Negotiation & Value CreationFixed pie, aggressive anchor, price-fixated counterpart: three ways to leave value on the table.
Twenty-four items — seven negotiation situations and 17 behavioural statements — measure whether you find value-creating trades, handle anchors with objective criteria, trade rather than cave, diagnose the value gap and weigh the long game. Four banded competencies, a narrative and a growth plan come back.
The instinctive move loses value or trust, and usually both
The seven situations cover the negotiations managers actually have. You face what looks like a fixed pie and want both a better deal and an intact relationship. The other side opens with a number far from reasonable and you want a good outcome without deadlock. A negotiation that is really about solving the other party's problem has fixated on price. You need several internal stakeholders with different priorities to back a deal. The options include grinding them down, conceding readily to keep the peace, splitting the difference quickly — and the moves that expand the pie before dividing it.
Options are weighted against public negotiation research: interest-based negotiation, separating positions from interests, objective criteria and knowing your alternative, integrative value creation through trades across differing priorities, anchoring and concession discipline, value-gap diagnosis, coalition-building across stakeholders, and weighing leverage against the long-term relationship. Each weight carries a written rationale. The bank is original AssessAll work; no branded negotiation programme or coined vocabulary appears. The 17 behavioural statements ask what you actually do when the other side pushes, and reverse-keyed items catch the respondent who agrees with every collaborative sentiment.
The report bands Negotiation & Value, Consultative Selling, Stakeholder Influence and Decision Quality beneath a 0–100 score, each with a coaching interpretation for the negotiation you have coming. A narrative generated from your own responses says which negotiating habit creates value for you and which gives it away. The growth plan is built from the lowest competencies and proposes specific disciplines — an interests inventory before any meeting, a criteria-based response to an anchor, a trade list to replace concessions — and the item review explains every weight so you can see what splitting the difference cost.
What you walk away with
Negotiation & Value, Consultative Selling, Stakeholder Influence and Decision Quality each land in Emerging, Developing, Strong or Exceptional beneath your 0–100 score. The bars show whether you create value but claim too little of it, or claim hard and leave nothing to come back to.
Each band carries a coaching paragraph about what it does at the table: how Developing on Negotiation & Value responds to an aggressive opening number, what Strong on Stakeholder Influence does to build an internal coalition before the external deal.
Built from your lowest competencies, the plan proposes concrete disciplines — a written list of the other side's interests, your alternative stated before you sit down, a trade you can offer for every concession you might be asked for — each applied to a negotiation on your calendar.
The item review shows your choice, the evidence-favoured option and the rationale for each weight across all 24 items. Where you conceded to protect the relationship, the explanation shows what the research says caving teaches the other side about your next negotiation.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Band edges at 40, 60 and 80. Each band carries its own coaching interpretation for that competency.
Every competency this test declares, scored from the items tagged to it — so the shape is yours, not a template.
Assembled from your lowest competencies, in order — not a generic checklist.
Built for
- Managers who negotiate budgets, headcount, timelines and scope with peers and seniors
- Procurement, vendor-management and partnerships staff negotiating with external parties
- Salespeople and account managers who want a negotiation measure separate from a selling one
- Founders and general managers negotiating deals where the relationship outlasts the contract
Every negotiation you split down the middle left something behind. Measure the habit.
Twenty-four items in about 28 minutes, then four banded competencies, a narrative and a growth plan the moment you finish.
₹999 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Whether you negotiate in a way that creates and claims value without burning trust: finding trades across differing priorities, handling anchors with objective criteria, trading rather than caving, diagnosing whether an objection is really about price, building internal coalitions and weighing leverage against the long-term relationship. Four competencies — Negotiation & Value, Consultative Selling, Stakeholder Influence and Decision Quality — are measured through seven situations and 17 behavioural statements. It suits managers, procurement and partnerships staff, and commercial leads.
Each option is weighted against published negotiation research, with a written rationale per weight. Toughness alone scores poorly, because grinding a counterpart down when you will work with them again is weighted below a trade that leaves both better off. So does softness — conceding readily is scored as caving. Reverse-keyed behavioural statements make a uniformly collaborative self-report read as inconsistent rather than as a high band.
About 22 to 30 minutes within a 28-minute window. You receive a 0–100 score with its band, four banded competencies with coaching interpretations, a radar, a narrative generated from your own responses, a strengths-and-development summary, a growth plan built from your lowest competencies and a full item review with the evidence behind each weight. The report is complete when it arrives; there is nothing further to unlock.
Procurement and sales leaders use the bands to see who concedes and who deadlocks, and coach accordingly. Hiring managers for commercial roles use them to structure interviews — asking a candidate Developing on Negotiation & Value to respond live to an anchor. Individually, the growth plan is a preparation checklist for your next negotiation; retake after six months and compare bands.
Yes. The situations are counterpart-neutral and sector-neutral — a fixed pie, an aggressive anchor, a price fixation, an internal coalition — and the research base is international. Negotiating norms differ by culture, and the interpretations note where a band reads differently in more relationship-first settings. Professionals in India, the Gulf, Europe, Southeast Asia and North America sit the same items. It is priced in INR and USD, and the price on this page is the full price.
Each battery takes one management capability — delegation, coaching, conflict, influence, decision-making, change — and measures it through situational judgement scored against published evidence, with a competency profile, coaching interpretations and a prioritised growth plan. For the level-by-level readiness verdicts, see Leadership & Management Premium.
See the leadership catalogue →Methodology: Original AssessAll scenarios and items operationalising public, well-established negotiation constructs: interest-based / principled negotiation, separating positions from interests, objective criteria and BATNA (Fisher & Ury); integrative value creation and trades across differing priorities (Lax & Sebenius); anchoring and concession discipline (trade, don't cave); value-gap diagnosis in deal-making; coalition-building across stakeholders; and weighing leverage against the long-term relationship. Situational-judgement scoring is literature-keyed with a documented per-option rationale citing the evidence for each weight. Generic public constructs only; no trademarked sales-methodology or instrument names and no vendor-coined vocabulary, and no items copied or paraphrased from any branded programme. Flagship items are tagged for optional human SME validation.