Deep Dive: Understanding and Countering Extreme Anchors

Olivia Carter

So, extreme anchoring—it’s that strategy where someone kicks off a negotiation with a position so bold, it's like, wait, what? The kind of opening that makes everyone react and shifts the entire conversation. Mark, is it fair to say it’s, like, a turbocharged negotiation tactic?

Mark Putnam

Absolutely. Extreme anchoring is about framing the debate, not just winning the argument. It's like starting so far out on one end that anything moderate suddenly seems reasonable by comparison. Trump’s presidency is a textbook example, but he didn’t invent it—political leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan used similar approaches in their eras.

Olivia Carter

Okay, I know about Reagan pushing for deregulation, but Roosevelt? What was his extreme anchor?

Mark Putnam

For Roosevelt, it was the New Deal. At the time, proposing massive federal intervention in the economy was unheard of—far outside the Overton Window, or the range of ideas considered acceptable. But by leading with it, he redefined public expectations, laying the groundwork for modern social safety nets. Reagan, on the other hand, shifted the debate the opposite way, advocating for smaller government and deregulation. Both started with positions considered extreme and pulled the center of the discussion toward their vision.

Olivia Carter

Oh, so the Overton Window—I always hear about this and think of it as the, like, boundaries of what's considered "normal." So when someone uses extreme anchoring, they’re pushing those boundaries?

Mark Putnam

Exactly. And the reason it’s so effective is that it forces everyone—media, opponents, the public—to engage on those terms. Take Trump's approach. He’d propose something outrageous, knowing it would dominate media coverage. Even when he dialed it back, the conversation stayed closer to his agenda than if he’d started with a moderate idea.

Olivia Carter

Right, like that $5 million offer for an $18 million property? The seller was so desperate he couldn’t ignore it, even though it was absurd!

Mark Putnam

Exactly. That’s the classic anchor—set a baseline that shifts expectations from the start. His critics often got stuck reacting, which only reinforced the spotlight on those bold claims.

Olivia Carter

And it’s not just Trump, right? The media plays a huge role here too, amplifying those extremes. Is that intentional, or kinda... collateral damage?

Mark Putnam

A bit of both. Media thrives on explosive headlines, so they amplify those extreme positions, often unwittingly helping leaders solidify their message. But this is where leaders like Trump are calculating—by setting the conversation in his favor, even pushback serves him. Ultimately, this tactic isn’t just about shock value; it’s about shifting the boundaries of what's considered mainstream.

Olivia Carter

So, let’s dig into this. Trump’s use of extreme anchoring wasn’t just a political strategy—it played out in entertainment too. On "The Apprentice", those over-the-top ultimatums weren’t just about creating TV drama; they were a way of controlling the narrative and keeping all eyes on him, right?

Mark Putnam

In some ways, yes. Those ultimatums were a tool to set the tone and expectations. He would demand the impossible from contestants—knowing they’d fall short—but even in failing, they often performed far better than they would have otherwise.

Olivia Carter

Oh, totally. Like, he’d say, “Sell a hundred units by tomorrow,” and everyone would freak out. But, I guess—what—they’d still hit, like, eighty? And he’d still frame it as a win because they exceeded normal expectations.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. It’s psychological. By starting with an extreme demand, he shifted their framework. It’s the same principle that real estate negotiation story illustrates. Contestants played his game, and by the end, he’d pushed them further while still maintaining control of the narrative. It’s a tool leaders use to push teams—or opponents—to accept new norms.

Olivia Carter

Okay, shifting gears a little—not every leader has access to a reality show, obviously. But in Silicon Valley, I’ve seen bold ideas pitched with that same outrageous confidence to push innovation forward. Take the early days of Gmail. When Google’s founders challenged their team to rethink email storage, they didn’t just aim to improve Hotmail or Yahoo Mail—they set a goal so extreme it seemed impossible at the time. Back then, competitors were offering just a few hundred megabytes of storage. Instead, Google proposed giving users gigabytes of storage—for free.

Mark Putnam

That was a wild idea. Engineers pushed back, but that extreme anchor forced them to find a breakthrough in high-density storage. The result? Gmail redefined expectations for cloud-based email, and competitors scrambled to catch up.

Olivia Carter

Did they scale the idea back later? Not exactly—but once the foundation was there, Google refined how storage was managed, eventually introducing tiered storage models and premium plans. Still, because they started with such an audacious goal, they didn’t just launch a new email service—they shifted the entire market’s expectations.

Mark Putnam

Absolutely. That’s the essence of extreme anchoring—set a bold demand, force a reaction, and then land at a more favorable middle ground. In IT negotiations, where budgets are tight and stakes are high, I’ve seen this play out firsthand.

Olivia Carter

Wait—tell me more about that. What kind of tactics do vendors use in those negotiations?

Mark Putnam

Well, in one case, a major software vendor came in with a proposal at renewal time that was three times what we had paid previously. It was a total non-starter—there was no way we could justify that kind of increase. But their extreme anchor forced us to rethink how we used their products. Instead of just pushing back on cost, we reevaluated how our teams deployed the software, optimized our usage, and found efficiencies we hadn’t considered before.

Mark Putnam

In the end, we didn’t pay anywhere near what they initially asked—we renewed for just a little more than what we had been paying before. But because we had been forced to innovate and optimize our deployment strategy, we walked away in a stronger position than if they had simply come in with a modest price hike. As frustrating as extreme anchoring can be, sometimes it forces unexpected improvements.

Olivia Carter

Interesting. So, it’s not always a bad thing—if you approach it strategically. But wow, the pressure must have been intense.

Mark Putnam

It absolutely was. And that’s the catch with these tactics. They can inspire innovation or drive results, but, used irresponsibly, they can create unnecessary conflict or harm. It’s all about how they’re applied and responded to in the moment.

Olivia Carter

Alright, Mark. So, let’s say you’re in a situation where someone’s coming in hot with those extreme, way-out-there demands. What’s the first thing you do to push back effectively?

Mark Putnam

Former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss has written on this extensively. The first move is to, well, avoid reacting immediately. Extreme anchors are designed to get a rise out of you. Instead, reframe the conversation entirely. You can say something like, “You must have a reason for taking that position?” Then, dynamic silence. That shifts the burden back to them and gives you control of the conversation.

Olivia Carter

Oh, I like that. Kinda throws them off balance, right? Gives you time to think.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. And once you've disrupted their momentum, Voss suggests that you start using calibrated questions. Things like, “How would that even work in practice?” or “What’s your reasoning behind that demand?” It forces them to justify their stance, and more often than not, they’ll naturally pull back toward something more reasonable.

Olivia Carter

Hmm, but, like, what if they just double down? Some people aren’t gonna back off no matter what.

Mark Putnam

True. That’s where calibrated questions come in. Instead of immediately pushing back with frustration, you make them engage with your reality. The best response? Look them in the eye and ask, “How am I supposed to do that?” Then—stay silent.

Mark Putnam

That pause is powerful. It forces them to acknowledge the gap between their demand and what’s actually feasible. If they have any empathy at all, they might start backing off the extreme anchor or offering justifications that reveal where there’s room to negotiate.

Mark Putnam

But if their response is “That’s not my problem,” that tells you something important. Maybe this isn’t someone you want to do business with in the first place. The best negotiations aren’t just about price and terms—they’re about finding partners who are willing to engage in a real conversation.

Olivia Carter

Wow, okay. So sometimes, their extreme anchor can actually push you to… rethink everything?

Mark Putnam

Exactly. It’s a double-edged sword. If you stay patient and strategic, their extreme demand might force you to get more creative—to find efficiencies, optimize resources, or challenge assumptions you hadn’t questioned before. But the key is not letting emotions take over. If you react too strongly, you’re playing into their hands. The moment you get defensive or frustrated, they’ve shifted the conversation away from the real issue. Instead, by staying calm and focused—and making them engage with your reality—you can use calibrated questions to your advantage rather than letting it derail the negotiation.

Olivia Carter

Yeah, no kidding. Honestly, the more you describe this, the more it feels like—not just negotiation—but like a mind game. And I guess that’s where collaborative leadership comes in?

Mark Putnam

Exactly, Olivia. In a collaborative environment, open dialogue can neutralize extreme positions before they spiral. It’s about building trust and focusing on shared goals rather than falling into the trap of fighting extremes. Especially in higher education, where demands are high and resources are scarce, leaders who create an inclusive space for discussion can counter these tactics while still driving progress.

Olivia Carter

Well, Mark, I think we’ve cracked it—how to push back against assertive types in the boardroom without losing your cool. Honestly, I feel like I could walk into a negotiation tomorrow and hold my own. Maybe.

Mark Putnam

You absolutely could. Remember—stay calm, stay strategic, and keep the focus on what really matters.

Olivia Carter

And on that note, that’s all for today. Thanks, everyone, for listening. Mark, as always, love picking your brain!

Mark Putnam

Thanks, Olivia. Always a pleasure talking with you.

Olivia Carter

Alright, we’ll catch you all next time. Take care!