The debt ceiling resolution is being heralded as another example of President Biden’s ability to create a level of bipartisanship. At the same time, there is a burgeoning respect for Speaker McCarthy’s ability to navigate, persuade, and negotiate within his caucus and also to demonstrate bipartisanship.

Two aspects to the history of these negotiations and current commentary fascinate me: (i) the reputed brinksmanship and “loss of face” from President Biden’s capitulation to negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling after stating he would not; and (ii) the perception that President Biden’s silence and failure to claim victory following agreement is an acknowledgement that he “lost” on the substance of the negotiations.

I am not certain these two narratives withstand scrutiny in the world of negotiation science. In negotiation, there can be leverage and influence in deciding whether or not to participate in a negotiation, and we are advised to consider whether the value of that participation should always freely be given away. In the international arena, we see this play out in the formation of alliances, and in conflict situations where a nation, party or insurrectionist group must decide whether to participate in peace negotiations. In the business context, we see this dynamic in auctions for the sale of a company in determining who is invited or allowed to continue participating in the sale process.

A parallel business negotiation stratagem is to stake out an aggressive position on an issue in the attempt to force the negotiation momentum to be one justifying a move away from that position. We refer to this as anchoring outside of the zone of possible agreement and then negotiating into the zone of a possible agreement. There is considerable research indicating the anchoring party can, at times, end up in a more favorable position through this stratagem.

It is true that President Biden’s initial refusal to negotiate may have been severely compromised by Speaker McCarthy’s success in navigating to a Republican consensus on required budget concessions. If criticism is to be made of that stratagem, it would be that it was high-risk because it was done in the public arena and at the same time was vulnerable to the occurrence of an event (Speaker McCarthy’s success) that was beyond the President’s real ability to control. As a negotiation strategy, however, it is hard to severely criticize the President’s attempt to leverage a willingness even to negotiate.

Which brings me to my second point. A successful negotiation often requires allowing the other side to claim victory when the truth may be different from the perception. Indeed, one of the most renown scholars in the field of negotiation recommends that you write the victory speech for the other side—to help reach a successful conclusion to the negotiation itself and to preserve the relationship between the parties for future beneficial negotiation. The President’s initial stated unwillingness to negotiate served the purpose of making every substantive point of negotiation a bit of a forced march into that zone of possible agreement. It is easy to empathize with the feeling of loss whenever there is a retreat from a stated position—until, that is, one comprehends the strategy and effectiveness of the initial anchoring itself.

President Biden’s silence before Congressional votes on the debt ceiling and his actions and comments following conclusion of these negotiations, I suggest, constitute a defensible application of sound negotiation principles: (i) exacting a toll for entering into the process of negotiation; (ii) by so anchoring, shifting the negotiation momentum to more of a protracted negotiation away from his positions; and (iii) recognizing and accepting the need for humility in order to make the result more palatable and enduring. In doing so, we are witness to a remarkable demonstration of strength of purpose and focus on end goal—a purpose and focus, I might add, seems equally evident, for different reasons, with Speaker McCarthy. The country and the world are better for it.