What is actually happening in the first twenty minutes
Most professionals assume the opening phase of a commercial negotiation serves a social function: introductions, small talk, rapport-building, settling in before the real conversation begins. This assumption is not entirely wrong. Rapport matters, and experienced negotiators attend to it. But it is incomplete.
The first twenty minutes are diagnostic.
The counterpart is testing you.
The tests are not aggressive and they rarely feel like tests at the time. They are embedded in conversational questions, casual references to timing, and offers to simplify the process. The person across the table is learning: how prepared you are, how much urgency you carry, whether you have alternatives, and whether you are paying attention to how the negotiation is structured.
Most people do not notice.
They answer the questions as asked, volunteer information in the spirit of transparency, and accept procedural offers on the assumption that the other side will reciprocate cooperation later. By the time substantive issues are discussed, the information asymmetry is in place. The counterpart has calibrated their approach accordingly.
Reading your counterpart accurately during this phase, recognizing what they are learning and why, is what separates prepared negotiators from those who lose ground before the substance is even discussed.
Here are the four most common opening tests and what they reveal.
Test one: the timing question
Questions about time often appear within the first ten minutes, usually disguised as logistical planning.
The counterpart asks:
- “What does your timeline look like for this?”
- or “When are you hoping to have this finalized?”
- or “Is there a board meeting coming up where you need this resolved?”
The question feels reasonable. It appears to be about coordinating schedules or setting a realistic cadence. It is a probe for urgency.
Urgency is one of the most valuable pieces of information a counterpart can acquire early. It converts directly into a negotiating advantage. A party under time pressure makes different decisions. They concede more readily on secondary issues to preserve momentum. They accept terms they might otherwise have challenged. They signal, often without meaning to, where their real constraints lie.
The difficulty is that the question itself is neutral. There are legitimate reasons to discuss timing. In some negotiations, parties need to address a genuine coordination problem. The test is not in whether the question the other side asks this question. The test is in what happens when you answer it.
A prepared negotiator acknowledges the question without anchoring themselves to a specific deadline, particularly one driven by internal pressures that the counterpart need not know about. They might ask about the counterpart’s timeline, name a realistic but non-binding target, or redirect to substance before committing to a schedule. What they do not do is volunteer that they need the deal closed by quarter-end because their CFO expects it, or that they have a board meeting in three weeks when the management expects to announce the agreement at it.
Once that information is in the room, the negotiation reorganizes around it. The party that disclosed it has lost control they rarely recover.
Ready to transform your disputes & negotiations?
Book Free 30-Minute ConsultationTest two: the alternatives probe
This test appears as a casual inquiry about context.
The counterpart asks:
- “Are you talking to anyone else about this?”
- or “What other options are you considering?”
- or, in supplier negotiations, “How is your current provider working out?”
Again, the question feels conversational. It seems designed to understand who else is in play or to gauge how seriously the other party should take these negotiations. What it does is test whether you have viable alternatives and, if so, how strong they are.
Alternatives are widely understood to be a source of negotiating strength. The difficulty is that most people answer the alternatives question in ways that inadvertently communicate weakness rather than strength. They mention discussions with others but qualify it immediately, signalling that those alternatives are not yet firm. They reference their current arrangement and then explain why it is no longer working, which signals to the counterpart that switching costs are high and that walking away is unlikely. Or they answer honestly that this is the only serious option they are pursuing, which eliminates the counterpart’s concern about competition.
An operations director sourcing a new manufacturing partner was asked, in the first meeting, how the current arrangement was working. Wanting to be transparent, he described the production delays and the deteriorating relationship with the incumbent.
The supplier now knew that staying put was no longer a real option for the buyer. Whether the director was also speaking with other suppliers was a separate question. His most accessible alternative, continuing with the incumbent, had been removed from the table by his own answer. The price discussion that followed proceeded on that footing.
A prepared negotiator treats this question with more care. If they have a strong alternative, they reference it without elaboration, allowing the counterpart to assume it is more developed than it may be. If they do not have a strong alternative, they do not fabricate one, which would undermine credibility, but they also do not confirm that this is the only conversation in play. They might redirect to the merits of the current discussion, or acknowledge they are evaluating several paths without specifying what those paths are.
The point is not to mislead. The point is to avoid volunteering information that reduces your negotiating position before you start discussing the substantive terms. We explore this dynamic in more depth in Negotiating from a Weaker Position, where the mistake of negotiating against a weak alternative, rather than setting it aside, is one of the recurring patterns that costs weaker parties the most ground.
Test three: the early anchor
This test arrives as the conversation begins to move toward substance.
The counterpart offers an anchor:
- “Our standard terms are…”,
- “We typically structure these at…”,
- “The market rate for this is around…”
There is no doubt that anchoring is a negotiating tactic. What is less widely recognized is that the early anchor, when it appears in the first twenty minutes, is also a test of preparation.
A counterpart who introduces an anchor early is learning whether you have done your own research, what the relevant comparisons actually are, and whether you are confident enough in your position to push back on a framing that does not serve you. If you accept the anchor without questioning it, or if you respond with visible surprise, the counterpart has learned you came into the conversation without a clear sense of where the range actually sits. That shapes how they proceed.
A prepared negotiator does not accept an early anchor as given. They may acknowledge it and then reframe:
- “That is one way to look at it; another benchmark would be…”
- or “I have seen a fairly wide range on this, depending on how the value is structured.”
They may ask clarifying questions that expose the assumptions behind the anchor. Or they may defer discussing specific numbers until they have established the framework within which those numbers will be evaluated.
The response does not need to be confrontational. It needs to signal that you are working from your own research and your own frame, not simply reacting to theirs.
Test four: process control
This test concerns the structure of negotiations. Early in the conversation, the counterpart makes a procedural offer:
- “Why don’t I draft something and send it over?”
- or “Let’s agree on the main points today and work out the details later,”
- or “I will put together an agenda for the next session.”
These offers sound collaborative. They seem designed to move things forward efficiently. They are bids for process control. Process control is one of the most consequential, least examined dimensions of a negotiation.
The party that drafts the first document shapes the framing, the sequence, and the default positions from which all subsequent discussions proceed. The party that sets the agenda determines which issues are addressed when, and in what order. The process affects how the parties allocate energy and attention across the conversation. The party that proposes deferring certain questions to a later stage may create a situation in which those questions are negotiated under time pressure or with accumulated fatigue.
None of this requires bad faith. It requires only that one party think about the process strategically and the other not.
In commercial settlement negotiations, I often observe that the claimant’s counsel would offer to produce the first draft of the settlement agreement. The offer reflected what is often the claimant’s instinctive posture: that as the party asserting the right, it is natural for the claimant to put the document on the table.
The respondent’s side often accepts this offer without much discussion. When the draft arrives, it sets the structure of the release, the scope of the carve-outs, and the assumptions about timing and payment mechanics. As a result, every subsequent round of settlement is a discussion around that initial draft. Instead of building certain points as its own defaults, the respondent has to argue against those with the claimant, using the text already written on paper in the claimant’s favour. Nothing in the draft was unfair on its face. The advantage was not in any single clause. It was because the respondent had to conduct negotiations on the claimant’s behalf.
It is not always possible to negotiate who produces the first draft. Sometimes procedural posture, institutional context, or the relative urgency of one side resolves the question before it is asked. Where it is open, it is one of the most consequential procedural points on the table and worth treating as such.
A prepared negotiator does not automatically accept procedural offers, even if they seem helpful at first glance. They evaluate whether the proposed process serves their interests. If it does not, they propose an alternative or, at a minimum, insist on joint control. They might respond:
- “I would prefer we each draft a version and then compare them,”
- or “Let’s agree on the agenda together before the next meeting,”
- or “I think we should address that question now rather than defer it.”
Process is not administrative. It is structural. Structural decisions made in the first twenty minutes shape what is negotiable later.
What prepared negotiators do differently: reading the tests in real time
The negotiators who handle these opening tests effectively are not necessarily more skilful tactically. They are more aware. They recognize that the first twenty minutes are not a preamble. This is the phase where the other side may gain information that will govern the rest of the conversation.
Prepared negotiators know which information to protect and which to share. They understand that they may not reciprocate transparency. Volunteering information in good faith can lead to a disadvantage that is difficult to recover from. They treat timing questions, alternative probes, early anchors, and process offers as information gathering.
What enables this level of awareness is not experience alone, though experience helps. It is preparation. The negotiator who has thought through their own constraints, alternatives, and framing before the conversation begins is in a position to recognize when the counterpart is testing those same dimensions. The negotiator who has not done that work will answer the questions as asked, without recognizing that answering them fully is a choice, not an obligation. A short preparation framework that walks through these questions before a difficult conversation is available as a free guide, Before a Difficult Conversation: A 10-Minute Preparation Framework, delivered when you subscribe to the newsletter.
This discussion connects directly to the broader argument made in Power and Leverage in High-Stakes Negotiations: that leverage is situational and dynamic, and that the party who reads the signals accurately, rather than relying on structural assumptions, holds the real advantage. The opening twenty minutes are when the other side may generate many of those signals. The party that is not watching for them will miss most of what shapes the negotiations afterwards.
The work that belongs before the conversation begins
The counterpart’s opening tests are effective because most people do not prepare in a way that allows them to recognize and respond to them. They prepare by thinking through their own position, priorities, and desired outcome. That is necessary, but it is not sufficient.
Effective preparation for a commercial negotiation includes thinking through what the counterpart is likely to probe for, what information you are willing to share at what stage, and how you will respond to procedural offers that sound helpful but may not serve your interests. It includes developing your own framing, anchors, and view of the relevant comparisons, so that you are not simply reacting to the counterpart’s.
It also includes recognizing that preparation is not about scripting answers. It is about being clear about your own constraints, alternatives, and boundaries before the conversation begins. When the opening tests arrive, and they will, you are in a position to respond deliberately rather than reflexively.
The opening twenty minutes of a negotiation are not casual. They are diagnostic, deliberate, and consequential. The work that determines how well you handle them happens before you walk into the room.
