A steadfast adherence to a single principle can lead us to lose sight of our broader negotiation goals—and squander time, money, and common sense.
As a negotiation case study, consider billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla’s decision to close off public access to a beach on a parcel of land that he bought on the California coastline for $37.5 million in 2008. Through a private road, the public had long had access to Martins Beach, set in a cove and prized for surfing and fishing.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
California’s 1976 Coastal Act prioritizes public access to the ocean. Before and after Khosla’s purchase, San Mateo County informed him that he would have to either (1) maintain the road leading to the beach and charge drivers a small parking fee or (2) apply for a development permit to limit public access to the beach. But in 2010, without applying for a permit, Khosla had the gate that led to the road locked, hired guards to keep people out, and ignored an order to reinstitute public access, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Threatened with fines, Khosla filed a slew of lawsuits against county and state entities. In 2017, a California court ordered Khosla to reinstate public access to the beach. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, but Khosla won a subsequent case with a lower court. The California Coastal Commission then sued Khosla; as of May 2025, the two sides were reportedly engaged in settlement negotiations.
Remarkably, all this time, Khosla has never lived on the property or even visited Martins Beach. In fact, he regrets buying the land and has pursued the fight only as a matter of principle, he told the New York Times in 2018. He insists he is not obligated to give the public access to the beach and thus shouldn’t have to pay $200 to apply for a permit to close the road. He’s engaged local governments in costly lawsuits over a $200 permit—all in the name of principle.
Keep Your Negotiation Goals in Focus
Khosla’s battle over Martins Beach is a particularly striking example of how a single-minded commitment to principle can steer us from our negotiation goals. However, all of us are at risk of wasting time, money, and energy on a mutually destructive conflict. Here’s how to do better:
- Weigh and prioritize principles. Khosla carefully built a reputation as an entrepreneur with a strong social conscience. An enthusiastic environmentalist, he has invested in eco-friendly technologies and is at the forefront of the YIMBY, or “yes in my backyard,” movement, promoting an initiative to print 3D houses for the homeless.
As Khosla himself has acknowledged, these principles clash with his defense of private-property rights. “If I were to ever win in the Supreme Court, I’d be depressed about it,” he told the Times in 2018. “I support the Coastal Act; I don’t want to weaken it by winning.” He has continued to fight only because, he says, “property rights are even more important” than public beach access. He appears torn and regretful about the situation.
It’s good to have core values in negotiation, such as a commitment to honesty. But before refusing to negotiate “on principle,” we should pause to weigh and prioritize the various principles at play, keeping our ultimate negotiation goal in mind.
- Consider whether a principle is truly sacred. Some principles truly are non-negotiable, such as your family’s safety or your ethical values. It’s important to distinguish these sacred principles from “pseudosacred” principles—those we are willing to trade for something we value highly, according to Harvard Business School professor Max H. Bazerman. At one point in his crusade, Khosla expressed willingness to sell some of his land to the state to settle the matter. While he made an exorbitantly high offer, the fact that he was willing to negotiate at all suggests that protecting private-property rights may actually be a pseudosacred principle for him.
When you identify a principle as less than sacred, you can look for creative ways to further your negotiation goals and avoid destructive conflict. That might mean adhering to the spirit, if not the letter, of a principle. Khosla could make a more reasonable offer to sell part of his land and donate the proceeds to his YIMBY venture, for example.
- Recognize sunk costs. “If this hadn’t ever started, I’d be so happy,” Khosla told the Times. “But once you’re there in principle, you can’t give up principle.”
The statement illustrates one of the most common negotiation mistakes: investing increasingly more resources in support of a failing decision. Whether it’s an ad campaign that has proven unsuccessful or a partnership that just isn’t working out, we tend to throw good money after bad. Reluctant to admit defeat, we become overconfident in our ability to save the situation even as it deteriorates by the day.
As economists tell us, the time and money we’ve invested in a course of action are sunk costs that we can never recover. It may be humiliating to reverse course, but continuing down the same road is a much more destructive and stressful option.
What mistakes have you made in pursuit of your negotiation goals?
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
