The Psychology Behind Negotiation Tactics

“Stop being so sensitive” and “Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed” and “You need to get a sense of humor” All the favorite, go to responses from a bully boss who didn’t like to be called out. He didn’t like when anyone stood up to him He didn’t like when others didn’t play along and laugh at his offensive comments He didn’t like when anyone questioned his tactics of publicly and privately embarrassing people He didn’t like when we seemed upset, looked defensive and didn’t smile He focused on how we responded to him to distract from what was really happening: His bullying behavior was creating a toxic team culture for all of us. And by focusing on our reactions, he spun the narrative of what was really happening. He fooled management and continued his bullying ways until most of us left. Remember that manipulation is when they focus on how you reacted instead of how they treated you. How can we get better at spotting manipulation in our workplaces? #leadership #culture #inclusion #MitaMallick Image credit: Instagram

The best negotiator I know is completely silent 70% of the time. Last year she closed $400M in deals saying almost nothing. In high-stakes negotiations, the person who truly understands human psychology wins. Not the loudest voice. Not the biggest title. The one who reads the room. FBI negotiator Chris Voss spent decades getting terrorists to release hostages. Now he teaches business leaders the same principles. And here's what surprised me most: These aren't secret tactics. They're learnable skills. Anyone can become a skilled negotiator. You just need to understand how humans actually make decisions. These 7 techniques are a great starting point. They've worked in life-or-death situations and multi-billion-dollar deals. 1. Strategic Silence teaches patience. Most of us rush to fill quiet moments. But silence creates space for better offers. Practice counting to 10 before responding. It feels eternal. It works. 2. "How" over "Why" shifts dynamics. One word change. Completely different conversation. Try it in your next meeting. Watch defensiveness disappear. 3. Addressing Fears builds trust fast. Name what they're worried about before they do. It shows you understand their position, not just your own. 4. Mirroring is almost unconscious. Repeat their words. They elaborate without realizing it. Simple technique. Profound results. 5. Getting to "No" seems counterintuitive. But "no" creates boundaries. Boundaries create honest dialogue. Real deals happen after "no," not before. 6. Confirming Concerns creates momentum. Summarize their position accurately. They feel heard. Feeling heard leads to flexibility. 7. Listing Objections removes their power. Say their doubts out loud first. They can't weaponize what you've already acknowledged. Every CEO needs this skill. Every leader benefits from understanding it. Every professional can learn it. The question isn't whether you need these skills. It's when you'll start developing them. P.S. Want a PDF of my Negotiation Skills Cheat Sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dDxE5v3B ♻️ Repost to help a leader in your network. Follow Eric Partaker for more negotiation insights.

The Winter Olympics are underway, and I recently read a remarkable piece on Jessie Diggins, the American cross-country skier. (https://shorturl.at/PCECl) In one Olympic race, she lined up after being violently ill the night before. The temperature was close to minus 20 degrees. Her vision later turned pink. Sound was muffled. Her muscles cramped. She collapsed at the finish – contacts frozen to her eyeballs.   And yet she won a silver medal.   What fascinates me about performances like that is not just physical endurance; it’s something deeper.   In sports science, there’s a concept known as the central governor theory, proposed by Tim Noakes. It suggests that fatigue is not the body running out of fuel, but a protective mechanism regulated by the brain, to conserve effort before the body reaches true physiological failure. This explains why athletes often feel they’ve hit their absolute limit, only to find they can sprint at the end of the race.    I’ve long believed this idea extends beyond sport into our professional lives.   In leadership, business, and personal growth, the central question is not capability, but commitment: how hard are we prepared to work to achieve a given goal? Goals matter because they put something at stake. Loss aversion creates intrinsic motivation. But motivation alone is insufficient. It must be converted into action – into sustained effort, particularly when fatigue, pressure, and competing demands set in.   Sport provides a clear example for this because the goals are explicit and the rewards and costs are unambiguous. Time and again, we’ve seen that even when athletes appear to be operating at their limit, there is usually more in the tank.   As an actuary, I sometimes think about this through the mathematical concept of an open set – a set that does not include its boundary. Consider the set defined by x < 100. For any number in the set, 99 for example, there is a number larger that is still in the set, such as 99.9. It means that for any point you’re at, there’s always a little more room. There is always an epsilon – space to move just a bit further.   When a goal truly matters, people can tolerate far more discomfort than they initially believe possible. Yet in life and work, we rarely frame goals with the seriousness Olympians bring to winning a medal. More often, we fall back on reassuring platitudes: that we need to be sensible, that we’ve done enough. But adopting the mindset of an Olympian can be clarifying. It compels you to ask: what am I truly willing to sacrifice; how far am I prepared to stretch myself in pursuit of this goal?    The reality is that, in most instances, regardless of how hard we think we’re working, we can work harder.   I find this immensely inspiring. I’d love to hear if you’ve encountered a seemingly insurmountable wall in life, and how you overcame it. What was on the other side?

Next time you're in a crucial negotiation, this common mistake could cost you the deal. I handle approximately 10+ deals/week and I've seen people push too hard for a 'yes' and that's the worst thing It's even backed by psychology. Research shows people are more motivated to avoid losses than pursue gains. This idea, known as loss aversion, comes from The Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s Prospect Theory, which explains why we prefer small certain rewards over risky larger ones. We’ve to understand that the harder you push for that "yes"- The more defensive the other party becomes, the faster they look for escape routes, and trust erodes. What actually works is: 💡 Start with the “no” Before pitching, ask what would make this deal a hard no for them. Identifying deal-breakers early allows you to address concerns before they become roadblocks. 💡 Reframe your pitch around their losses. Instead of highlighting what they’ll gain, focus on the problems they’ll avoid or the risks they’ll reduce by saying yes. 💡 Turn the table. Ask questions that let them sell the deal to themselves: “What would make this a no-brainer for you?” “What’s one thing you’d change to feel confident moving forward?” Remember: You're not trying to win an argument. You're building a foundation for a long-term business relationship. The goal isn't forcing a "yes" - it's creating an environment where saying "yes" feels like the natural next step. Have you ever lost a deal by pushing too hard? Or won one by stepping back? Share your negotiation story below.

Most people try to confront manipulators head-on. That’s exactly what they want. Manipulators thrive on emotional reactions, public conflict, and confusion. The moment you engage emotionally, you’re playing on their terms. The professionals who handle manipulators best do something very different. They become boring, boundaries, and strategic. Here’s how to protect your career and your sanity when dealing with a manipulative colleague or leader: 1. Lock down your information. Stop oversharing. Manipulators collect personal details, insecurities, frustrations, mistakes, even your career plans, and use them later as leverage. Keep conversations professional, factual, and surface-level. 2. Document everything. Memory isn’t protection; documentation is. Send follow-up emails. Save messages. Keep records of decisions and agreements. When someone’s story changes later, written evidence speaks for itself. 3. Don’t take the emotional bait. Manipulators often use tactics like DARVO: Deny → Attack → Reverse Victim and Offender. Suddenly, they’re the victim and you’re defending yourself. The best response is calm neutrality. No over-explaining, no emotional reactions. 4. Set small boundaries early. Manipulators test people. A delayed response, a small favor, a request outside your role. If you consistently hold small boundaries early, they quickly realize you’re not an easy target. And most will move on. 5. Protect your reputation, not your ego. Trying to expose a manipulator publicly often backfires; the smarter strategy is consistency. Deliver strong work. Stay professional. Build credibility. Over time, patterns reveal themselves. You don’t need to outplay a manipulator; you need to out-discipline them. Boundaries, documentation, and detachment. And one more rule: If someone consistently leaves you feeling confused after conversations, trust that signal. Confusion is often the first sign of manipulation. Comment ELITE for my newsletter on corporate dynamics, most professionals only learn the hard way 📩 #corporatetruths #workplacepolitics #careeradvice #leadership #corporatelife

“𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗲” Former Chicago Bulls and equity holder in the Air Jordan range by Nike, Michael Jordan talks about his pre-match ritual of having a new pear of trainers for every game. He did this to evoke feelings of excitement he had as a child: “If you ever was a kid, and you ever put those shoes on for the first time, it’s like you feel energetic. You feel like you’ve actually got something that you can showcase.” This is a type of ritualised behaviour. Many athletes have pre-game rituals such as hopping on one leg when they step onto the pitch, tracing a cross on their body as they walk out, or looking to see their family in the crowd. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 Yu et al. (2023) compared the effects of pressure (low and high) and ritualised behaviours (ritualised behaviour vs random behaviour vs control group) on a shooting task. They found that ritualised behaviours act as a 'pre-game booster’ that may improve self-control via enhancing self-efficacy and motivation. Additionally, in the high-pressure group, the error rate for the ritualised group was lower than the random or control group. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗗𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗔𝘁𝗵𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝘀? There are several different explanations regarding how these rituals help athletes perform under pressure: ✅ The study Yun et al. (2023) revealed that pre-game rituals may help athletes increase their self-control, under pressurised conditions, such as competitive sports. Baumeister et al. (2007) defined self-control as being able to consciously control behaviour and thus overcome habits, impulses, or automated behaviour. ✅ Ritualised behaviours help people cope with the uncertainty of a stressful situation by giving them control over their negative emotions such as anxiety, which is a form of emotion-focused coping (Yin et al., 2022; Norton & Gino, 2014). ✅ Ritualised behaviours may generate positive emotions and beliefs during times of uncertainty. Boyer & Liénard's (2006) Precaution Theory posits that rituals develop self-efficacy, satisfaction, and hope. Michael Jordan spoke about feeling excited about opening the new pairs of trainers. ✅ Ritualised behaviours, which hold meaning to the individual, can increase willpower to achieve important goals (see Organismic Integration Theory; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Most people can’t afford a new pair of shoes everytime they play sport, but there many other examples of ritualised behaviours, such as LeBron James throwing chalk in the air before every match, Steph Curry sprinting towards the basket, Jason Tatum tugging his ears. These are free and may help performance. (🎥: Inspired by Hoops)

"What are your salary expectations?" "₹12 lakhs." "Done. We can do that." That instant "yes" should have felt like a win. Instead, it felt like a mistake. Because if they agreed that fast, they were probably ready to pay ₹15-18 lakhs. That one number - ₹12 lakhs - just cost ₹3-6 lakhs annually. Over a career? ₹50 lakhs to ₹1 crore lost. I've made this mistake too. Once a vegetable vendor quoted ₹80 per kg for tomatoes. I bargained to ₹60 and felt smart. Next vendor: ₹40 per kg for the same tomatoes. That first ₹80 had trapped my thinking. I was comparing everything to that number, not to reality. This is anchoring bias. Your brain locks onto the first number it hears and uses it as a reference point. Even when it's completely arbitrary. Nobel Prize-winning research proved it: show people random numbers, ask them unrelated questions, and their answers cluster around whatever number they saw first* In salary negotiations, this compounds every single year. Two people start at different salaries - ₹6 lakhs and ₹8 lakhs. After 5 years with standard raises: ₹9.66 lakhs and ₹12.88 lakhs. The gap persists. The initial anchor determines everything that follows. Now imagine one person negotiates their starting offer up to ₹10 lakhs. The other accepts ₹6 lakhs. After 5 years: ₹16.10 lakhs vs ₹9.66 lakhs. Over 30 years, this costs ₹30-50 lakhs in lifetime earnings. Same work. Different starting anchor. In investing, people anchor to recent highs. A stock hits ₹500, drops to ₹300. They wait for it to "come back" to ₹500 before selling. It never does. They hold losing positions for years because ₹500 is stuck in their head. With 93% of F&O traders losing money**, anchoring drives billions in losses annually. So what actually works? When asked for salary expectations: "What's the budgeted range for this role?" Make them name the number first. If forced to give a number: "Similar roles pay ₹16-18 lakhs. Given my experience, I'm targeting the higher end." Same person. Same skills. Different anchor. Anchoring will always affect your decisions. The question is whether you control it or someone else does.

39% of UK workers wouldn't report a cyber attack to their cyber security teams. The reason isn't lack of knowledge, (79% can identify attacks). It's psychology. A recent article by Craig Hale (TechRadar) reveals employees stay silent due to: ➡️ Fear of blame (17%) ➡️ Getting into trouble (17%) ➡️ Not wanting to cause a fuss (15%) ➡️ Preferring to "fix it themselves" (11%) IBM data shows this silence costs organisations an average of $2.03 MILLION more per breach. This connects to our earlier research on social engineering psychology. The same vulnerabilities that make us susceptible to attacks also prevent us from seeking help when we need it most. The solution isn't always better technology. It's psychological safety. Organisations with strong incident reporting cultures achieve: ✅ 58% lower breach costs ✅ 61-day faster incident resolution ✅ $1M savings from internal detection ✅ 75% reduction in successful cyber incidents Do your staff feel safe admitting mistakes? Building trust-based security cultures requires: ▶️ Framing incidents as learning opportunities, not failures ▶️ Leaders modelling vulnerability and admitting their own mistakes ▶️ Separating incident response from disciplinary processes ▶️ Celebrating reporters as security champions, not problems The human element shouldn't be seen or treated as your weakest link - it's your strongest defence when properly supported. What psychological barriers have you observed in cyber security incident reporting? Please share your experiences in the comments 👇 Read our full thoughts and analysis: https://lnkd.in/eEUNDjmc #Cybersecurity #PsychologicalSafety #IncidentResponse #Leadership #CyberResilience #SecurityCulture Source: Craig Hale, TechRadar - https://lnkd.in/ekG5xVBm

In business and life, the best outcomes go to the best negotiators. Most people think negotiation is about winning. It's actually about understanding. What separates good deals from great ones? It's not aggression. It's not manipulation. It's not who talks loudest. It comes down to mastering the human side of the exchange. Here's the path that works: 1. Prepare Like You Mean It Research goes beyond Google. Understand their pressures, their goals, their challenges. Knowledge becomes helpful when used with care. 2. Open With Real Connection Forget the power plays. Start with curiosity and respect. The tone you set in the first 5 minutes shapes everything that follows. 3. Explore What's Underneath People fight for positions. But they negotiate for reasons. "I need a better price" might really mean "My boss needs to see I'm adding value." Find the why behind the what. 4. Trade Value, Create Value The best deals aren't zero-sum. Look for ways both sides can win. Sometimes what costs you little means everything to them. 5. Close With Total Clarity Handshakes aren't contracts. Document what you agreed to. Confirm next steps before you leave. Ambiguity kills more deals than disagreement. The biggest mistake I see leaders make? They negotiate like it's combat. But the best outcomes come from collaboration. When you're across the table, remember: 👂 Listen more than you speak ❓ Ask "Help me understand..." when stuck ⏸️ Take breaks when emotions rise 👟 Know your walk-away point before you sit down Your style matters too. Sometimes you need to compete. Sometimes you need to accommodate. The magic is knowing when to shift. Success isn’t given. It’s negotiated. But how you negotiate determines whether you build bridges or burn them. Choose wisely. 📌 Save this for your next negotiation. ♻️ Repost if this helps you (or someone on your team) negotiate. 👉 Follow Desiree Gruber for more tools on storytelling, leadership, and brand building.

Everyone thinks elite athletes are mentally tough from day one. Surprisingly, Roger Federer proves this assumption wrong: He used to call himself an idiot after missing shots, throw tantrums on court, and let his anger dictate his performance. In 2001, he lost to a clearly inferior player. During the match, he realized his attitude was out of control and it was costing him matches. He'd always dreamed of being world #1, but this loss showed him how far away he was with his current approach. So he dedicated years to training his mind. Here's how he described what he figured out: "I always call it the fire and ice situation. The fire wanting to win, being excited after a good point and the ice coolness of accepting losses, accepting bad shots, the crowd, the tough circuit, the circumstances." Psychologists call this harmonious passion: You care deeply about your craft, but you don't lose yourself in it. The opposite is obsessive passion, where your identity gets so tangled up in outcomes that the pressure to be perfect undermines the performance itself. The research is clear that athletes with harmonious passion persist longer, adapt better, and perform at higher levels than those whose entire identity depends on winning. Federer found a way to balance an intense desire to win with self-acceptance if he were to lose. That balance gave him the foundation for unshakeable confidence going into any match. Knowing that you can perform and also knowing that you, as a person, are still valuable and worthy even if it doesn't go your way. Most founders I work with face the opposite problem. They're Series B and C leaders who are deathly afraid of being mediocre. Their identity is completely wrapped up in whether their company succeeds. This fear creates a bottom-line mentality under pressure. When you believe your worth depends on your company's performance, you start rationalizing decisions you'd never normally make. The attachment that feels like dedication actually constrains your effectiveness. When you separate your self-worth from your outcomes, you get better outcomes. You lead more authentically because you're not performing to prove something to yourself. Fierce commitment to your craft paired with detachment from what it means about you as a person. That's sustainable high performance.