Why Most Negotiation Advice is Useless and What Actually Works

Lori: You describe negotiation as dealing with “brutes, gatekeepers, and liars.”  Can you share real examples of when these personalities threatened a negotiation, and what turned the situation around?

Joachim: In the case of the gatekeeper, this is someone who controls access to critical information. In public administration years ago, an individual routinely withheld key information and revealed it only to block certain initiatives from starting. After multiple escalations to senior leadership and heavy pushbacks from their opponents within the organization, they were required to cooperate.

In another case, a team leader concealed key details within budget lines and long, unreadable documents. By conducting a thorough business analysis, we exposed the poorly supported projects and blocked the projects from moving forward.

An example of the brute – this is someone who relies on authority, intimidation rather than collaboration. During a project for a medtech company, one of my bosses decided that to gain grace from my client’s superior, he would replace me with a more senior IT expert. After a few arguments where the said expert threatened my employment, they utterly failed a meeting with regulatory affairs, nearly ending the project. The next day, I was silently put back in charge.

During a project for a pharmaceutical company, the project sponsor was an aggressive, domineering senior who would constantly challenge people without ever committing. After 3 months of recovering from a failing project, and a particularly egregious accusation, I spoke back and put him in the spotlight, shifting the weight of the failure on his refusal to commit. He disappeared with excuses some minutes later and afterwards only spoke of the project on good terms.

On liars – this is someone who intentionally distorts the truth to gain an advantage, avoid accountability, or manipulate others. During my hospital and university work, I have faced multiple false accusations and threats, all of which disappeared when I went on record and involved either legal or HR departments.

During a project for Pharma (the same as before), my client’s competitor tried during a public event to make me submit to his way of working, which I dutifully illustrated on a sheet of paper. As the sheet became increasingly full, I started to pick the weaknesses of their arguments, after which he slipped away and stopped attacking.

Lori: What works vs what people want: You define a successful negotiation as achieving what makes sense, not simply what people want. How can professionals recognize that distinction when emotions are high, and egos are getting in the way?

Joachim: The first thing is to practice a certain internal stoicism, so that you are not overwhelmed by the heat of the moment. The second, which may vary by culture, is to stay focused on the material differences (the facts), rather than personalise the conflict. While conflicts may have a relational component, they can be addressed by resetting ground rules or encouraging an open discussion to uncover the real issue.  This approach requires judgment, but the goal is always the same: keep the conversation focused on finding the best outcome, not on winning the argument.

Lori: The personality angle: You mention that certain personality traits can be developed to improve negotiation outcomes. Which trait has the greatest impact, and how can professionals strengthen that in practice?

Joachim: The biggest trait is self-confidence, the sensation that no matter what the outcome, it will be good. It is easy to claim but harder to have and often shows as bravado. Self-confidence can be very circumstantial when a party feels in control or in charge. It looks more often like the quiet ability to ignore requests or arguments, to state a preference or opinion as fact.

Lori: The skills gap: You describe negotiations as one of the most valued and yet underdeveloped professional skills. Why do you think so many professionals never seriously invest in improving it? Is it a lack of confidence, limited self-awareness, or something else?

Joachim: There is certainly a confidence gap. Most people have had negative experiences with conflict or negotiations. Negotiation can be time-consuming and emotionally demanding. Another challenge is that, because negotiation is highly contextual and based on human interaction, many training courses are theoretical, based on rules, rather than real practice.

Lori: Walking away with your head high—that phrase is the promise of your session. Beyond a good outcome, what does it emotionally and professionally mean to leave a negotiation that way, and is it always achievable?

Joachim: It is always achievable to leave with your head high, that is confidence and wisdom. However, it is not always achievable to leave with a good deal. Most negotiations do fail even before they start. Emotionally it means, as above, that you know you will be fine, regardless of the outcome. It also means to pick your battles. Understanding early the stakes and your own risk tolerance means you can avoid situations which would be too emotional to lose.

Lori: What do you hope viewers of your presentation will walk away with? What’s the one shift in mindset you would want them to carry into their next negotiation?

Joachim: Driving a hard bargain does not mean being mean or unkind. In fact, it is often necessary to reach fair and respectful deal. To build the confidence to negotiate effectively, professionals can practice handling rejection by entering “negotiations” where you have only to gain, or where there is little to lose. An example would be to connect with random strangers and propose harmless requests that can build comfort with hearing “no.” Rejections may be uncomfortable but will make you stronger. This is why I focus on the person and the practice, rather than the theory and process.