Virtual Negotiation Strategies

MIT ran an International AI Negotiation competition and studied 120,000 negotiations between AI negotiators. The results are fascinating and inform the potential and optimal structures for Humans + AI negotiation. From the paper I would highlight three major points and three insights into configuring human-AI hybrid negotiation (below): 🤝 Warmth builds long-term value despite short-term trade-offs. AI agents with high warmth (friendliness, empathy, and cooperative communication) reached more agreements, making them more successful over multiple negotiations. While they claimed less value per deal compared to dominant agents, their ability to close more deals led to greater overall value accumulation. This mirrors human negotiation, where trust-building and relationship management create lasting advantages. 💪 Dominance increases value claimed but reduces collaboration. AI agents that displayed dominance—through assertiveness and competitive tactics—secured better individual outcomes but created less overall value. These agents were less likely to foster positive subjective experiences, indicating that aggressive negotiation styles may be effective for short-term gain but could hinder long-term relationships. 🎭 Prompt injection wins in the short term but undermines long-term success. One leading AI negotiator used prompt injection to extract counterpart strategies, maximizing value claims. However, it ranked poorly for counterpart subjective value, meaning agents found these interactions highly unfavorable. Since negotiation rankings balanced value claimed and relationship quality, the strategy failed to dominate in the long run. Emergent strategies for Humans + AI negotiation: 🧠 AI for deep preparation, humans for real-time adaptation. AI excels at structured reasoning, analyzing trade-offs, and predicting counterpart moves through chain-of-thought processing. Humans bring intuition and adaptability, interpreting social cues and adjusting strategies dynamically. A hybrid approach leverages AI for pre-negotiation analysis while allowing humans to refine tactics in real time. 🤝 Blending AI precision with human warmth for trust-building. AI can optimize negotiation strategies, but humans naturally build trust through empathy, humor, and rapport. AI-enhanced systems can recommend tone adjustments, use linguistic mirroring, and strategically deploy warmth versus assertiveness based on sentiment analysis, improving long-term negotiation outcomes. 🚀 Human oversight to counter AI vulnerabilities. AI negotiators are susceptible to manipulation tactics like prompt injection, where counterparts extract hidden strategies. Humans play a crucial role in monitoring AI-generated offers, preventing unintended disclosures, and leveraging AI-driven detection systems to flag potential deception, ensuring negotiation integrity. The future of negotiation will be Humans + AI.

🚫 Stop wasting your time on ineffective sales strategies. ✅ Start doing this instead: Compassionate follow-ups. Let’s look at the numbers 👇 📉 Industry standard conversion rate: 10% That means only 1 out of 10 qualified calls convert on the first try. But here’s what most people miss: 📈 74% of service-based sales happen during follow-ups. That’s 7.4 out of 10 calls turning into clients, just by following up the right way. Can you see how much you're leaving on the table? Now here’s why follow-ups work so well: We’re raised to seek validation before making decisions. We constantly want to be sure we’re making the right choice. Your leads are no different. Yet, most follow-ups sound like: 👉 “Have you decided?” 👉 “Did you make the payment?” That’s not validation, that’s pressure. And pressure kills trust. Instead, create a space for clarity, reflection, and emotional safety. That’s where real conversion happens. Here’s the 3-step follow-up system I teach my clients 👇 💬 Step 1 – Revisit the last conversation Ask: What was the best part of our chat that stayed with you? This activates memory and emotional recall. 🎯 Step 2 – Reinforce their vision Ask: If you had support like this, what could change for you in 6 months? This brings their desire to the surface. 🧠 Step 3 – Co-create the offer Ask: What would make this offer a no-brainer for you? This gives them agency and reduces resistance. Sales isn’t about convincing. It’s about building clarity and confidence. Master your follow-ups, And you’ll stop chasing. They’ll start choosing.

They thought they had no choice. That’s why they almost gave in. I was in the room when it happened. A client (let’s call them Pollocks Pipelay) had been working with the same supplier for years. Solid relationship, reliable service. But one day, the supplier walked in and said: "𝙒𝙚’𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙗𝙮 𝟯𝟬%. 𝙉𝙤𝙣-𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚." Immediate silence and panic. They needed this supplier - They started calculating how to absorb the cost - There was no backup - No safety net Then I asked the team: "𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙖𝙡𝙠?" Nobody had an answer! I aimed to shift their view from fear to power Most negotiators consider a Fallback Plan (BATNA) a concept The best negotiators 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙚 it. - We took a step back - We mapped the fundamental alternatives - We found a smaller but reliable European supplier Was it perfect? No Was it good enough to remove the fear of walking away? Absolutely At the next meeting, Pollocks Pipelay didn’t beg for a price adjustment Instead, they confidently said: "𝙒𝙚’𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠" You should have seen the supplier’s face The power dynamic instantly flipped: - Pollocks Pipelay secured better payment terms - The supplier dropped their price increase entirely - They knew they’d never be backed into a corner again I see this mistake constantly. Smart professionals walking into negotiations without a strategic fallback plan → 85% of negotiators lack a strong fallback plan →Those who anchor first with a solid BATNA secure deals 26% closer to their goals →Having a fallback plan reduces bad deals by 40% while preserving relationships Yet so many people still fear walking away. Make your Fallback Plan your power move 1️⃣ Before the negotiation: Identify at least two real alternatives. Don’t rely on assumptions. Map your ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement). Study their BATNA—what are their options if you walk? 2️⃣ During the negotiation: Signal strength (“We’re weighing options, but I’d like to find common ground”) Stay flexible—adjust if new information emerges. 3️⃣ After the negotiation: Document what worked. Refine your BATNA for next time. The Best Negotiators Don’t Fear Walking Away—𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗙𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗦𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀. Don't be aggressive in negotiations. Just know your worth and your options. Think about your negotiations. Do you have a Fallback Plan? Or just hope for the best? Have you ever been in a deal where you felt trapped but found a way out? Or maybe you’ve walked away, and later realized it was the best move you could’ve made? Drop your story in the comments. Let’s talk about how having (or not having) a fallback plan (BATNA) changed your outcome.

Deal or No Deal? Have you ever found yourself in a negotiation where the person you were negotiating with was the "good cop" and the "bad cop" was never directly involved in the conversations? I find this convenient trick to be one that many leaders use to avoid direct conflict in having the tough conversations around deal terms. It's so much easier to blame the CEO or the Board or the Owner who aren't ever in the room. But here’s the thing—if the decision-maker is never actually present, are you even negotiating with the right person? I’ve seen this tactic used time and time again to delay, deflect, or pressure the other party into accepting less favorable terms. It creates an artificial power dynamic where the “good cop” seems reasonable while the unseen “bad cop” remains an immovable force in the background. So how do you handle it? 1.  𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁. Politely ask, “What would it take to get the real decision-maker in the room?” If they keep dodging, you know where you stand. 2.  𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀. If you’re negotiating with someone who doesn’t have full authority, clarify that your final concessions won’t be made until you’re speaking with the right person. 3.  𝗟𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆. If they’re playing the “bad cop is unavailable” game, take your time too. Don’t let them rush you into bad terms while they hide behind hierarchy. At the end of the day, real deals get done when both sides come to the table prepared to make real decisions. If you find yourself negotiating with someone who always needs to “check with someone else,” you might not have a real deal on the table—just a runaround. Deal or no deal? You decide. #scalingwellness

The Trust Factor in Intercultural Negotiations: Insights from a Systematic Review Trust is essential for financial success in negotiation. I have developed the Tru$tCurrency concept and want to share this interesting study. In today's globalized world, trust is a fundamental pillar in business and negotiation. But what happens when trust is tested across cultural boundaries? A recent systematic review by Mariusz Sikorski and Prof. Dr. Arnd Albrecht, MBA (2025) sheds light on the complexities of trust in intercultural negotiations and offers valuable insights for professionals navigating global deal-making.  Trust Varies Across Cultures One of the key takeaways from the research is that trust is not universal—it varies significantly between high-trust and low-trust cultures.  - High-trust cultures (e.g., the U.S., Northern Europe, East Asia) tend to assume trust until proven otherwise.  - Low-trust cultures (e.g., Latin America, the Middle East) require more time and relationship-building before trust is granted. This has direct implications for negotiators: what works in one cultural setting may backfire in another. As Sikorski & Albrecht state, “Individuals from different cultures not only assess trustworthiness differently but also tend to trust members of other cultures to a lower degree.” Trust Repair is Harder in Intercultural Contexts Breaking trust in a negotiation is one thing—repairing it is another challenge, especially in intercultural settings. The study finds that different cultures interpret trust violations and apologies in distinct ways.  - In Western cultures, apologies typically signal responsibility and regret.  - In Japan, apologies focus on acknowledging the counterpart’s burden, rather than admitting guilt. This underscores why trust cannot be restored with a one-size-fits-all approach. Effective trust repair requires cultural intelligence and a deep understanding of the counterpart’s perspective. Implications for Global Negotiators For professionals engaged in international business, partnerships, and diplomacy, this study offers clear takeaways:  ✔ Recognize cultural differences in trust-building—some counterparts require immediate openness, others need time.  ✔ Adapt strategically—find the balance between bridging cultural gaps and maintaining authenticity.  ✔ Communicate with awareness—misinterpretations can quickly erode trust, especially across high-context and low-context cultures.  ✔ Be intentional about trust repair—apologies and solutions must align with cultural expectations. As Sikorski & Albrecht conclude, “Trust is a crucial element in negotiations, and it is even more important in intercultural contexts.” Understanding how trust is formed, lost, and regained across cultures is no longer optional—it’s essential for success. Read the full paper here: https://lnkd.in/d9pctusR

Drowning in Zoom calls and Slack threads? No energy left at the end of the day? 🥱 Zoom fatigue is real. So is information overload. It certainly happens to me. To understand science-backed strategies that get better results while preserving our energy, I invited Andrew Brodsky to Speak Like a CEO. Andrew is a management professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of "Ping: The Secrets of Successful Virtual Communication". His PING framework is a simple, research-backed method to help you communicate smarter, not harder, in today’s virtual world. 📌 Perspective-taking 💡 Initiative 🎭 Nonverbal cues 🎯 Goals P = Perspective-taking Virtual communication makes it easy to forget there’s a human on the other side. Whether it’s a blunt email or a cold video call, always ask: How will this message feel to them? Clarity and empathy go further than you think. I = Initiative Don’t accept the weaknesses of a platform – fix them. Add warmth to text-based chats, build rapport before negotiations, or switch formats to better match your message. N = Nonverbal cues Your tone, lighting, posture, and even silence send signals. Be intentional. On video, your background, gestures and eye contact matter. G = Goals Start with the outcome. Want quick input? Use Slack. Need alignment? Meet live. Trying to build trust? Turn on the camera. Match the medium to your goal, not your habit. Our virtual communication has become a habit. Let’s challenge them and replace outdated routines with science-backed strategies. ❓ How do you ensure your message lands virtually?   ♻️ Repost to help someone improve their virtual communication. 📌 Follow me, Oliver Aust, for daily strategies on leadership communications.

Years ago, I watched one of the best enterprise salespeople I've ever known lose a million-dollar deal simply because "𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝘀𝗵𝘆". This brilliant, capable professional was letting million-dollar opportunities slip away because she was afraid of seeming aggressive. Sound familiar? Here's the reality I've found after analyzing thousands of sales interactions: The average B2B purchase requires 8+ touches before a response, but most salespeople give up after 2-3. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝘂𝗽𝘀—𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀. Working with clients across industries, I've developed what some have called the "Goldilocks Sequence" – not too aggressive, not too passive, but just right for maximizing response rates without alienating prospects. It starts with how we view follow-ups. Stop thinking of them as "checking in" and start seeing them as opportunities to deliver additional value. For each client, we build what I call a "Follow-Up Content Library" with 5-10 genuinely valuable resources for each buyer persona – a mix of their content and third-party research addressing likely challenges. Having this ready means follow-ups can pull the most relevant resource based on the specific situation. The sequence itself has a rhythm designed to respect the prospect's time while staying on their radar: 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭 is the initial value-focused outreach with a specific insight (never generic "I'd like to connect" language). Around 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟯, we send a gentle bump, forwarding the original email with: "I wanted to make sure this reached you. Any thoughts on the [specific insight]?" It's brief and assumes positive intent. By 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟱, we shift to an alternative channel like LinkedIn, with a personalized note referencing the insight, but still no meeting request. Around 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟴 comes the pure value-add – sharing a relevant resource with no ask attached: "Came across this [article/case study] that addresses the [challenge] we discussed. Thought you might find it valuable regardless of our conversation." 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟮 brings what I call the "pattern interrupt" – a brief email with an unexpected subject line and single-question format that's easy to respond to. Then, around Day 18, we send the "permission to close" message: "I'm sensing this might not be a priority right now. If that's the case, could you let me know if I should check back in the future? Happy to remove you from my follow-up list otherwise." This sequence generated a 34% response rate for an enterprise software client compared to their previous 11% using traditional methods. The key difference? Every touch adds legitimate value rather than just asking for time. And because it's systematic, it removes the emotional weight of deciding when and how to follow up. What's your most effective follow-up technique? I'm always collecting new approaches to share with clients. #SalesFollowUp #OutreachStrategy #PipelineGeneration

𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗜 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀? It's not far-off to imagine AI-driven negotiations becoming a reality and offering a competitive edge. First solutions handling tail-spend negotiations for procurement already exist. But are LLMs ready to match human intuition, flexibility, and ethics without collateral damage? A recent study explored AI negotiation strategies by benchmarking various LLM's such as Claude-2, GPT-4 and 3.5 through a NEGOTIATIONARENA framework. The results? Astonishing and cautionary. They demonstrate that the ability of Large Language Models to accomplish negotiation scenarios with varying degree of certitude but require thorough considerations for its future use. Scenarios tested included:  1️⃣ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 - aimed to achieve optimal results whilst creating fair and equitable outcomes for all involved. It demonstrated that AI is proficient in distributing & sharing resources but showed inconsistent abilities and flexibility to adapt negotiation strategies to new contexts. 2️⃣ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 focused on how AI aggregates resources, demonstrated the strategic depth and robust negotiation skills of AI but exposed deficiencies to balance competitive and cooperative tactics 3️⃣ 𝗜𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗹/𝗕𝘂𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀 concentrated on price negotiations, AI exhibited a broad range of psychological & emotional strategies to create advantages but also a cognitive bias to the anchoring effect, where initial offers influence the trajectory of negotiations. Whilst GPT 4, emerged as the model mastering the scenarios best, caution is needed before assuming that autonomous negotiations surpass human skills. Challenges regarding ethical and moral considerations, risk of damaging relationships, and inherent biases in AI models still need to be addressed. In the Ultimatum Game for instance, LLM's using cunning, insulting & desperate behaviours to pressure or entice better results, achieved a 82% better win rate although achieving similar pay-offs as with default approaches. The consequences of using these type of tactics, could result in an increased risk of not achieving any agreement or damaging the relationship between partners, particularly in asymmetrical negotiations, where only one party uses AI. The findings suggest that, at least for the foreseeable future, human oversight for ethical conduct, guidance, and validation of results remains essential. This ensures that we leverage the benefits of AI but we also safeguard against its limitations and maintain the integrity of negotiations. 📌The better hand of cards for complex negotiations is still a human expert, perhaps augmented with AI support. At least for now! ❓What would it take for AI to become a better negotiator than humans? Share your view. #ai #llm #artificialintelligence #procurement #negotiation Link to the study, see comments.

I just reviewed a follow up email that made me want to delete my LinkedIn account. After an incredible discovery call where the rep: → Uncovered $500K in annual losses → Identified specific pain points → Built genuine rapport with the prospect He sent this follow up: "Hi John, following up on our conversation. Any thoughts on next steps?" I'm not joking. That was the entire email. This rep went from trusted advisor to desperate vendor in one sentence. Here's what he should have sent instead: "John, Based on our conversation about the $500K you're losing annually due to deployment delays, I've put together a brief overview of how we've helped similar companies reduce this impact by 80%. Given the scope of this challenge, when can we get your CFO involved to discuss the business case? Best regards, [Rep name]" The difference is night and day: ❌ Weak follow up: "Any thoughts on next steps?" ✅ Strong follow up: References specific problem + demonstrates value + advances the sale Your follow up emails should sell, not beg. Every touchpoint is an opportunity to: → Reinforce the problems you uncovered → Show how you solve them → Move the deal forward Stop wasting these golden opportunities with generic, desperate sounding messages. Use what you learned in discovery to craft follow-ups that advance the sale. Your prospects are drowning in "just checking in" emails. Be the one who stands out by referencing real business impact. — Reps! Here’s 5 simple follow up strategies to close seals faster and to minimize ghosting: https://lnkd.in/gJRJwzsN

You walk into a meeting expecting collaboration, only to realize you have been ambushed. The other party tries to intimidate and humiliate you, making you feel inferior and vulnerable to pressure you into accepting a deal far worse than you anticipated. What can you do to avoid a humiliating outcome? These are some negotiation tools that you can use to turn the table: 💡 #EmotionalIntelligence: be aware of your emotions . There is no room for despair or anger, control your state to stay in the game. 🔍 Curiosity: genuine curiosity about the other party's emotions, needs and expectations shifts the power dynamic. People want to be understood. Listen beyond their words, what are they really asking for? 🗣️ Labelling: name emotions to defuse them: "It sounds like your top priority is somewhere else" or "it seems like you are dealing with a lot of external pressure" can lower their defenses and encourage collaboration 🔄 Mirroring: repeat key words to let them feel heard and encourage more disclosure : "Holding the cards?" 🎭 Accusation Audits: as #ChrisVoss teaches, address unspoken concerns upfront: "I know you may see me as ungrateful, always asking for more without giving back ...."  🎯 Powerful Questions: use open ended How, What, When questions to create dialogue and encourage collaboration. For instance, this can be used to co-create the conversation shifting from opposition to collaboration by acknowledging their perspective "What would a successful outcome look like for both of us?" Rather than viewing the #negotiation as a battle, approach it as an opportunity to build something together. When both sides feel heard, unexpected solutions emerge. If you were in Zelensky’s position, how would you have handled the negotiation? #listening #communication #leadership