Negotiation Strategy in Action: 25 Expert Answers to Real-World Commercial Negotiation Challenges

---

Leading negotiation experts Alistair White (former Partner at The Gap Partnership and Cranfield School of Management Associate), Chris Atkins (Partner at The Gap Partnership), and Javier Marcos (Professor of Negotiation at Cranfield School of Management) tackle the toughest questions practitioners face in today's business environment.

---

Negotiation is one of the most critical skills in business, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood. From boardroom deals to supplier relationships, from internal politics to price increases, the ability to negotiate effectively can make or break careers and companies. In this article, leading negotiation experts address questions from practitioners across industries. Their insights offer pragmatic solutions to the challenges negotiators face daily helping them turn negotiation strategy into action.

1. Internal Negotiations: The Hidden Battlefield

Q: The hardest discussions I have are internal - what are your tips for negotiating internally?

The same principles that apply to external negotiations work internally, but the emotional landscape differs significantly. Internal negotiations often carry higher stakes because of ongoing relationships and hierarchy issues. The expectation of collegiality can create false pressure to concede inappropriately.

The key challenge is that opportunities for value exchange—the foundation of collaborative negotiation—are limited internally. Unlike external partners with different business models and KPIs, internal colleagues often compete for the same finite resources: budgets, personnel, and deadlines.

Plan these negotiations as carefully as any external deal. Analyse your colleague's perspective, understanding their pressures and motivations. Remember that neither party can simply 'walk away,' making relationship preservation critical. Approach these discussions dispassionately, focusing less on the colleague relationship and more on the business challenge at hand.

2. Tender Negotiations: Influencing the Rules of the Game

Q: I'm involved in tenders - how do I get my number on the table first?

You can't control tender pricing directly, but you can influence the conditions before the final draft. The pre-conditioning phase is critical—if you know a tender is coming, work to influence pricing parameters and specifications early.

Once you receive the tender document, immediately engage your customer about alternative configurations, specifications, or delivery methods. If they're willing to discuss modifications, you've effectively moved from tender submission to negotiation on more favourable terms.

Remember that tenders aren't just about price—quality, reliability, flexibility, and long-term value all matter. Help customers see what they're missing by focusing solely on price, and always look for alternative communication channels when direct influence seems limited.

3. Breaking Out of Price-Only Discussions

Q: All my customer ever wants to talk about is price, how do I manage to broaden the discussion?

Create structure through conditional proposals using "If You... Then We..." frameworks. For example: "If you increase order volume, then we can discuss pricing adjustments." This forces customers to consider your agenda because their reward depends on addressing your needs.

Send meeting agendas in advance that document all issues you want to discuss. Help customers understand what they're missing by focusing only on price: quality assurance, supply reliability, payment terms, promotional support.

Most importantly, understand why they're fixated on price. What are their success metrics? How are they measured? Understanding their KPIs helps you position value in terms that matter to them.

4. Shifting from Competitive to Collaborative

Q: I want the negotiation to be warm and collaborative, however they are behaving cold and competitive…

This disconnect often stems from different fundamental intentions. The simplest tactical solution is increasing complexity—broadening the agenda to incorporate more variables creates trading opportunities and enables a "Give and Take" process.

Your counterpart's competitive behaviour typically has two causes: either they understand negotiation and deliberately act competitively because they believe they hold power, or they lack sophisticated negotiation understanding and think table-banging is the only way to get results.

For the first type, demonstrate that they're more likely to get what they want by offering some of what you want. For the second, education through a series of proposals showing alternative approaches often converts them to collaboration.

5. Negotiating in Saturated Markets

Q: How do I negotiate a price increase in a saturated market?

A saturated market exists for a reason—fallen demand or oversupply. No negotiator can "un-saturate" a market overnight. The real question becomes: "How should I negotiate in a saturated market?"

If your product isn't significantly differentiated, consider what you can negotiate in return for maintaining price stability or offering slight reductions: longer contracts, additional products, international referrals, sole supplier status, joint development projects.

Ultimately, you cannot change the hand you're dealt—you can only play your cards as intelligently as possible. Focus on creating value through non-price variables rather than fighting market realities.

6. Countering Unilateral Demands

Q: My biggest customer is always making unilateral demands for rebates, investments and more. What can I do to counteract this?

Never argue about why you shouldn't concede—this perpetuates the binary Yes/No framework they've created. Instead, ask "Why?" to understand the underlying reasons driving their demands. Use the questioning sequence: Why? How Else? What If?

Broaden the agenda beyond single issues, which automatically creates a competitive dynamic. Make conditional proposals that clearly state under what conditions you'd grant their requests.

Consider buying time to think and consult internally. Sometimes problems resolve themselves, but don't rely on this. Understand the true power balance—they're likely making similar demands to all suppliers and targeting those who concede most readily.

7. Building Trust in Negotiation

Q: You talk a lot about building trust in negotiation, can you give me a few concrete suggestions about how to do this?

Trust builds over time through consistent behaviour—doing what you say when you say you'll do it. Reliability and consistency form trust's foundation.

Distinguish trust from likability. Trying to make people like you often backfires and appears weak. True trust enables frank, sometimes tough conversations without fearing relationship damage.

Show genuine interest in your counterpart's situation and suggest how you might contribute. The saying "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care" applies here.

Take people into your confidence by sharing appropriate information—this sends an unspoken message that you trust them not to abuse the position. Make strategic investments in the relationship, clearly framing these as calculated investments expecting future returns, not acts of generosity.

8. Algorithms vs. Human Negotiators

Q: Will the highest value deals of the future be achieved by the team with the best algorithms rather than the best skilled negotiators?

For most negotiations, humans maintain significant advantages. Algorithms may excel in complex, multi-variable auctions, but they struggle with emotional intelligence—reading counterparts' emotional states and creating satisfaction regardless of outcomes.

Trust remains crucial, particularly in long-term relationships. Can algorithms trust? Do they detect deception? When negotiations reach impasse, human creativity often introduces previously unconsidered variables. Skilled negotiators arrive at insights by listening not just to what's said, but how it's said and what's left unsaid.

While AI may eventually challenge human negotiators, for now, the human advantage in relationship-based, complex negotiations remains substantial.

9.      Conflict in Collaborative Negotiations

Q: Can conflict exist in collaborative negotiations?

Not only can conflict exist—it must exist. "Conflict" in negotiation simply means differing positions. If there's no difference, there's already agreement, making negotiation unnecessary.

The misconception lies in equating "conflict" with aggressive confrontation. Humans naturally avoid conflict because it feels uncomfortable, but negotiators must accept this discomfort as inherent to the process. The challenge is managing conflict constructively rather than avoiding it entirely.

10.   Price Increases and Trust

Q: Until now, I have enjoyed a strong relationship with my buyer, but my company is pushing through a price increase in a highly price-sensitive brand, and I am afraid this will undermine the trust that has taken so long to build.

Implementing a legitimate price increase doesn't constitute a breach of trust unless you've explicitly promised not to do so. You're entitled to implement price increases—they happen in every market daily.

This situation requires drawing on existing trust. If your relationship is genuinely strong, you should be able to discuss the issue without fearing terminal damage. You can respect their reluctance while they respect your decision.

If you've built trust by always accommodating their requests, you may have created unrealistic expectations. Consider repairing any relationship damage by demonstrating that, despite the legitimate price increase, you still have their commercial interests at heart.

11.   The "Final Offer" Tactic

Q: My counterparty frequently tells me that his proposal is his "final offer". What is your opinion of this as a negotiating technique?

Final offers often create more problems than they solve by reducing negotiation movement prospects and forcing the speaker into a corner. The tone matters enormously—there's a significant difference between table-thumping "take it or leave it" and humble "I'm sorry, but that's as far as I can go."

The tactic attempts to convince others you cannot move further, but it can backfire if, subsequently it turns out that you were able to move beyond your ‘final position’, even when you might be able to. Alternative approaches include making progressively smaller concessions to suggest diminishing room for movement.

Exceptions exist: if you've genuinely reached your break-point, say so. In final negotiation stages with strong alternatives, final offers might close deals—but they carry significant risks.

12.   Email Negotiations

Q: In our new working world, we have found email negotiation has increased. How does a negotiator read the meaning behind the written words?

Email removes emotional state indicators, forcing us to impose our own interpretations. One person reads "immediately" as irritated impatience; another sees simple urgency.

Counteract this by seeking second opinions on email interpretations or, if you know your counterpart well, reading using their voice in your head. Watch for adverbs and adjectives indicating intentions, note who's copied and why, and count emails on the same subject as urgency indicators.

Lengthy, verbose emails with excessive explanations often indicate discomfort with negotiating positions, similar to excessive justification in face-to-face encounters.

13.   Virtual Negotiation Skills

Q: What are the skills we need to be successful virtual negotiators, and will they be useful when we return to face-to-face negotiation?

Virtual negotiations provide less raw material for interpreting communications and fewer resources for precise message delivery. This demands enhanced questioning and listening skills to understand counterparts' thinking, plus improved communication skills regarding word choice, tone, and facial expressions.

These skills already exist—we simply rely on them less in face-to-face negotiations, like no longer depending on smell to detect danger. Strengthening these capabilities through virtual necessity obviously benefits face-to-face negotiations when they resume.

14.   Strategic Concession Sequencing

Q: You emphasise Strategic Concession Sequencing with a decreasing pattern (large → medium → small), but how do you determine the appropriate timing between concessions?

In strategic negotiations, time drives everything. Understanding deal timelines and pressure points enables timetable control. People value what they work hard for, so concession timing should reflect their value and your conditions.

Build strategic plans extending to deadline timetables, remembering most concessions happen in final weeks or days. Leave room for movement until negotiations end. Control the fundamental pace rather than rushing to accommodate their urgency.

15.   Uncovering Hidden Value

Q: Value-Based Trading matrix allows defining clear "TAKE," "GIVE," and "TRADE" actions, but in complex negotiations, how do you handle situations where the value differential isn't immediately obvious?

Preparation and understanding counterpart priorities is essential. Conduct preliminary meetings establishing negotiation agendas and discussing relative importance to both parties.

Declare your own priorities openly to encourage reciprocal openness. If they won't declare priorities, point out implications: "How do you expect me to formulate attractive proposals without knowing what 'attractive' looks like?"

Ask probing questions around each variable: "What would be the implications if we couldn't agree to that?" Pay attention to their reactions to your proposals—note which elements generate more or less receptivity.

16.   Strategic Impasse

Q: In negotiations, a calculated impasse strategy can be powerful but also risky. How do you use strategic impasse and minimise damaging the relationship?

Calculated impasse assumes you're prepared to deadlock and manage consequences. This requires understanding true power balance, alternatives for both parties, and acceptable timescales.

When entering impasse, clarify this isn't your preferred choice and the door remains open for further discussions. Use disempowerment to make negotiations less personal—frame it as a company issue, not individual conflict.

Keep communicating to prevent impasse becoming costly mistakes. Most importantly, understand ultimate outcomes: Can you truly do without your counterpart? Can they do without you?

17.   Preparation vs. Adaptability

Q: Given that most negotiations deviate significantly from planned strategies once they begin, how much time and resources should organisations actually invest in detailed preparation versus developing adaptive improvisation skills?

The premise that negotiation is unpredictable is disputed. Negotiation appears unpredictable only when insufficient time is spent predicting possibilities. Any preparation should include extensive contingency planning for likely and unlikely eventualities.

Proper preparation answers countless "what if" scenarios. While adaptation skills matter, they cannot substitute for thorough preparation, which provides the foundation for effective improvisation.

18.   Emotions vs. Rationality

Q: The literature emphasises 'principled negotiation' and rational decision-making, yet behavioural research shows that emotions often drive outcomes more than pure logic. Should we be preparing negotiators to embrace and leverage emotions rather than manage them?

Emotional intelligence is critical for negotiation success. The question becomes whether emotionality successfully enables or undermines reaching negotiated agreements.

Using emotion as a tactic works short-term but has diminishing effects. Emotions work in competitive scenarios but won't enable long-term collaborative agreements. Understanding emotional states and their effects on decision-making helps analyse whether you're achieving desired outcomes.

Separation of emotions from decision-making represents universal best practice. Ensure you're consciously using emotion to benefit outcomes rather than rationalising stress-induced emotionality.

19.   Cultural Context

Q: Most negotiation frameworks are developed from Western, individualistic business contexts. How valid are these approaches when applied across different cultural contexts where relationship, hierarchy, and time have fundamentally different meanings?

Cultural differences in negotiation between corporate entities may be overestimated. Good deals transcend cultural boundaries from Albania to Zanzibar. Negotiation programmes worldwide require only minor modifications for different cultures.

While cultural differences exist, differences within cultures are equally significant. You may share more with demographically similar negotiators from different continents than with demographically different compatriots.

Most negotiation frameworks derive from capitalistic contexts because most commercial negotiations occur between capitalistic entities.

20.   Value Creation Reality

Q: The concept of 'expanding the pie' and creating win-win outcomes sounds appealing, but in resource-constrained environments with genuine zero-sum elements, does this approach actually work?

Success depends on how parties are measured internally. If you secure value but receive no internal credit, you won't emphasise it. "Win-Win" doesn't mean equal benefits—it means mutual benefit, which is achievable and worth pursuing.

If sophisticated negotiators benefit more from this approach, that's compelling reason to develop negotiation capabilities. The goal isn't perfect equality but mutual gain within realistic constraints.

21.   Trust and Information Control

Q: Building trust is consistently cited as crucial for successful negotiation, yet many effective negotiators strategically withhold information and create controlled uncertainty. Is the emphasis on trust-building actually a competitive disadvantage in high-stakes negotiations?

Trust isn't essential for every negotiation but becomes important in highly collaborative negotiations with high dependency and relationship longevity. Negotiations require implementation and execution—you need trust that counterparts will honour agreements.

Information withholding doesn't negate trust. Trust isn't about total transparency, which could be commercial suicide, but about believing counterparts respect your motivations and will help achieve them if you reciprocate.

22.   Power Imbalances

Q: Negotiation literature often assumes relatively balanced power relationships, but many negotiations involve significant power imbalances. Does teaching 'principled negotiation' to the less powerful party actually serve their interests?

Literature may assume balanced power because it's easier to demonstrate collaborative negotiations this way. However, true balance rarely exists unless parties are in genuine interdependence.

Power balance is critical because power provides options and choices. However, power derives from many factors and is often misperceived. Power balance is fluid and can be influenced.

Principled negotiation can apply even with power imbalances if it serves the powerful party's long-term interests to collaborate—"talk softly but carry a big stick."

23.   Negotiation Training Effectiveness

Q: Despite extensive negotiation training programmes, there is sometimes limited improvement in actual negotiation outcomes. Is the problem with training methods, theoretical foundations, or the assumption that negotiation can be effectively taught?

The premise is disputed—countless instances exist where negotiation training produces consistently better outcomes. Negotiation capability can be taught and developed; there's no such thing as a "born negotiator."

Negotiation is based on common sense and sound understanding of human psychology and behaviour, not dark arts. Some techniques may seem plausible in classrooms but prove difficult to apply in specific jobs, but this doesn't invalidate the training.

Negotiation ability is a life skill comparable to driving or computer operation—it can be learned. The key isn't one-off interventions but supported ongoing development through real-world application.

24.   Applying Learning to Practice

Q: How do I best apply what I learn in negotiation courses into practice?

Successful application requires systematic implementation grounded in learning theory. Begin with experiential learning in low-stakes situations with good alternatives, then gradually increase complexity. After each negotiation, reflect systematically on outcomes, maintaining a negotiation journal for development tracking.

Implement deliberate practice building skills incrementally. Master one technique at a time rather than attempting everything simultaneously. Thorough preparation is crucial—better preparation increases likelihood of successfully applying new concepts.

Apply social learning theory by observing skilled negotiators, seeking mentorship, and using role-playing exercises. Remember negotiation exists on a continuum from competitive to collaborative. Success comes through deliberate, reflective application combined with systematic preparation and continuous learning.

25.   Ethics in Negotiation

Q: Negotiation advice often includes tactics like strategic information disclosure, anchoring, and leveraging time pressure—tactics that could be considered manipulative in other contexts. Where exactly is the ethical line between effective negotiation and manipulation?

In negotiation, your job is securing the best possible outcome for yourself and your organisation that your counterpart will accept. Their job is identical for their organisation.

Using time pressure or withholding information may be tactical advantage rather than manipulation. Negotiation isn't mediation seeking fair and reasonable outcomes—results should reflect power balance between negotiators.

Like court advocates arguing for clients, assuming equal skill, outcomes should reflect truth. Negotiators themselves and their employers' ethical codes determine boundaries. Setting universal standards isn't the role of negotiation experts—it's a personal choice.

Conclusion

These twenty-five questions and answers reveal the complex reality of modern negotiation practice. While theoretical frameworks provide essential foundations, real-world success requires adapting principles to specific contexts, managing emotions and relationships, and continuously developing skills through deliberate practice.

The most successful negotiators combine rigorous preparation with tactical flexibility, principled approaches with situational awareness, and technical skills with emotional intelligence. They understand that negotiation is simultaneously an art and a science—requiring both analytical thinking and human insight.

Whether you're facing internal politics, external pressures, cultural differences, or ethical dilemmas, the path forward involves committed learning, systematic preparation, and thoughtful application of proven principles adapted to your unique circumstances. The investment in developing these capabilities pays dividends throughout careers and organisations, enabling better outcomes while preserving relationships essential for long-term success.

As these experts demonstrate, negotiation mastery isn't about having all the answers—it's about asking better questions, preparing thoroughly, and adapting skillfully to the human complexities that make every negotiation unique.

Alistair White alistair.white27@gmail.com 

Chris Atkins chris.atkins@thegappartnership.com 

Javier Marcos Javier.Marcos-Cuevas@cranfield.ac.uk