Extreme Anchors, Empathy, and the Art of Staying in the Room

What extreme tactics win short-term—but cost long-term—and what to do instead.

I’ve been around some of the most respected CIOs in higher education—through EDUCAUSE conversations, roundtables, and professional networks. Many were people I looked up to early in my career: smart, visionary, typically reporting directly to their university president. And yet, for a few who reached prominent roles, their careers ended unexpectedly—and sometimes, abruptly. That gap—between public recognition and the quiet reality of short tenures—has stayed with me.

It wasn’t because they lacked intelligence or integrity. Most were driven, deeply committed to change, and genuinely believed in their institution’s mission. But many led with authority rather than influence. Their closeness to presidential power allowed them to move quickly—but not always wisely. What they gained in access, they sometimes lost in trust. And often, without realizing it, they projected a message that others heard loud and clear: “I’m in charge.”

That’s never been my style. I’ve avoided the CIO-to-president reporting line because it often shortcuts the harder work of building trust across the institution. Influence isn’t a substitute for authority—it’s what gives it staying power. In this week’s Dispatch, I reflect on negotiation—but really, it’s about leadership, and how our approach to negotiation reveals the kind of leader we’re becoming.

Why it matters

If you lead complex efforts—ERP overhauls, IT operations, or data governance initiatives—you’re negotiating constantly: with vendors, academic leaders, finance officers, and governance structures. For CIOs, negotiation isn’t just about contracts; it’s about aligning priorities, outcomes, and timing. And how you negotiate signals the kind of leadership you practice.

Chester Karrass has often said, “You don’t get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate.” True enough. But he also taught that negotiation is a repeat game. In institutional life, the goal isn’t just to extract value—it’s to stay credible, stay relational, and stay invited back into the room.

When Extreme Anchors Work—and When They Don’t

Extreme anchoring—opening with a bold or unreasonable position—can shift outcomes in the short term. But in public institutions, where relationships endure and reputations circulate, that tactic often does more harm than good. It can fracture trust, narrow collaboration, and create a culture of defensiveness. You might win the moment but lose the long game.

Extreme anchors do have a role—but only in the right context. Use extreme anchors when:

• The negotiation is transactional or finite.

• You’re facing unreasonable demands and need to reset expectations.

• You’re trying to expand the Overton Window or signal hard limits.

Avoid them when:

• You rely on the other party over time.

• You need to build consensus—not just extract value.

• You’re modeling leadership culture for your team.

Extreme positions can win arguments. But mutual respect wins partnerships.

Beyond the Anchor: Three Better Moves

When the long game matters, these strategies outperform:

• Trade Concessions Thoughtfully — Don’t give without getting. Phrase your offers as trades: “If we move up the timeline, we’ll need to reduce scope.” This reframes negotiation as problem-solving, not posturing.

• Shape the Agenda Early — Set the agenda, define terms, and establish shared goals before the discussion begins. This is quiet power—less visible than anchoring, but often more effective.

• Lead with Transparency — Sometimes, a fair, honest opening is your strongest move. Especially when others expect games. It disarms posturing and builds trust.

These aren’t soft strategies. They’re durable ones.

The Long Game: Karrass and Voss Revisited

Chester Karrass taught that you don’t close deals—you build them. That lesson stuck because it’s especially true in higher education. Every negotiation is part of a longer story. Chris Voss takes it further: empathy isn’t weakness—it’s data. The more clearly you understand what the other side values, fears, or protects, the more effective—and humane—your strategy becomes.

The best negotiators I’ve worked with weren’t the loudest in the room. They were the clearest. They knew when to speak, when to listen, and when to leave space for the other side to step forward. They didn’t just win moments—they built momentum. And they kept the door open for whatever came next.

So ask yourself:

• Are you negotiating to prove a point—or preserve trust?

• Would this move earn credibility—or cost it?

• And if your approach became a case study, would you be proud of the lesson it taught?

The decisions you make in the room ripple far beyond the moment. Negotiate with the future in mind—and with the kind of integrity that invites others to keep building with you.

The bottom line

Extreme anchors can move the needle—but rarely people. In effective leadership, empathy, clarity, and strategic intent shape real outcomes. These aren’t soft skills; they’re staying power. To lead through complexity, negotiate to build trust for tomorrow. Credibility is compound interest in institutional life. If you plan to stay, negotiate like someone who’s already earned their place.