Common-Ground Deal Sequencing
Start with shared positions, then use that foundation to resolve harder issues.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 7
- Confidence
- 97%
This approach sequences a complex negotiation around feasibility rather than ideological completeness. First, identify the parties whose consent is necessary and test whether each major proposal can survive every approval gate. Remove or defer a centerpiece that lacks a viable path, as happened with the proposed border-adjustment tax. Instead of attacking the remaining hardest disputes, establish the objectives and provisions everyone can support, resolving them issue by issue. As the work becomes longer and more technical, allow a smaller group of committed, empowered representatives to become the negotiating core. That group develops the basic framework, then hands it into the legitimate committee and voting processes rather than bypassing them. Finally, map supporters, opponents, and persuadable members so effort is concentrated where it can change the outcome.
Origin
Gary Cohn used this approach with House, Senate, and White House representatives while developing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Extracted from Masters in Business.
Core principles
- 01Do not begin by forcing agreement on the hardest issue.
- 02Shared objectives create momentum and define the feasible deal.
- 03Persistent participation reveals the committed working group.
- 04Represent every institution needed to approve the final outcome.
- 05Move the agreed framework through the proper formal process.
How to run it
- 1
Map the approval system
Identify the institutions, leaders, committees, vote thresholds, and signatures required for the initiative to succeed. Include procedural routes that materially change those thresholds.
Pro tip Work backward from final approval to the earliest formal gate.
Watch out A proposal supported by one chamber, department, or executive may still have no viable path.
- 2
Test centerpiece feasibility
Determine whether each defining proposal can win support across the entire approval system. Remove or redesign proposals that a necessary party will not accept.
Pro tip Resolve fatal feasibility questions before investing in detailed drafting.
Watch out Do not confuse strong support in one institution with system-wide viability.
- 3
Establish common ground
List the objectives and provisions all essential parties can support. Use these agreements to define the initial deal perimeter.
Pro tip Phrase common ground as concrete outcomes rather than broad slogans.
Watch out Starting with the hardest dispute can consume goodwill before any momentum exists.
- 4
Resolve issues sequentially
Work through the proposal issue by issue, recording agreements and isolating unresolved trade-offs. Let each settled item reduce the remaining complexity.
Pro tip Maintain a live decision log so settled questions do not repeatedly reopen.
Watch out Avoid treating the negotiation as one indivisible all-or-nothing package too early.
- 5
Form an empowered core
Narrow the working group to representatives who possess expertise, authority, and responsibility for the necessary institutions. Keep broader stakeholders informed without requiring everyone in every drafting session.
Pro tip Choose representatives who can credibly carry agreements back to their constituencies.
Watch out A small group without institutional authority creates drafts that later unravel.
- 6
Use the legitimate formal channel
Transfer the negotiated fundamentals into the committees, drafting procedures, and votes that legally or organizationally authorize the result. Allow those bodies to make necessary refinements.
Pro tip Involve procedural leaders early enough that the handoff is not a surprise.
Watch out An informal agreement is not a substitute for valid approval.
- 7
Target persuasion
Classify decision-makers as supportive, opposed, or persuadable, then direct time and explanation toward those who can move. Account for constituency-specific costs that make some votes difficult.
Pro tip Give each persuadable member a tailored explanation of local effects.
Watch out Spending equal effort on firm supporters and immovable opponents wastes scarce negotiating capacity.
In the wild
House leaders initially favored a border-adjusted tax while the White House opposed it and the Senate was not going to pass it. The negotiators worked until the House sponsors relinquished that primary plan, then shifted to provisions the required institutions could support.
→ The negotiation moved beyond an unpassable centerpiece and established a viable basis for tax reform.
As the process became longer and more arduous, attendance narrowed to two House representatives, two Senate representatives, and Cohn and Steven Mnuchin for the White House. This core group hashed out the basic tax-policy framework before it entered the Ways and Means Committee and the wider legislative process.
→ A small but institutionally representative group produced enough agreement to advance legislation through the House.
Common mistakes
Leading with the hardest issue
Attempting to solve the most divisive question first can stall the negotiation before the parties establish shared purpose or trust.
Keeping everyone in every meeting
Large early meetings can be useful for inclusion, but detailed work becomes unwieldy unless empowered representatives form a committed core.
Ignoring the formal approval path
A negotiating group may develop policy fundamentals, but the relevant committees, votes, and signatures must still confer legitimate authority.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for legislation, partnerships, and enterprise deals involving several institutions with different priorities.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when one decision-maker can act unilaterally or when a non-negotiable emergency leaves no room for coalition building.
From the transcript
“Okay, let's not try and solve the hard issues. Let's try and figure out what we all can agree upon.”
“And so issue by issue, we all started deciding what we are trying to achieve and what we were deciding we could agree upon”
“who's solidly in your camp, who's solidly against you, who's on the fence”
From the episode
Gary Cohn Says Fed Should Be Done Raising Rates
Gary Cohn