Split the Pie: A Radical New Way to Negotiate

by Barry J. Nalebuff

From a leading Yale expert and serial entrepreneur, a radical, principled, and field-tested approach that identifies what's really at stake in any negotiation and ensures you get your half--so you can focus on growing the pie.

Negotiations are incredibly stressful and can bring out the worst in people. Wouldn't it be better if there were a principled way to negotiate? Wouldn't it be even better if there were a way to treat people fairly and get treated fairly in a negotiation?

Split the Pie offers a new approach that does both--a field-tested method that reframes how negotiations play out. Barry Nalebuff, a professor at Yale School of Management, helps identify what's really at stake in a the "pie." The negotiation pie is the additional value created through an agreement to work together. Seeing the relevant pie will change how you think about fairness and power in negotiation. You'll learn how to get half the value you create, no matter your size.

Filled with examples and in-depth case studies, Split the Pie is a practical and theory-based approach to negotiation. You'll see how it helped reframe a high-stakes negotiation when Coca-Cola purchased Honest Tea, a company Barry cofounded with his former student Seth Goldman. The pie framework also works for everyday negotiations. You'll learn how to deploy logic to determine truly equitable solutions and employ empathy to expand the pie and sell your solution. Split the Pie allows both sides to focus their energy on making the biggest possible pie--to have your pie and eat it too.

Genres: Business, Nonfiction, Psychology, Self Help, Leadership, Communication, Economics

Paperback

First published March 8, 2022

About the author

BARRY NALEBUFF is the Milton Steinbach Professor at Yale School of Management, where he teaches negotiation, innovation, and strategy. He is the coauthor of Thinking Strategically, Co-opetition, Why Not?, and The Art of Strategy. A graduate of MIT, and a Rhodes Scholar, he earned his doctorate at Oxford University.

Reviews

[Danny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leave it to Barry Nalebuff to help us see and learn a new way of negotiating that benefits all sides. As the title suggests, it is radical, and like many breakthroughs it seems so obvious now that we see it. Barry's approach not only helps us split the pie more reasonably. Because it focuses on the incremental value that the negotiation will produce, it motivates us to build the pie before we split it. Barry's approach turns negotiation from what may feel like combat to joint problem solving.

[Aaron Ahuvia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This excellent book is built around a truly important insight. When in negotiations, identify the added value that will be created through the negotiations, and then split that added value (which is not the same thing as splitting to total cost of the transaction). It sounds abstract here, but the book makes it clear and shows how it can work to allow you to negotiate honestly and still get treated fairly.

[Adam Benforado · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book made me wish I’d gone to business school and had Professor Nalebuff as a professor. I picked up the advanced copy this morning thinking that I’d glance through a few pages with my coffee before turning to my work and got sucked into reading the whole thing. Every time I thought, oh, I should really put this down, Nalebuff was there with another compelling example, another critical insight. The experience was a bit like visiting Pepe’s in New Haven (see Chapter 1) planning to only have a couple bites and then, inevitably, eating an entire pizza.

What I loved about “Split the Pie” is that it made me realize that I’d been looking at something I thought I knew well the wrong way. It made me think back over the many negotiations I’d engaged in and see my missteps, but it has also fundamentally reoriented how I plan to conduct my affairs going forward. This book has lessons I am going to carry with me for the rest of my life.

[Donna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is Nonfiction/Business. I liked this one way more than I thought I would. All the info made me a little dizzy. Maybe I should have read the pages instead of doing the audio....but the audio was great.

I liked the way he defined the "pie" and how that pie is what all negotiators need to be concerned about. It isn't what most people would think of. I'm not a negotiator but I found this one entertaining and thought provoking. So 4 stars.

[Zoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

You'll never think of negotiations the same way again. Barry Nalebuff offers a unique, fascinating, fair, and helpful new approach. The main big idea is in the title (and the practice is more nuanced than it sounds), but there are tons of additional gems. I read widely on negotiations, and this book offers plenty that's new. For example, What If You're Being Used as a Pawn? And, What to Reveal and What to Keep Hidden. The people want to know! Nalebuff teaches negotiations at Yale and in a popular Coursera course, but unlike other academic authors writing about negotiations, he has been a party himself in some major complex deals. Like the sale of HonestTea, a company he founded with Seth Goldman, to Coca-Cola. You'll read about that in this book too. Highly recommend!!

[Beth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a great example of how real-world experience can lead to new ways to teach critical concepts! Barry presents important issues in easy-to-understand ways that can be useful for everyone from students to business owners. Highly recommend for anyone interested in negotiation! (Great companion to the classic Fisher & Ury book, "Getting to Yes".)

[Jung]

Split the Pie (2022) reveals a new approach to how everyone should be negotiating. While negotiations often bring out the worst in people, it doesn’t have to be this way. By employing the “pie” approach, you can enter into any negotiation with the confidence that you’ll end up with your fair share.

Barry Nalebuff is the Milton Steinbach Professor at the Yale School of Management, where he has taught for over thirty years. An expert on game theory, he has written extensively on its application to business strategy. His bestsellers include Thinking Strategically, The Art of Strategy, and Mission in a Bottle. This is his seventh book. He has advised the NBA in their negotiations with the Players Association and several firms in major M&A transactions. Nalebuff has been teaching the Split the Pie method to MBAs and executives at Yale and online at Coursera. His Introduction to Negotiation course has over 350,000 enrolled students and a 4.9/5.0 rating. He is also a serial entrepreneur; his ventures include Honest Tea, Kombrewcha, and Real Made Foods. A graduate of MIT, a Rhodes Scholar, and a Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, Nalebuff earned his doctorate at Oxford University.

---

Discover the most logical way to approach any negotiation.

Negotiating is something we all have to engage in throughout our lives. Most of the time, the stakes are low – for example, you’re at a flea market and trying to haggle down the price of an item of clothing. But sometimes the stakes are high – you’re negotiating a higher salary with your boss. Some people make their whole careers out of the art of negotiating. It’s their job to close down huge business deals, or even to negotiate ends to wars.

No matter what the stakes are, negotiations are often stressful. Engaging in them can bring out the worst in us. Sometimes we make unfairly low offers to drive down a price. And if we’re on the receiving end of such behavior, we’re likely to react negatively ourselves. So how can we protect ourselves from the stress and greed that’s so often associated with the act of negotiating? Are there any principles we can apply that can help avoid such situations – and still get our fair share?

Well, it turns out there is a powerful technique that you can start applying to all levels of negotiating in your life. The author calls it the “negotiation pie” approach. It dispels a lot of myths surrounding negotiating and guarantees that both parties will always walk away satisfied.

---

The negotiation pie approach is the best way to resolve any negotiation.

So, how does the negotiation pie approach work? Let’s strip things down to the basics. Meet Alice and Bob. They’re sitting at their favorite pizzeria when the waiter makes them an offer. If they can agree how to split a 12-slice pizza, the restaurant will give it to them for free. If they can’t agree, they’ll still get half a pizza, but unevenly split – Alice will get four slices, but Bob only two.

Alice and Bob need to come to an agreement on how to split the twelve slices. There are several ways they can go about it. One is called the power perspective and results in Alice getting eight slices, and Bob four. This reflects the ratio of their fallback option. After all, if they don’t reach a deal, Alice would receive twice as many slices as Bob. The result is meant to reflect Alice’s position of power in the negotiation.

Another approach is called the fairness perspective, where Alice and Bob simply split the pizza in half, with six slices each. Many people would see this as the fairest option.

Both the power and fairness perspectives don’t take into account a very important fact – the negotiation isn’t actually about the whole pizza. Without a deal, they end up with a total of six slices. With one, they get twelve. This means the negotiation is actually only over the six additional slices that a successful deal would result in. It’s these six additional slices that constitute what the author calls the negotiation pie. And when a negotiation starts from this principle, the rationales behind the fairness and power perspectives quickly vanish into thin air.

With the negotiation pie in mind, Alice and Bob realize that they are both equally needed in order to get the six additional slices. This means they have equal power after all. Sure, it seems that Bob is in a weaker position on the surface level. Keep in mind that if they don’t reach a deal, he gets fewer slices than Alice. But in reality, if they don’t reach a deal, Alice and Bob both end up with fewer slices. In other words, they both lose. In order for them to both get more slices, they need each other equally.

Looking at it this way, Alice and Bob have an equal amount of power. And this equal amount of power needs to be reflected in an equal split of the six slices of the negotiation pie. This leaves Alice with her fallback option of four slices plus three from the negotiation pie, leading to a total of seven slices. Bob, on the other hand, takes his two fallback slices and adds three more, netting him five slices. By using the negotiation pie technique, they’re both winners.

Now, some of you might be wondering why splitting the whole pizza 50/50 isn’t the fairest option. Alice and Bob are getting a free pizza here. On closer inspection, though, a 50/50 split isn’t always as fair as it seems. This is because it doesn’t take into account uneven fallback options. For example, imagine the waiter increased Alice’s fallback option from four to seven slices but kept Bob’s at two. In this case, Alice would be losing one slice if they took six slices each. When viewed this way, it turns out 50/50 splits aren’t actually so fair.

Negotiating effectively is all about leaving with more than what you came in with. And by focusing on the negotiation pie, you and your negotiating partner are sure to both walk away happy.

---

There are different ways to bring the other party around to the negotiation pie approach.

Now that you understand the theory behind the negotiation pie, it’s time to learn how to put it into practice. As with most things in life, doing so involves coming up with an effective game plan. After all, it’s safe to assume that the person you’re negotiating with definitely has one. More often than not, the plan involves projecting an aggressive stance, playing hardball, and naming their price right away. But with the negotiation pie approach in hand, you can craft an action plan that’s all about nurturing a constructive negotiating environment.

The most important part of your plan is to figure out where the other side is coming from: Are they coming into the negotiation expecting a 50/50 split? Do they have preconceived notions of a supposed power imbalance? In all likelihood, your negotiation partner isn’t even aware of what’s being negotiated – the negotiation pie. If this is the case, your first job is to convince your partner that you both share the same goal – to create the biggest pie possible, and then split it evenly. Your goal here is that you both enter the process in good faith with a common purpose. If this is successful, you can then focus on figuring out how to make a bigger pie rather than worrying about your partner trying to trick you.

Now, explaining the merits of the negotiation pie is easier said than done. Sure, if you’re negotiating with someone who views you as being in a position of power, they’ll likely be receptive to what you have to say. But if the other party sees themselves as having the advantage from the get-go, they might be harder to convince. It’s your job to help them see the light before the negotiations begin in earnest.

To see this in action, let’s go back to Alice and Bob. This time round, they’ve left the pizza restaurant and are deciding to invest together. Alice has $5,000 to invest, and Bob $20,000. If they invest alone, Alice would get a 1 percent return, and Bob 2 percent. However, if they pool their money together, they can get a 3 percent return, and both make more money.

Bob proposes that they split the total interest generated proportional to their investments, but this makes Alice unhappy. It seems that Bob hasn’t grasped the principles behind the negotiation pie. Alice then asks Bob to imagine the result of such a proportional split if they invested together, but the interest rate stayed at 2 percent – in other words, the same interest rate that Bob would have received anyway if he invested alone. In this situation, a proportional split of the interest means that Bob wouldn’t make any additional money.

However, with a 2 percent return, Alice would receive double the amount than if she’d invested alone with a 1 percent return. She tells Bob that this would be unfair to him. If this were the case, she explains, they should split the combined 2 percent return evenly. In other words, she’d divide the negotiation pie down the middle so they’d both make slightly more money.

By reframing the numbers, Alice convinces Bob of the error of his ways. He can’t defend a proportional split that benefits him in one situation but not in another. So he accepts Alice’s suggestion, and they decide to split the 3 percent return evenly.

Alice’s logic here is brilliant, and it’s something you should take into consideration if you’re having trouble convincing your negotiation partner of the merits of the negotiation pie. Instead of explaining why a proportional split is unfair to you, show how it would be unfair to them under different circumstances. The secret isn’t to ask someone else to put themselves in your shoes – it’s to get them to stay in their own shoes, but make them realize how uncomfortable they are.

---

There are effective ways to deal with a stubborn negotiating partner.

Now, you’ll inevitably run into situations where your negotiating partner is acting like a bully. You try to get them to see the light by explaining the principles of logic and equality behind the negotiation pie. But they don’t buy it. They’ve arrived at the negotiation with a fixed notion of what is rightfully theirs, and it’s their way or the highway.

There are several techniques you can employ to try to get the other party to see the light. But one thing you should definitely avoid doing is fighting fire with fire. If the other party offers an ultimatum, you should never sink to their level and fire one back at them. This only has one possible outcome – to decrease the chance of a deal being made.

Instead, your goal should always be to bring out the rational human being inside your negotiating partner. It’s often the case that people project arrogance when they negotiate as a defense mechanism. But underneath their bullish exterior might be someone who just needs a nudge in the right direction.

So instead of fighting fire with fire, fight fire with water. Try to deescalate the situation – and put out the fire. One way to get them to see the light is to make them doubt their own ultimatum. Let’s return to Alice and Bob to see this in action. Alice wants to sell her company to Bob, but is acting bullish – she refuses to budge from her figure of $25 million. Bob explains the merit of growing the pie together and reaping the benefits but, for whatever reason, Alice sticks to her guns. It’s her final offer – and it’s not open to negotiation.

Bob decides to ask if $26 million would be acceptable, hypothetically speaking. Alice, while confused, responds positively, and asks if Bob is seriously making an even higher offer. He explains that he’s not making a higher offer, but asking if it would hypothetically work. Alice again says yes.

What Bob has done here is so clever. He’s shown Alice that her final offer is not so final after all. Yes, the figure he’s proposed is higher. But the fact that Alice is hypothetically open to it shows that she is in fact open to negotiation. By helping her realize this, the chances of them working together to grow the pie increases.

Using hypotheticals to get the other party to act rationally can be useful in other situations. Say the shoe was on the other foot, and it’s now Bob acting bullish in negotiations to buy Alice’s company. They both know the value of the pie is somewhere around $10 million, but he comes in swinging with the insulting offer of $10. Alice is tempted to fight fire with fire but instead employs a hypothetical. How would Bob feel, she asks, if she were the one proposing such a measly sum while keeping $9,999,990 herself? Without waiting for an answer, she goes on, saying that he’d most definitely be upset in such a situation. And she concludes by saying she wouldn’t expect him to negotiate any further if that were the case.

These hypotheticals often work to unmask the human being behind the bully. If you can demonstrate your humanity and empathy, it’s likely that your negotiating partner will come around.

Now, this isn’t always the case. Sometimes, there’s a gap that can’t be narrowed by hypotheticals. Sometimes you have to sweeten the deal in other ways. This is where the ultimate show of empathy comes in – trying to understand the reasons behind your negotiating partner’s intransigence. Why is it that they can’t budge on their figure? Ask them to explain the ins and outs of their position. While doing so, you might be able to find a way to add something extra to the deal without meeting their ultimatum. Your goal isn’t to be altruistic – at the end of the day, by understanding what they want, you get closer to what you want as well.

Our final encounter with Alice and Bob illustrates this well. Alice is selling her gas station for $500,000 to fund a sailing trip around the world. But she won’t budge on the price of the station. So Bob inquires further into her situation. How much did the boat cost? Where is she sailing to? And what does she plan to do upon her return?

It turns out that Alice has budgeted $75,000 for the time she’ll be looking for a job after returning from her trip. So Bob makes her an offer – when she returns from her trip, she can work as the manager of the gas station. It’s a win-win situation – he gets an experienced manager for the station, and she no longer needs the $75,000 buffer. All of a sudden, the negotiation experiences a breakthrough. All it took was a bit of empathy.

---

The most logical way to negotiate anything is to split the negotiation pie. Instead of wrangling over perceived power indifferences or biased notions of fairness, focus on the additional value created by negotiating. Then, split the pie down the middle.

And here’s some more actionable advice: Don’t treat negotiations like a Miranda warning.

Just because you have the right to remain silent doesn’t mean you should. People sometimes approach negotiations by holding back information or not answering questions. While you think this might help gain leverage, this is rarely the case. Instead, try to foster an open and constructive dialogue. Don’t just answer questions – ask questions of the other party. If you both know what the other one wants, there’s a higher likelihood you can reach an agreement.

[Joshua Gans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Negotiations can be hard. They can also be drawn out. While not intending to, Nalebuff provides a way out of the mess. A way in which people, if they follow his approach, can get to reasonable outcomes in negotiations quickly. Using simple examples he shows how to understand what parties are really getting out of negotiations and how to balance their apparent power with what can really be achieved. It provides a philosophy that is very much the anti-Art of the Deal. Negotiating tactics are fruitless against those who also deploy them. What you want to encourage people to do is see through everything and in that way solutions and a more harmonious relationship will present themselves.

Nalebuff argues that he is using a practical, economic approach. This is true. But under it, all is a way to make the world work better.

[Julian Ubriaco · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid book on negotiation. Nalebuff has some interesting arguments to argue for a more allocentric, empathetic way of negotiation to obtain a better outcome for both sides. Entertaining asides and examples and a succinct structure make for a very good read, although some chapters can seem a bit disconnected from one another.

[Fotini Iconomopoulos · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a negotiation consultant I love to talk about growing the pie. And to see how a Yale professor weaves data and case studies to support it is music to my ears!

[Alex Adamo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have recently read Split the Pie, a Radical New Way To Negotiate by Barry Nalebuff

The book, as per its title claims to be a completely new way to negotiate. My short summary of the book is that Barry, indeed, suggests that there are way of maximising value by making the pie of a deal bigger and then splitting the created value with your counter-party - however, I don't think it's a radical new way of negotiating and I think it's only applicable to a minute minority of negotiations.

The shortest way of explaining the Split the Pie approach in my own words and in technical terms is:

1. Identify the effects of no deal versus the benefits of reaching the deal.
2. Split the benefits of reaching a deal equally, base power adjusted, adding it to the no deal position of each party

Barry explains it wonderfully in the first 10 pages of the book with the pizza example:

Two people, let's call them John and Jane go to a pizzeria to order a pizza each but there's only one pie left, the owner of the pizzeria presents them with the following offer:

- They can make an agreement to split the 12 slices pizza between them two
- If they don't reach an agreement, then Jane will get 4 slices and John will get only 2 slices, effectively forgoing 6 slices

Let's analyse this scenario

- BATNAs (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)

Jane (4 slices) has a far better BATNA than John (2 slices) - assuming they are both equally angry, there's no other shops around, and so on.

- Power Balance
From a competitive perspective, Jane has more power than John, as her BATNA is stronger

Nalebuff explains 4 different scenarios could happen:

Fair solution: 6 pieces shared equally
Power based solution: Jane exercises her power over John and requests 8 slides
No deal: 4 slices to Jane and 2 slices to John
Split the Pie approach: Jane and John realise that by making a deal they would be both "accessing" 6 further slices when comparing the scenario to no deal. Therefore, as the 6 additional slices are accessed only by making a deal, they may decide to split them fairly (hence: Split the Pie -> not the TOTAL pie, the pie created as a result of reaching an improved deal).
I have tried this example with my parents the evening after I read the book while at a pizzeria and they went for the fair solution (6 slices each) straight away - at which point is was very clear to me my attitude in negotiation has not been acquired genetically.

The Commercialiser solution to this negotiation

If I was haggling over a pizza with a friend, we would have recommend that the friend has 10 and I get 2, so I can be reduce the amount of fat intake for the day and I might have entertained the Split the Pie solution for the intellectual pleasure of applying this new technique.

If we were supporting a $500m deal we would have planned and executed the negotiation differently, because we don't like to leave money, nor slices of pizza, on the table. Biggest principle: If we have earned our position of power in a negotiation (as a result of our market position and other elements) we need to use. Fairly and honestly, of course, but we need to use it nonetheless.

This is one potential plan of action (say I am Jane and the counter-party is John):

- STEP 1 (OPENING PROPOSAL): 11 pieces to me, 1 piece to them
Risk deadlock, risk of insulting counter-party; counter-party says no (95% probability, unless the've had too many beers prior to ordering their pizza). Apologise if they feel insulted.

- STEP 2 (CONCESSION): 9 pieces to me, 3 pieces to them (1 slice better than their BATNA)
Risk; feels very unfair. They reject (65% probability of rejection)

- STEP 3 (EXERCISE POWER POSITION): 8 pieces to me, 4 pieces to them (2 slices better than their BATNA), I am making a request which is proportional to the starting balance of power, in relation to our starting BATNAs.
John will probably consider it, having been anchored to my initial, unreasonable proposal. If they still refuse firmly, go to step 4.

- STEP 4 (SPLIT THE PIE APPROACH): suggest that the 6 additional slides are created as a result of our joint collaboration, we both have EQUAL power therefore, without me you will NOT access the 6 additional slices. If you want the 6 additional slices, then we will have to share them: 3 each. Jane (me) will have 4 (BATNA) + 3 slices (half the pie created) = 7 and John will have 2 (BATNA) + 3 slices (half the pie created) = 5.

If they still don't accept, threaten to walk away. Keep conceding if, and only if, in your professional opinion, you believe there really won't be a deal.

The point I am trying to make is that I like the Split the Pie approach but I would only use it with extremely trusted partners, in a high-dependency scenario when we are both set to work together for may more years, where we both completely trust each other, where we are both fair and committed to treat each other fairly and equally. People pay lip-service to such situations but, in reality, they are rare and, as such, a competitive first approach might protect us from exploitation, I would keep the option of splitting the pie as a second or third level strategy. It would be my plan A only, if the above conditions were met.

POSITIVES

- I like Barry's intent to wanting to create a fair world. This is how the world should be and this how negotiators should be educated to negotiate. Let's collaborate, let's discuss openly about the opportunities of the deal, let's split what we create together during the negotiation fairly.
- Simple idea, can add a simple tool into a negotiator's arsenal

NEGATIVES

- The fairness approach is too idealistic rather than realistic. Too many times we've encountered negotiators who created value together and then, they still wanted the upper hand on the amount of value created. It is their job, after all, to maximise the deal

- If used to openly without the appropriate due diligence, it will put the negotiator using it first in a weak position, with significant risk for commercial exploitation

Overall book review - 3.5 out of 5

There are competitive and collaborative negotiations. The biggest flaw with Barry's theory is that is based on fairness and other people wanting to "split the pie" of added value equally. I think, in principle, it is a sane principle and this is how the world should work. In actual practice, I think it's unlikely to happen. Therefore, it's not so radical a solution and I it isn't frame-breaking (What I typically look for when learning), it's one more tool that a negotiator may want to consider when negotiating win-win agreements.

I believe this is applicable only in 2-5% of negotiations,. Here's why:

Competitive negotiations (win-lose, distributive) make up about 70% of negotiations. (unfortunately). Collaborative negotiations (win-win, value creating) make up about the remaining 30%.

You need a very high level of sophistication and mutual trust on both sides to be able to engineer truly win-win negotiations, this is a rare occurrence in itself, which reduces the spectrum to about 5-10% of cases. Even in such cases, then negotiators will try to "hard-bargain" over the value created and then reach a deal. Therefore, in only a small minority of cases, when:

- Both negotiation parties are sophisticated
- Both negotiation parties want an extremely fair solution and share such values (you'd be surprised how few people are actually, really fair)
- Both negotiation parties need to understand the principle well to apply it properly

Do I recommend reading it? Yes, if you're an expert negotiator you'll be able to read it quite quickly in one or two sittings as most concepts you'll already be familiar with.

Enjoy and stay in control

Alex Adamo
Chief Negotiator
The Commercialiser®

[Duncan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did not know that Nalebuff had been teaching negotiations, I always thought of him as a mathematician trying to apply game theory to strategy (via his book “Thinking Strategically"), so it's interesting to read his take on negotiations.

In Split the Pie, you can see Nalebuff incorporating a lot of what is traditionally taught in negotiations courses and using the traditional in-class exercises as source material. For example, the negotiation he calls “seafaring people” which he uses at the beginning of chapter 16 to introduce the concept of integrative or interest-based negotiations, is really the Texoil case which lots of instructors use.

However, being a game theorist, Nalebuff can’t simply regurgitate a negotiations’ course syllabus, he needs to find his angle. And his angle is the supposedly contrarian “split the pie” take, as opposed to “never split the difference”, or “grow the pie”. This is a bit of a straw man, because Nalebuff’s definition of the “pie” is different to how most negotiation academics describe it. Usually, the pie is the ZOPA (or bargaining zone, the space between the buyer’s and seller’s reservation points or BATNAS), but Nalebuff describes the pie as the potential value that can be created by doing a deal. In other words, his “pie” is the value created above both parties’ BATNAs.

On a theoretical level, I believe most negotiation academics would not disagree with Nalebuff that if you define the pie this way, then the fair way to divide it is to split it in half. Overall, I think that if you can frame real-life negotiations this way, you should apply this heuristic (as opposed say to proportional division of the pie). BUT, I think that in real life it is often quite difficult to negotiate this way because it requires knowing both parties’ BATNAs, and each party is structurally incentivized to conceal or lie about their BATNA to ensure a larger slice of the pie (as traditionally defined). Moreover, most negotiators don’t even really have a clear idea of their reservation point (note that Nalebuff uses the term interchangeably with BATNA).

Another downside to Nalebuff’s strategy is that it is not intuitive in many cases. In fact, he spends a considerable amount of ink simply explaining it to the reader. Even with several chapters under your belt, it’s not easy to calculate the pie for novel situations. Now imagine readers trying to educate their counterparts about this while in the middle of a negotiation!

One of the elements that makes this book quite readable is that Nalebuff has his own relevant negotiations to use as examples (even though he does rely too much on hypotheticals, class exercises, and generic examples). While I did know about Honest Tea’s sale to Coca Cola (I have met Seth), I had no idea that Nalebuff was a co-founder! His ability to provide the inside story on that sale was enough reason for me to read the book. That real-world example also shows how difficult it is to apply his “split-the-pie” principle in practice. Here you have two very sophisticated negotiators (a negotiation-teaching academic game theorist, and the M&A team of a company with lots of experience acquiring firms), and it still took a lot of time and effort to come to a “fair” agreement.

[MIKE Watkins Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN amazing book that focuses on the idea that there is a "pie" in any given negotiation.

Barry defines the pie as "the additional value created through an agreement to work together."

He proceeds to drop a bombshell...that highlights how momentumental this concept is, "most people are splitting the wrong pie; they focus on the total amount, not the gain created by an agreement."


Barry brings out this concept in the following example (i'm changing it up a little bit tho).

Lets say you have two people that are going to be given a pizza with 12 slices if they can agree on how to divide it up. if not they only get 6 and Alice gets 4 slices and BOb 2....how would you handle this situation?

Some would argue a power perspective...Alice has a more powerful fall back option than Bomb (4 slices) so she should get more slices in this arrangement (8) and Bob 4.

Most would prob argue the fair perspective...6 each .


None of these are correct." Under the pie perspective, the negotiation pie of 6 is split 3 and 3. Each side gets their fallback plus half the pie. Alice ends up with 4 + 3 = 7 slices, and Bob gets 2 + 3 = 5 slices."

The point is that Alice+Bob had a total of 6 slices between them before this arrangement (4 for Alice 2 for Bob). Together they produce 6 more slices.

As a result, Bob and Alice are both equally responsible for the 6 additional slices and both should, as a result, get 3 slices each.


It's not about what you had going into the arrangement...it's about what you two going into the arrangement produced, or as the book elaborates on in cases where there isn't a pie yet, can produce together.


The book covers various other aspects of this idea

How to negotiate with someone who doesn't know the Pie formula?

How to handle situations where you're negotiating with a plethora of people?


How to be more persuasive as a negotiator in general?


The book also brings out that the key to negotiating is to give the other side what they want...and that will result in them being more willing to give you what you want...perhaps at a discount for giving them what they want.


But yeah...this book completely shifted my perspective on negotiating...I'll never negotiate the same after reading this in the legal field or anywhere else.

[Lourdes Little · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever wish you could ask for what you want and feel confident about it? Or approach everyday with a completely new vantage point?

I stumbled on to a book that turned everything around for me in an instant. What I learned was a simple way of thinking and negotiating with E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E. It unveiled insights and opportunities in my professional and personal relationships -- even with my teens.

Yale professor Barry Nalebuff’s new book, “Split the Pie” has the insights, the principles and the discipline I needed to help level the playing field when it comes to negotiations. The book shares many examples of how to grow and thus split a bigger pie, where both sides stand a chance to win -- even bigger than what I thought possible. —

Lourdes de la Mata-Little,
Vice President,
Chief Marketing Officer
(newly negotiated),
Goodwill Industries, South Florida

[Salsabeel Al-Zamly]

The most logical way to negotiate anything is to split the negotiation pie. Instead of wrangling over perceived power indifferences or biased notions of fairness, focus on the additional value created by negotiating. Then, split the pie down the middle.

Don’t treat negotiations like a Miranda warning.

Just because you have the right to remain silent doesn’t mean you should. People sometimes approach negotiations by holding back information or not answering questions. While you think this might help gain leverage, this is rarely the case. Instead, try to foster an open and constructive dialogue. Don’t just answer questions – ask questions of the other party. If you both know what the other one wants, there’s a higher likelihood you can reach an agreement.

[Ondřej Plachý · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wouldn't call it a radical approach, more like a good and a slightly contraintuitive guide for negotiations. The concept is easy, but there is a lot of caveats that can force you to make a bad deal despite the fact you have read this book - Nalebuff addresses that by going into greater detail about how to run the negotiation process, which is far more standard and not directly connected to the method (for example - don't do lowball offers, try to learn more about the other side, be prepared to give non-monetary concessions as it can help land the deal and more).

Definitely recommended if you are negotiating often.

[Jay Best · Rating 4 out of 5]

Negotiation is probably one of the most important business and career skills.

The other book in the Negotiation niche is "Never Split the Difference" by a former FBI hostage negotiator.

This book has a less intense but more pursuasive, collaborative and influence orientated ways to reframe the terms and how to approach.

I listened to this via Blinkist and it was great, but I will surely get the full copy also, as I can tell that this deserves more time and attention to master the nuance. I'm very glad to have been introduced to this book.

Listened to abridged version via Blinkest 2x speed.
(17 min audio)

[Favian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I took Barry Nalebuff's course on "Introduction to Negotiation" during the height of the pandemic in 2020, so when he announced that he was publishing a book containing the same concepts he taught, I immediately grabbed a copy. This book served as a useful refresher and I definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested to learn about how to reach a fair agreement. He has a wealth of experience in the real world and the examples provided are laid out clearly. Though it may take a few rereads for the lessons to truly sink in, it reshapes the conventional notion that everything has to be split proportionally when two parties need each other to achieve a specific outcome.

[KB · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barry Nalebuff's principled approach to establishing a fair basis for negotiations will appeal to those who find haggling undignified and who abhor the standard model for dealmaking, in which each party attempts to gain maximum advantage by hook or by crook.
Some of the latter portions of the book become frustratingly difficult to parse due to the convoluted mathematical schemes that are presented for the solution of more advanced scenarios, but the essential elements of Nalebuff's system can be understood as rational and straightforward once one accepts the premise of equitable distribution of synergetic gains.
Readers who value fairness and interpersonal honesty will enjoy this book.

[L T · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a clever way to split the pie even though it is not intuitive. The logic can be tricky but making sure each team player know they play a necessary role for the negotiation helps who typically looks like the underdog. This is useful although I suspect you will probably get push back from others if you apply this method so it is impotent to make sure you know the concept and have examples to back your logic. Overall it is neat I learned something new but it will be hard and require a lot of work for me to use in a negotiation. This book was somewhat wordy and repetitive, a reasonable portion could be removed.

[Daniel Read · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really like Nalebuff's approach to negotiation, which is based on the easiest to justify and defend method of coming to agreement: maximize total value, and then equally divide all surplus value created among the claimants. When only two parties are involved, this simple statement encapsulates all you need to know, but if the claimants multiply things get a little more complex (you might need to compute the Shapley value). Nalebuff explains everything clearly, even some quite technical matters. I would recommend this as a first book on negotiation.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve also read Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss and Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes. I took Negotiations in law school and was on the ADR Board there. My reason for the lower rating on this one isn’t meant to be a knock against the author or his approach to negotiating. But in terms of the book itself I thought the examples were a bit numbers-heavy and got to be a bit much. Other things (like saying “Yes, if” instead of “No, unless, for example) were very helpful insights I hadn’t considered before.

[David Fandel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Negotiation theory. Basically determine the additional value being added by the deal (the pie) and split it equally. Then both sides have an incentive to maximize the “pie”.

Some interesting suggestions
A. Figure out how the other side will celebrate the deal you are proposing.
B. Make sure you understand the other sides position.
C. Anticipate the other sides potential objections to your proposal. If you can’t address them there is likely no deal to be had.

[Andeka · Rating 4 out of 5]

El libro enseña una nueva perspectiva desde la que afrontar las negociaciones. Te enseña a centrarte en la ganancia del acuerdo, en vez de en la posicion de poder de cada uno. Ademas te enseña a entender la situación del otro para poder afrontar mejor la negociación y tambien a sacar a negociadores tozudos que no quieren cambiar de oferta de ella.
Leido en Blinkist

[Stephanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've never really considered myself a very good negotiator, but this book finally makes it make sense to me. Clearly written with examples that make the concepts accessible and applicable. It's an effortless read that has had an immediate impact for me

[ziyuan ʚɞ Reads Dark Smut. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most logical way to negotiate anything is to split the negotiation pie. Instead of wrangling over perceived power indifferences or biased notions of fairness, focus on the additional value created by negotiating. Then, split the pie down the middle.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was very skeptical at first, but the author made some compelling case studies. I still haven't pinned down how to do this in a negotiation over criminal sentences. Is the "pie" the difference between pleaing open to the judge and the maximum sentence? That doesn't feel right.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

With the audiobook version, it was a little difficult to follow along with the math when the discussion was on splitting the pie with $$ investments of the brother & sister.

Otherwise, quite useful in developing better negotiating skills.

[Theodore Kinni · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Anyone who has been the underdog in a negotiation is going to eat up Barry Nalebuff’s new book, Split the Pie."

My review here: https://www.strategy-business.com/art...

[Brenden Gallagher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ahead of an upcoming negotiation, This gave me the framework I needed to go into it confidently.