Negotiation Strategies May 29, 2025
Never Split the Difference: What it Means in NegotiationsSplitting the difference may sound like a fair way to resolve negotiations, but it often undermines real value. While meeting in the middle provides quick closure, it risks rewarding extreme offers, oversimplifying complex issues, and leaving both sides dissatisfied. This article explores what “split the difference” means, why experienced negotiators warn against it, and when it might be appropriate in low-stakes settings. Drawing on Dr. Chester L. Karrass’s teachings, it emphasizes that negotiation is about value creation, not shortcuts, and why professionals often advise to “never split the difference.”
Splitting the difference is a phrase we hear often, not just in business, but in everyday life. It sounds practical and fair—why not just meet in the middle and move on? But in negotiation, the decision to split the difference can carry consequences that go far beyond equality. In many cases, what’s equal is not necessarily what’s equitable.
At first glance, splitting the difference in negotiation appears to be a fast and painless solution. It feels collaborative, avoids conflict, and gives the impression of compromise. But seasoned negotiators know that this strategy often glosses over important details and ignores power dynamics. It can lead to suboptimal agreements, missed value, and lingering dissatisfaction for both parties.
This post explores the meaning of splitting the difference in negotiation, and why professionals often advise you to “never split the difference.” We’ll break down when it might be appropriate, when it backfires, and how to handle the urge to rush toward compromise.
This week I received an email from a client who frequently hosts KARRASS In-House seminars for their employees. They asked me to elaborate on what happens when, in the negotiation process, you agree to “split the difference” to finalize an agreement.
This is an interesting negotiating topic. My research shows that “splitting the difference” can provide a simple, quick way to reach agreement. Many people use this approach all the time. After all, people are used to giving and getting equal shares at home, at restaurants, and at birthday parties. Splitting in the middle is simple. Not splitting in the middle is full of problems. It brings up a tough question: “If not in the middle, where else?”
Think about it. When someone offers to split the difference, haven’t they just offered you half the difference as a concession? Rather than saying “OK,” your next thought should be: “How much of the remaining difference do I need?”
In professional negotiations “splitting the difference” can be a mistake. This is true if you are negotiating prices, hours a job will take, development costs, determining which department does what, scope-of-work issues, skill levels of people required to work on a project, ownership of intellectual property or software code, and a multitude of other negotiating situations.
Things that are equal may not necessarily be equitable. Splitting the difference is certainly equal, but it may not be equitable or fair. And, it may end up leaving both parties to the negotiation unsatisfied.
I know buyers who use the split approach. They make a low starting offer, raise it only slightly, and then say, “Okay, let’s split the difference.” These buyers know it’s hard for a salesperson to say no to such a reasonable request. The salesperson gets sucked into the split and then discovers they give away too much. If a buyer suggests a spilt, sellers should respond, “I can’t afford to.” Then provide more information to justify why a simple split is not equitable and use this as an opportunity to explore other options.
What about the buyer? What happens in the buyer’s mind when a salesperson quickly says, “OK you’ve got a deal,” to a request to split the difference? The buyer suddenly realizes they could have done better. It was too simple. They should have asked for more.
My research proves that the best agreements come when both parties are satisfied. In this example, chances are both parties have lingering doubts about the agreement. Both think they could have done better. Neither is fully satisfied.
You have a better opportunity to reach a mutually satisfying agreement if you resist the urge to “spit the difference.” The first person to suggest a split immediately establishes a benchmark which the other person, even if they think the split is reasonable, should resist accepting. Take more time – remember the value of time and effort we discuss in the KARRASS negotiating seminars. Take the time to explore other options, other ways to look at the split, re-define what will be split up and what cannot be split up, see if there is a way to “expand the pie” before you start dividing up who gets what.
Your time and effort in this discussion may reveal options neither party had thought of before, and open a route to a truly “both-win” agreement. Even if you end up agreeing to the originally suggested split, this extra time and effort will help raise the satisfaction level of both parties. “We got the best agreement that was available.” That is what you are seeking.
In negotiation, fairness is often confused with symmetry. The idea that both sides should “meet in the middle” feels just and civilized, especially when tension is high or time is short. But splitting the difference doesn’t necessarily lead to a good deal—it often leads to a shallow one. A 50/50 split can overlook the actual value being exchanged, especially when the parties bring different priorities, resources, or levels of risk to the table.
Consider a situation where one side has a rigid budget while the other has flexible delivery terms. Meeting halfway on price might ignore the importance of timing, support, or future collaboration. The result is an agreement that looks balanced on paper but leaves real value untapped. In these cases, the focus should be on what each party truly needs—not just what seems “fair.”
True negotiation is about trading value, not slicing a number in half. When you move past the temptation to split, you give yourself the opportunity to uncover interests, generate creative solutions, and build deals that are resilient—not just efficient. Resist the superficial appeal of the midpoint and aim instead for outcomes that reflect the deeper needs of both sides.
Why do so many people instinctively want to split the difference? Part of the answer lies in human psychology. Negotiation can be uncomfortable. It requires patience, assertiveness, and sometimes confrontation. Suggesting a middle ground feels like an escape route—one that avoids friction and appears cooperative. In fact, research shows that people often prefer symmetrical outcomes even when they’re not optimal, simply because they seem easier to justify.
The midpoint also serves as a mental shortcut. In situations with incomplete information or fatigue, the brain gravitates toward easy calculations: “We’re $20,000 apart—let’s just meet at $10,000 and move on.” This logic appeals to our desire for closure and our bias toward compromise, even when the terms don’t favor us. The danger is that this mental shortcut can be exploited by more strategic players who anchor the conversation with extreme offers, knowing that the “split” will still leave them ahead.
To guard against these tendencies, negotiators must become aware of their own psychological impulses. Ask yourself: Am I suggesting a split because it’s the best solution—or because it’s the most comfortable one? Is the midpoint truly equitable, or is it just symmetrical? Awareness of these biases is the first step toward making smarter, more intentional choices in any split the difference negotiation.
To split the difference means to settle a negotiation by agreeing on a midpoint between two offers. While it appears fair, it can oversimplify complex issues and leave both parties dissatisfied if it doesn’t reflect actual value.
The phrase warns against rushing to meet in the middle. Splitting the difference may shortcut discussion, reward extreme offers, and sacrifice better solutions. It urges negotiators to focus on value, not symmetry.
Avoiding the split prevents rewarding inflated starting positions, protects deeper interests, and encourages creative problem-solving. Splitting for convenience can undermine fairness and leave value on the table.
It can be acceptable in low-stakes negotiations where both sides are close, time is limited, and the issues are simple. Even then, it should be approached carefully and confirmed as equitable.
Experienced negotiators prepare alternatives, ask questions, and seek creative solutions. They use time, information, and concessions to expand the pie, reserving splits only as a last resort.
More than 1.5 million people have trained with KARRASS over the last 55 years. Effective Negotiating® is designed to work for all job titles and job descriptions, for the world's largest companies and individual businesspeople.
Effective Negotiating® is offered In-Person in a city near you, or Live-Online from our Virtual Studios to your computer. See the complete schedule here.
EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATING II® LIVE ONLINE
RELATED ARTICLES
Have questions or need assistance? Reach out to our team