulo 1

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

What negotiation looks like in day-to-day entrepreneurship

Negotiation is the process of aligning decisions when two (or more) parties have different preferences, constraints, or risk tolerance. For entrepreneurs, it shows up constantly: agreeing on a client’s quote and delivery plan, renewing a vendor contract, splitting responsibilities with a partner, or resetting timelines when something changes.

In practice, you are negotiating more than price. You are negotiating scope (what is included), terms (how risk and cash flow are managed), and timing (when work happens and what happens if it slips). Many “price objections” are actually scope or timing problems in disguise.

What success looks like beyond “winning”

Clarity: both sides can restate the deal the same way (deliverables, dates, payment, responsibilities).
Durability: the agreement still works when reality changes (clear change process, escalation path, and assumptions).
Value capture: you protect margin, time, and focus—not just revenue.
Relationship health: you reduce future friction (fewer surprises, fewer renegotiations, fewer “gotchas”).
Decision efficiency: you shorten cycles by speaking to the right decision makers and addressing the real constraints.

Step 1: Identify the type of negotiation (price, scope, terms, timing)

Start by labeling the negotiation type(s). Most deals involve multiple types at once; naming them prevents you from trading away something valuable unintentionally.

Type	What’s being decided	Common entrepreneur mistake	Useful questions
Price	Rate, total fee, discount, unit economics	Discounting without changing scope or terms	“What budget range are you working within?” “What would make this feel worth it?”
Scope	Deliverables, features, service levels, responsibilities	Agreeing to vague scope (“we’ll figure it out”) and absorbing extra work	“What must be true for you to call this successful?” “What is explicitly out of scope?”
Terms	Payment schedule, cancellation, liability, IP, support, renewal	Accepting terms that create cash-flow or risk exposure	“What risks are you trying to reduce?” “What approval or compliance rules do you have?”
Timing	Start date, deadlines, milestones, response times	Committing to timelines without confirming dependencies	“What drives the deadline?” “What inputs do you need to provide, and by when?”

Practical step-by-step: a fast “deal type” diagnosis

Write the headline ask in one sentence (e.g., “Client wants 20% off”).
Translate it into the likely underlying type(s): price request may hide scope uncertainty or timing pressure.
List the variables you can trade: price, scope, terms, timing, risk allocation, commitment length, volume.
Pick your primary lever: decide which variable you prefer to move first (often scope or terms before price).

Step 2: Map stakeholders and decision makers

Many negotiations stall because you’re negotiating with someone who can’t approve, or because an unseen stakeholder has veto power. Map the people involved and what each cares about.

Stakeholder map template

Role	Name/Team	What they care about	Power	What they need to say “yes”
Economic buyer	Budget owner	ROI, total cost, risk	High	Business case, pricing structure
User / operator	Day-to-day team	Ease, speed, support	Medium	Workflow fit, onboarding plan
Legal / compliance	Legal, security	Liability, data, IP	High (veto)	Contract language, security docs
Champion	Internal advocate	Personal win, credibility	Medium	Clear story, quick answers
Influencer	Finance, procurement	Process, benchmarks	Medium	Comparable pricing, terms

Practical step-by-step: stakeholder mapping in 10 minutes

Ask directly: “Who else needs to approve this?” and “What does your procurement/legal process look like?”
Identify veto points: legal, security, finance, partner board members.
Confirm decision criteria: “What are the top three factors you’ll use to decide?”
Plan your sequence: handle high-veto stakeholders early (e.g., security review) to avoid late surprises.

Step 3: Distinguish positions vs. interests

A position is what someone says they want (“We need a 15% discount”). An interest is why they want it (budget cap, fear of risk, need to show savings, uncertainty about scope). Negotiations become easier when you negotiate interests, not just positions.

Continue in our app.

Listen to the audio with the screen off.
Earn a certificate upon completion.
Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

How to uncover interests without sounding confrontational

Use “help me understand” questions: “Help me understand what’s driving the discount request—budget, timing, or something else?”
Offer multiple-choice probes: “Is this mainly about cash flow, total cost, or risk?”
Mirror and label: “It sounds like predictability matters more than the lowest price.”
Test assumptions: “If we could reduce risk with milestones, would price be less of an issue?”

Common position-to-interest translations

Position	Possible interests underneath	Potential trades (non-price first)
“Lower the price.”	Budget cap, need to show savings, uncertain value	Reduce scope, extend timeline, longer commitment, phased delivery
“We need it by Friday.”	External deadline, internal pressure, launch event	Rush fee, reduced scope, client provides inputs faster, staged release
“We can’t accept your terms.”	Compliance policy, risk aversion, prior bad experience	Mutual limitation of liability, narrower warranty, security addendum, milestone acceptance
“We want more features.”	Fear of missing requirements, stakeholder demands	Change-order process, backlog prioritization, paid add-ons, discovery phase

Step 4: Set measurable outcomes (target, acceptable range, walk-away)

Before you negotiate, define what you are trying to achieve in measurable terms. This prevents “in-the-moment” concessions that feel small but compound into margin loss, delivery stress, or risk exposure.

Define your three numbers (and a few non-numerical boundaries)

Target: the outcome you want (e.g., $12,000 project fee, 50% upfront, 4-week timeline).
Acceptable range: where you can still deliver profitably and reliably (e.g., $10,500–$12,000, 40–50% upfront, 4–6 weeks).
Walk-away: the point where the deal harms your business (e.g., below $10,500, net-60 payment, or timeline under 3 weeks without scope reduction).

Add boundaries that are not purely numeric:

Scope boundaries: what is explicitly excluded unless added via change order.
Risk boundaries: clauses you cannot accept (e.g., unlimited liability, broad IP assignment, unpaid overtime expectations).
Capacity boundaries: what your team can realistically deliver without harming existing clients.

Practical step-by-step: write a one-page negotiation brief

Deal: ____________________________  Date: ____________  Owner: ____________  Deal type(s): Price / Scope / Terms / Timing (circle)  Stakeholders: Economic buyer: __________  User: __________  Legal/Procurement: __________  Champion: __________  Their likely interests:  - __________________________________________  - __________________________________________  Our interests (ranked):  1) __________________________________________  2) __________________________________________  3) __________________________________________  Variables we can trade: Price / Scope / Terms / Timing / Risk / Commitment / Volume  Targets:  - Price: __________  - Terms: __________  - Timing: __________  - Scope: __________  Acceptable ranges:  - Price: __________ to __________  - Terms: __________ to __________  - Timing: __________ to __________  Walk-away triggers:  - __________________________________________  - __________________________________________  Proposed package offer (not single concession):  - __________________________________________

Scenario walk-through 1: Client quote (price + scope + timing)

Context: You run a small productized service studio. A client asks for a quote for a website redesign. After you send $12,000 with a 4-week timeline, they reply: “Can you do $9,000? Also we’d like it in 2 weeks.”

Apply the framework

Identify type: price + timing, likely scope hidden (they may not realize what 2 weeks implies).
Map stakeholders: who decides? If the requester is marketing, finance may be the budget owner; IT may influence timeline; legal may require contract changes.
Positions vs interests: position is “$9,000 and 2 weeks.” Interests might be a fixed budget and a launch date tied to an event.
Set outcomes: target $12,000 / 50% upfront / 4 weeks. Acceptable range maybe $10,500–$12,000 with scope adjustments. Walk-away below $10,500 or 2-week timeline without reduced scope and client-provided assets.

Step-by-step response (package, not concession)

Step 1: Clarify the driver. Ask: “What’s driving the 2-week deadline—an event date or internal dependency?” and “Is $9,000 a hard cap or a preference?”

Step 2: Re-anchor to scope and constraints. “A 2-week delivery changes how we staff and what can be included. If we keep the full scope, it becomes a rush project.”

Step 3: Offer 2–3 structured options.

Option A (target): $12,000, 4 weeks, includes full redesign + 8 pages + QA + launch support, 50% upfront, 50% on delivery.
Option B (budget-fit): $9,000, 4 weeks, reduced scope (template-based redesign, 5 pages, limited revisions), 50% upfront.
Option C (deadline-fit): $12,000 + rush fee (or $14,500 total), 2 weeks, reduced scope + client provides all copy/assets within 48 hours, daily approvals, limited revisions.

Step 4: Confirm decision makers and next step. “If we choose Option B or C, who needs to approve the scope change and payment schedule?”

What success looks like here: you avoid an unprofitable rush, you make trade-offs explicit, and you create a clear path to yes without “discounting into chaos.”

Scenario walk-through 2: Vendor renewal (terms + price + risk)

Context: Your company uses a SaaS tool that costs $2,000/month. Renewal is coming up. The vendor proposes a 12-month renewal with a 10% increase and auto-renewal terms. You’ve had occasional outages and want better support.

Apply the framework

Identify type: terms (support/SLA, auto-renew, cancellation), price, risk (outages).
Map stakeholders: your side: finance (budget), ops (impact of outages), legal (contract). Vendor side: account manager (influence), sales manager (discount authority), support leadership (SLA commitments).
Positions vs interests: vendor position: “10% increase, 12 months.” Their interest: revenue predictability. Your interest: reliability, cost control, and flexibility.
Set outcomes: target: flat price or small increase with improved SLA; acceptable range: up to +5% if SLA improves; walk-away: +10% with no SLA and strict auto-renew/cancellation penalties.

Step-by-step negotiation plan

Step 1: Document impact. Prepare 2–3 concrete examples of outages and business impact (missed deadlines, support response times).
Step 2: Ask for the right lever. Instead of only “lower price,” request a package: “We can commit to 12 months if we get an SLA and priority support.”
Step 3: Propose trade bundles.
- Bundle A (your target): 12-month term at current price, priority support, SLA credits for downtime, removal of auto-renew or 60-day opt-out.
- Bundle B (acceptable): +5% price, SLA + dedicated support channel, quarterly business review.
- Bundle C (flexibility): month-to-month at higher rate, but no auto-renew and faster support.
Step 4: Escalate to decision authority. If the account manager can’t change terms, ask: “Who can approve SLA language and renewal structure?”

What success looks like here: you trade commitment (value to them) for reliability and terms (value to you), rather than arguing only about the increase.

Scenario walk-through 3: Partnership split (scope of roles + terms + timing)

Context: Two co-founders are splitting responsibilities and equity after 6 months. One founder (A) built the product; the other (B) brought early customers and is running sales. They disagree on equity and decision rights.

Apply the framework

Identify type: terms (equity, vesting, decision rights), scope (roles and responsibilities), timing (when vesting starts, review points).
Map stakeholders: founders, possibly advisors, investors, and legal counsel. Note veto power: legal for documents; investors for governance expectations.
Positions vs interests: position: “I need 60%.” Interest: recognition of contribution, control, protection against future imbalance, fear of being pushed out.
Set outcomes: define target/acceptable/walk-away for: equity split, vesting schedule, role scope, decision-making process, and exit clauses.

Step-by-step: use a role-and-risk package instead of a single number

Step 1: List contributions and forward commitments separately. Past contribution (what’s already done) is different from future commitment (what will be done). Future commitment is where vesting helps.

Step 2: Define roles as measurable scope. Example: B owns revenue targets and pipeline; A owns product roadmap and delivery. Add weekly responsibilities and decision domains.

Step 3: Propose a package with equity + vesting + decision rights.

Package example: 50/50 equity with 4-year vesting and 1-year cliff; or 55/45 with performance-based additional vesting tied to revenue milestones.
Decision rights: define which decisions require unanimity (e.g., fundraising, selling the company) vs functional autonomy (product vs sales).
Risk controls: reverse vesting, buyback clauses, and clear IP assignment to the company.

Step 4: Set timing checkpoints. “We revisit roles and equity grants at 6 months based on agreed metrics (MRR, churn, product milestones).”

What success looks like here: the agreement reduces future renegotiations by making roles, incentives, and exit paths explicit—so the partnership can survive stress.

Quick reference: one framework, many deal scenarios

Use the same sequence regardless of whether you’re negotiating a quote, a renewal, or a partnership term sheet:

Type: price, scope, terms, timing (name them).
Stakeholders: who decides, who influences, who can veto.
Positions vs interests: translate demands into drivers.
Outcomes: target, acceptable range, walk-away (plus non-negotiable boundaries).
Packages: trade bundles of variables instead of making isolated concessions.

Now answer the exercise about the content:

A client asks for a lower price and a faster deadline. Which response best applies a negotiation approach that avoids isolated concessions?

You are right! Congratulations, now go to the next page

You missed! Try again.

Effective negotiation treats price requests as potentially hiding scope or timing issues. A strong response clarifies interests and proposes bundled options (price/scope/timing/terms) so trade-offs are explicit and margins and delivery risk are protected.