Winning Negotiation Strategy: The Power of the Pause

In business, much is accomplished not on paper, but in person. That includes the dynamics of discussion—both speaking and listening. The way you speak and take turns speaking has more of an impact than people realize. Research explains.

Negotiating Turn-taking

Matteo Di Stasi et al. (2024) investigated what type of discussion dynamics impacted objective and relational outcomes in bargaining. Studying 239 online negotiation recordings, they examined interconnected factors such as speech rate, speaking time, interruptions, pauses, and response time. They found that several of the measures they examined uniquely predict outcomes in videoconference negotiations, both objectively and relationally.

On the objective level, Di Stasi et al. found that negotiators who speak more and faster, and with fewer pauses, were able to achieve better deals. Yet at the relational level, they found that negotiators who did not interrupt and engaged in more dynamic turn length were better liked. Because both outcomes can produce positive results, they note that taken together, they indicate that good deals are made in part through conversation dynamics.

The Relational Power of the Pause

More recent research has examined the power of the pause in goal-oriented collaboration. Alex B. Van Zant et al. (2025) studied the impact of pausing in collaborative conversations—defined as “cooperative, task-oriented dialogues” where two or more people collaborate in pursuit of a common goal. They began by acknowledging generally that long pauses usually prompt negative impressions of communicators, while short pauses elicit assents—such as “uh-huh” or “yeah” or “uh-huh"—in collaborative conversation. Because assents create positive perceptions of speakers, pausing during collaborative conversations makes communicators appear more helpful.

Yet pauses have their place within the larger context of conversation. Van Zant et al. note that collaborative conversations constitute a dynamic exchange including listening and providing verbal feedback to signal to speakers their words are understood as intended. Allowing conversation partners to provide backchannel responses—interjecting understanding while speakers talk—allows conversation partners to provide positive feedback without taking over the conversation, prompting collaboration in furtherance of achieving a shared mutual understanding. Van Zant et al. note that while backchannel responses can include affective reactions such as “Wow!”, assenting is most common.

Van Zant et al. note this approach is in contrast to competitive dialogue, which involves a communicator attempting to dominate the conversation to impose their personal viewpoint. Collaborative dialogue, in contrast, involves listeners actively seeking to comprehend the assumptions, knowledge, and perspectives of conversation partners. Backchannel responses are therefore far more common in conversations that are collaborative rather than competitive.

Pause Wisely

When it comes to pauses, however, there can apparently be too much of a good thing. Long silences can undermine social connection and reduce credibility. Van Zant et al. note that although speakers are wise to think carefully before speaking, long response delays of 3 seconds or longer not only disrupt conversational flow and satisfaction, but they also portray speakers as less competent.

As a result of their research, Van Zant et al. demonstrated that brief pauses while speaking are a strategic, practical method of increasing active listening from conversation partners. Although their research is useful for organizations, employees, and collaborative communicators, pausing during such conversations can encourage assent and increase their perceived helpfulness.

So, whether helping a customer or attempting to impress a colleague, pausing can help create a more positive image and create better outcomes personally and professionally.

References