Negotiation culture: A manifesto for commercial success

Negotiation culture: 

A manifesto for 

commercial success

Foreword 

A question for you. Why don’t we see butterflies the size 

of eagles, or beetles as big as dogs? 

The answer is spiracles, or more precisely lungs. Insects 

breathe through a series of small pores, known as spiracles, 

that are located along their body. Through them, oxygenated 

air that they need to function diffuses into their organs. 

This is great if your body is small, but as it grows larger 

the diffusion is just not enough to carry oxygen to every 

extremity and organ fast enough for survival. This is why 

larger animals have lungs that force the movement of air. 

So, lack of lungs has restricted the growth potential of the 

butterflies. What is holding your organization back? Does 

something need to radically change so that your business 

can reach its commercial potential? 

And, if that is the case, what change is going to accrue 

the biggest benefits? 

It may appear strange that I, a negotiation consultant, 

working for the world’s leading management consultancy 

specializing in negotiation, should be talking about culture 

and organizational change. 

But it is both true and paradoxical that negotiation is equally 

a niche activity and all-encompassing skill. It is, therefore, 

unsurprising that successful application of this set of 

capabilities to a commercial environment can be challenging 

but transformational. Is it enough to upskill your negotiation 

teams, let them loose in their deal-making, and hope for 

the best? Or, is a more structured, strategic and holistic 

approach likely to be more successful? 

The answer – and I’m fairly sure there will be no surprises 

here – is the latter. This manifesto from The Gap Partnership 

is a guide which sets out the case for this holistic approach, 

as well as the steps you need to take to adopt it. 

Chris Atkins 

Chief Negotiation Officer 

The Gap Partnership

Negotiation culture: A manifesto for commercial success | 4

I can’t understand why 

people are frightened of 

new ideas. I’m frightened 

of the old ones.” 

John Cage 

The Gap Partnership

Why create a negotiation culture? 

Mention the desire to change your company’s 

culture and you will swiftly find yourself facing 

some resistance. There will be many who have 

grown up, and grown successful, within the 

existing culture, and the forces for maintaining 

the status quo will be as strong, if not stronger, 

than those that see the benefit in change. 

Add to that the suggestion that the new culture 

should be anchored in a skill that may be 

considered to be merely a commercial necessity 

and eyebrows will understandingly begin to rise. 

But consider this... 

Every day, every team in your company negotiates 

internally and externally to get their job done. 

Only through negotiations can they achieve their 

goals. Only through their negotiations can you 

realize your company’s goals. So, when we talk 

about implementing a negotiation culture we are 

talking about developing a culture that directly 

enables your team’s ability to implement your 

business strategy. 

So, let’s examine each of the elements of 

negotiation culture and try to unpick the “Why?” 

I’ll start by considering and correcting some 

common misconceptions. 


Misconception #1 

Negotiation is a win-lose game 

One of the challenges of being 

a negotiation consultant is that 

people expect and assume that 

you specialize in being tough, 

argumentative, and insistent on 

driving a hard bargain. And when 

negotiation is considered to be an 

aggressive activity of last resort, 

then driving this into organizational 

culture could be considered a 

negative, even retrograde step, 

creating an unpleasant place 

to work for all but the toughest, 

most Machiavellian individuals. 

But this is a narrow and misleading 

definition of negotiation. The much 

more interesting and complex 

truth is that in its most complete 

form, negotiation is a subtle, 

combined art of listening, 

understanding and creative 

problem-solving. 

When we work with our clients 

in negotiation, regardless of the 

intervention, we consistently 

concentrate on supporting the 

desired behaviors of a successful 

negotiation team, who: 

1. Know what they’re doing, their 

responsibilities, and their level 

of empowerment. 

2. Plan efficiently and completely. 

3. Objectively evaluate and 

mitigate risk. 

4. Take control of their situation. 

5. Understand and select 

options effectively. 

6. Know their counterparty. 

7. Develop strategies and 

understand the “How?” 

as well as the “What?”. 

8. Value elements and priorities 

from their point of view and 

their counterparty’s. 

9. Ensure all parties are aligned 

throughout the process. 

10. Ensure their plans and activities 

align with the overarching strategy. 

11. Communicate effectively – 

internally and externally. 

12. Have a replicable process 

and tools that maximize the 

chance of success. 

Viewing these principles through 

a different lens, I suggest they 

are also the principles of sound 

commercial management which, 

when firmly embedded within 

a cultural framework that rewards 

these principles, will lead to better 

decisions being made, understood, 

and implemented effectively. 

In our experience these principles, 

while appearing obvious when they 

are written down, are not commonly, 

consistently or completely practiced 

in many business environments. 

Sometimes it’s because we don’t have 

time to plan properly. Sometimes it’s 

because objective evaluation is not 

rewarded. And sometimes it just feels 

more heroic to fight fires than to stop 

them from igniting in the first place. 

Whatever the reason, introducing and 

encouraging the habitual adoption 

of negotiation principles will start 

moving the needle toward a more 

commercially aware and astute 

approach. This will in turn start 

moving the profitability dial. 

The Gap Partnership


Negotiation is limited to 

certain specialist teams 

The sales team – they do the 

negotiating, right? Oh, and Procurement, 

of course. And while we are thinking 

about it, Supply Chain negotiates all the 

time. Hang on, what about Employee 

Relations, and their negotiations with 

unions or prospective hires? And Legal, 

well of course they negotiate contracts 

too. Marketing – don’t they negotiate 

with agencies? IT have ongoing 

negotiations with contractors and 

service providers. As do Facilities. 

I could go on. 

Every team negotiates with someone 

daily, be it internal or external, because 

negotiation is the act of two or more 

parties coming together to reach an 

agreement. And in today’s world multiple 

stakeholders have an impact on the 

trajectory of negotiations that would 

have previously been conducted in 

a one-department “bubble”. 

Here’s an example: We recently 

supported a multibillion-dollar RFP 

process for a significant portfolio of 

raw material commodities. Because 

this raw material sat at the core of our 

client’s end product, the award decision 

needed to consider many dimensions: 

environmental sustainability, contractual 

requirements, supply chain resilience, 

innovation, technical support, customer 

service, productivity, quality and, of 

course, cost. In total, more than 30 

different factors were assessed, and 

all stakeholders needed to be satisfied. 

It is this ecosystem of factors that needs 

to be considered in any negotiation, 

all of which require suitable planning, 

alignment and communication if 

a negotiation is to be successful in 

today’s environment. 


Negotiation happens at the end 

of the business planning process 

No. Negotiation is the means by which 

an organization delivers its business 

strategy. At The Gap Partnership 

we’ve built a reputation as negotiation 

specialists – and we’re proud of that. 

But increasingly it’s clear that we’re also 

specialists in the execution of business 

strategy, in realizing the goals set 

within that strategy, and maximizing 

the chances of success. 

We often encounter critical 

failure points in our negotiation 

support activities: 

1. Specific negotiation goals are 

mismatched to individual KPIs. 

2. Individual KPIs are mismatched 

to departmental objectives. 

3. Departmental objectives are 

mismatched to business strategy. 

The magnifying effect of this layering 

of mismatches results in a negotiated 

outcome that fails to deliver the business 

strategy, and in many cases has a 

directly contradictory outcome. So, the 

overarching business strategy is bound 

to fail in its execution. Consequently, our 

first task is recreating the connections 

between specific negotiation goals and 

business strategy. 

The connection between organizational 

strategy and its execution – its 

negotiation – is inextricable, so it’s 

critical to consider the end-to-end 

process with all its many facets 

as the strategy is developed. 


Bringing it all together 

What is negotiation culture, at its 

most fundamental? A great place to 

start is with the meaning of the words 

themselves. Both have their roots 

in Latin: 

Negotiation is from the Latin negotiari, 

meaning to carry out business. 

Culture is from the Latin cultus, 

meaning foster or cultivate. 

Let’s return to our original questions: 

“Why do I need to change the culture 

of my organization and why would 

I choose a negotiation culture?” 

Process 

So, negotiation culture is, literally, 

Fostering a [new/better] way 

of carrying out business. 

To implement a successful 

negotiation culture 

requires us to understand 

and address shortcomings 

in three key areas: 

The people that we hire, 

the methods by which we 

develop their capability, 

and the ways in which we 

encourage their behaviors. 

People 

Organization 

The replicable process and 

methodology which provides a 

more consistent chance of success 

in multiple scenarios, and the tools 

provided to support those processes 

with the thinking that underpins them. 

The organizational structures that 

we put in place to provide governance, 

guidance, and empowerment. The 

cultural reinforcement which develops 

habits, facilitates communication, and 

creates a safe learning environment 

and a corporate memory which 

reduces reliance on the knowledge 

of few individuals. 

Here’s why… 

Because an organization with a strong 

negotiation culture has everything 

in place to execute and deliver its 

commercial business strategy. 

Because the commercial world is 

changing, and the speed of change 

will continue to accelerate. 

Because it is imperative to keep pace 

with change today: the competitor 

you’ve never heard of is doing 

it already. 

The Gap Partnership

Motivation is the art of getting people 

to do what you want them to do 

because they want to do it.” 

Dwight D. Eisenhower 

Creating a negotiation culture 

Section A: People

Through my education, I didn’t just 

develop skills, I didn’t just develop the 

ability to learn, but I developed confi dence.” 

Michelle Obama 

Part 1: Skills 

Creating a negotiation culture

Developing the skills base of the team 

is a critical success factor in any organization 

It is often the first go-to when 

shortcomings are identified. 

And great skills training can 

make a significant difference, 

if it is targeted, experiential, 

and relevant. As many learning 

and development professionals 

have identified, however, a great 

training program is not the 

panacea to all ills; it needs to be 

backed up with strong internal 

development expectations and 

strong management coaching 

in live situations. 

Developing negotiation skills 

has far-reaching positive 

consequences, because it 

involves elements which are 

critical in everyday commercial 

life: planning, objective and 

rational decision-making, accurate 

evaluation and mitigation of risk, 

managing your counterparty, 

behavioral competence, 

and self-awareness are all 

critical skills to develop in 

the modern negotiator. 

All disciplines who negotiate 

regularly as part of their role 

(sales, marketing, human 

resources, procurement, supply 

chain, credit control, customer 

services, M&A) need to be 

provided with a consistent skills 

framework, which includes 

effective tools and embedding 

activities. This enables the 

reinforcement developed 

from “one way of negotiating”, 

because the fundamentals and 

methods are the same, even if 

the application scenarios differ. 

Building a learning program must 

start from the basics; what is the 

existing competence level among 

the various teams? How does 

that differ from the expectation 

of their job role? Establishing 

benchmarks and expected levels 

of attainment enables a more 

objective prioritization of effort 

and focus of activity. 

A successful organization 

provides appropriate hard and 

soft-skill training support for 

operators at all levels from 

introduction through to advanced, 

experienced, or senior executives. 



Holistic skills improvement 

We had been working with a multinational consumer 

goods company for many years, developing the skills 

of the individuals through a series of interventions at many 

different levels. Their general competence had risen to the 

point that they wished to take the organizational skill to 

another level, with very clear objectives: 

1. Their aim was to define a full negotiation process, from setting 

objectives to their preparation for the negotiation itself. 

2. They wanted to better understand their customers, so that they 

could factor in a different perspective. 

3. They wished to develop more creative deals not just in the short 

term, but over the longer term as well. 

Objective assessment 

With this organization, due to 

significant staff turnover it was 

important to benchmark the 

skills of key individuals, so we 

developed an assessment and 

development approach: 

• The assessment center 

included interviews, role plays, 

and case studies. 

• We assessed the 

commercial capability 

of the key account team. 

• The assessment was carried 

out consistently and comparably 

in all geographies. 

• It involved all country managers, 

sales leads, and central sales. 

• Before we commenced, 

we gained alignment and 

sponsorship from the 

commercial capability functions. 

This assessment was completely 

objective, so it allowed a view 

across the multiple geographies 

in which our client worked. 

We were able to benchmark 

capability at different levels and 

identify common shortcomings 

which needed to be addressed. 

We were also able to broaden our 

scope to include financial acumen 

and leadership as key elements 

where relevant. 

The outcome was a clear, 

actionable set of intervention 

needs for which we developed 

a program which was tailored to 

include coaching for key senior 

individuals and broader based for 

other populations, backed up with 

on-the-job learning, and coaching 

guidance for managers. 

The results 

As a result of developing a 

focused training program, our 

client had more confidence in the 

execution of negotiation plans, 

a unified mindset, a common 

vocabulary, and a more holistic 

view that extended beyond the 

focus of “buyers and sellers”. 

They now bring to the table 

everyone who has a role to play in 

the negotiation, including finance, 

supply chain, and marketing 

team members, and ensure that 

these stakeholders have suitable 

training in order that they can 

understand and support the 

negotiation effort. 

The Gap Partnership

Never stop learning 

Skills improvement is 

continuous activity, supported 

through the use of a common 

language, measurement, and 

embedding processes. 

The skill development activity is 

most effective when it involves 

the managers of those who are 

being trained. Often, negotiation 

training can be undermined by 

the very manager who originally 

requested it for their team 

because the learning is not 

reinforced or, worse, 

is undermined. 

Regular coaching and feedback 

using consistent measures and 

frameworks will ensure that the 

skills stick and are utilized in 

live negotiations. 

Hard or soft? 

Negotiation is the hardest of 

the soft skills that a commercial 

manager can learn, in both 

senses of the word “hard”. 

It is hard because it is difficult 

to master: it covers multiple 

disciplines, and it’s common to 

become “stuck” in a certain style 

which can become predictable. 

It oscillates between art and 

science; the art of human 

communication and psychology, 

the science of probability 

and profitability. 

Embed 

Train 

Measure 

It is also a hard skill because 

the results are measurable, its 

impacts tangible and, for those 

who apply it with finesse in all 

business contexts, the successes 

it can bring are infinite. 


Case study 


Who 

Client is a multinational postal 

service and courier company. 

What 

Industrial dispute 

with union. 

Diagnosis 

Despite a previous agreement with unions on terms and conditions, the 

client executive board had changed with a new CEO in place. Relations 

had deteriorated amid disagreement over the implementation of the 

agreement. The client wanted the union to live up to the spirit and intent 

of the agreement, and with a change in leadership was prepared to be 

firmer and to implement a power shift from where they were in the past. 

Meanwhile the union balloted its members for strike action. Business 

margins were very low, and the client could not buy out the agreement. 

The client wanted structured and impactful negotiation support that 

would lead to a successful conclusion to the negotiation. 

Solution 

The Gap Partnership supported 

the client in a number of 

consulting engagements: 

• Scoping to understand the 

objectives of each party. 

• Analysis of the union 

communications 

to “get inside their head”. 

• Negotiation Needs Analysis to 

understand the requirement for 

workforce skills uplift. 

• Scenario planning for various 

ballot outcomes. 

This was then followed by a number 

of pilot development interventions: 

• Employee relations negotiation 

capability workshop for the 

senior leadership team who 

were conducting the negotiation. 

• Bespoke coaching for the CEO. 

The initial workshop was followed 

by a program of six employee 

relations-specific negotiation 

capability workshops and eight 

bespoke coaching sessions for 

the workforce to uplift negotiation 

skills and change the mindset of the 

negotiation teams at a national and 

local level. 

Outcome 

1. Agreement reached with 

the union. 

2. Increased awareness of where 

negotiation skills gaps sit within 

the client organization 

(i.e. preparation and 

trading conditionally). 

Key learnings 

Each of the following are critical 

success factors: 

1. Alignment between the team 

negotiating the deal and the board. 

2. Effective internal communication 

and winning the hearts and minds 

of employees/members. 

3. Shifting the perception of power 

through alignment, empowerment, 

and preconditioning. 

The Gap Partnership

If you can build muscle, you can 

build a mindset.” 

Jay Shetty 

Part 2: Mindset 


Negotiation: a critical success factor essential 

to the delivery of your business strategy? 

Or a necessary evil; a tactical 

activity to be endured at the end 

of the strategic process and to 

be completed as quickly and 

painlessly as possible? 

If you see negotiation at the 

former end of the spectrum, 

then negotiation mindset is 

deeply ingrained in your 

organizational culture. 

But if it is the latter, then there’s a 

strong chance that your strategies 

will fail to land optimally. 

Embracing negotiation as part 

of the strategic process enables 

an organization to effectively plan 

and identify multiple routes to 

achieve a desired goal. Embracing 

negotiation organizationally also 

provides the space for planning, 

encourages creativity, and does 

not limit negotiation options 

or shut down possible routes 

to success. 

So how do we develop and 

encourage the appropriate 

mindset in our organization 

to embrace commercial disciplines 

and develop a negotiation 

approach to problem solving? 

The answer is simple: leadership. 

Very often, The Gap Partnership 

is introduced into an organization 

to enhance the core negotiation 

skillset. We are encouraged to 

introduce embedding methods to 

reinforce changed behavior and 

ensure that the skills learned live 

on in the business environment. 

We have developed several 

sophisticated, bespoke methods to 

achieve this, working closely with 

client partners, so we are working 

on the 20% and 10% elements of 

the 70:20:10 formula. 

But what about the 70%? This 

element is all about leadership 

mindset; not leaving the learning 

to the L&D team, but active 

participation in the teams’ 

personal development and 

creating an environment in which 

teams can grow in negotiation. 

Developing a negotiation leadership mindset 

Perhaps the best way to start the process of improving the leadership 

mindset of your organization is to evaluate where you stand today. 

In the following set of questions I have listed the ten most commonly 

observed negotiation leadership issues that inhibit an organization 

from optimizing its negotiated outcomes. 

Grab a pen and evaluate honestly where your organization stands on 

a scale of 1 – 5 for each point, where 5 is an approach that regularly 

occurs and 1 is a behavior which is rarely seen. 



1. Failure to set or align 

on objectives 

Do you always set clear objectives 

each negotiation? What does good 

look like and, more important, what 

is a bad deal that we need to walk 

away from? If the negotiating team 

do not understand the parameters 

of negotiation, they are likely to fail. 

Do you clearly agree objectives 

with the negotiating team ahead 

of the negotiation? 

SCORE 

2. Competing priorities 

or stakeholders 

It is common for different 

internal influencers of your major 

negotiations to have competing 

views of what is the priority outcome. 

These may not surface at the 

commencement of the negotiation 

itself but can materialize as the 

negotiation unfolds. Do you meet 

to agree the prioritization of all 

key variables before the 

negotiation commences? 

SCORE 

3. Misinterpretation of risk 

We all see risk in different ways; 

our perception is very different 

and objective review is critical. 

An organization can find itself 

overreacting to low risk or low 

importance issues, while allowing 

higher impact subjects to drift. Do 

you have an objective methodology 

for evaluating risk? 

4. Communication failures 

Negotiations can be derailed purely 

due to poor communication. In 

high value negotiations, sponsors, 

and stakeholders can lose their 

nerve if they are not kept appraised 

of progress. Do you have clear 

communication methods to keep 

your stakeholders onside? 

SCORE 

5. Unrealistic timetables 

This is the single biggest 

negotiation of the year, but we 

are pushing to conclude it by 

month-end/year-end/boss’s 

birthday. Do you build contingency 

time into your major negotiation 

timetables and are you willing 

to reevaluate timelines if it is to 

your organization’s advantage? 

6. Early escalation 

SCORE 

It is vital to understand the 

escalation path of a negotiation; 

when to bring the senior player 

into the mix and when it is better 

for them to stay out. It is a truism 

that the more junior the negotiator, 

the more likely they are to say 

no. The more senior, the more 

likely that they will say yes. Does 

your organization protect senior 

stakeholders by establishing clear 

escalation pathways? 

SCORE 

SCORE 

The Gap Partnership

7. Power 

Power is usually misperceived, 

either it is undervalued or over 

assessed. Both of these can 

lead to dangerous judgements 

in negotiation. Simply put, power 

gives you choices and time spent 

understanding and influencing 

the power balance is always time 

well spent. Do you spend time 

with the team understanding the 

power balance and methods to 

shift it in your favor? 

8. Team alignment 

SCORE 

A strong leader is always an asset, 

but strong leadership requires 

humility and the ability to listen. 

Often the success or failure of 

a negotiation sits with relatively 

junior members of the team. If 

they are unsure, or unconvinced 

about the negotiation plan then 

they will not be able to negotiate 

with confidence. Failure to listen 

to the fears of the team could 

mean that a predictable danger is 

overlooked, with disastrous results. 

How well do you consider the 

concerns of the negotiating team? 

9. Moving goalposts 

Trust: vital if the negotiating 

team is to be successful. We often 

see leaders setting breakpoints 

or goals which are deliberately 

unrealistic in order to ensure that 

their team does not go soft or give 

everything away. Do you bring your 

team into the loop on the reality of 

your organizational breakpoints? 

SCORE 

10. We’ve always done 

it this way 

No two negotiations are the 

same. No two counterparties 

think the same way. Your logic 

does not have to correspond to 

your counterparty’s logic. It is vital 

to the success of the negotiation 

that we consider all possibilities 

and conclusions, understand the 

commercial environment and the 

organization or people with whom 

we are negotiating, then modify 

our style to optimize results. Do 

you encourage your team to plan 

each negotiation based upon new 

parameters and circumstances? 

SCORE 

SCORE 

So, how did you score? 

If there is an area that scored less than 3, we suggest this is the place 

to focus. If you want a more objective evaluation, perhaps you should 

ask the team the same questions. If you can show leadership to address 

these critical failure points, your team will follow. 

Once you have established your priority areas, work with the team, 

brainstorming to find methods by which you can work on your negotiation 

mindset together, setting targets to encourage the change. 

Nothing breeds success like success, so have regular sessions to 

share insight and help your team feel the benefits that accrue from 

a different approach. 


Case study 


Diagnosis 

Who 

Division of a multinational 

food products and 

commodities supplier. 

What 

Negotiate a new, mutually 

beneficial, multiyear supply 

agreement with more 

profitable margins. 

Our client entered into an informal supplier agreement with a start-up 

direct-to-consumer distributor with favorable pricing for the first two years to 

support the growth of the distributor. Within two years of the agreement, the new 

company had grown to represent 70% of our client’s overall business. At the same 

time, close to 90% of the start-up’s supply of product was sourced from our client. 

The agreement was about to expire. 

The challenge was centered around a reluctance to change an advantageous 

agreement for the young distributor, creating an imbalanced, interdependent 

partnership. While our client faced margin compression on pricing, they also 

had no viable outlet to replace any reduction of supply to their distributor. 

Solution 

We helped by developing a clear and 

systematic process to engage their 

distributor. The new protocol allowed 

our client to clearly communicate 

and align to ensure support at all 

functional levels. Additionally, we 

facilitated a better understanding 

and appreciation for preconditioning 

and how it impacts their 

negotiation efforts. 

Outcome 

Our client improved their negotiation 

mindset including planning, decisionmaking, 

accurate evaluation and 

mitigation of risk, managing their 

counterparty, behavioral competence, 

and self-awareness. This led to greater 

confidence among their negotiators 

and the nurturing of a clear corporate 

ability to maintain focus and control 

of their negotiations. 

Communication proved to be one 

of the most significant elements 

of this project. Internal and external 

communication improved as 

our client developed a culture of 

negotiators who aligned around 

communication from preconditioning 

to setting expectations. Their 

negotiators also improved their 

ability to understand the true 

meaning of the message within 

the words delivered by their 

counterpart, as well as keeping 

momentum towards desired 

results for their negotiations. 

The Gap Partnership

Good judgement comes from experience, 

and experience comes from bad judgement.” 

Rita Mae Brown 

Part 3: Experience 


What doesn’t kill you 

makes you stronger. 

Arguably this phrase is a little extreme in 

expression, but its sentiment is so often 

true. You can tell someone one hundred 

times how to do something, and they may 

still not change. You can show them, 

and you may create the ability. But the 

best way to learn is through experience. 

And often the most powerful experience 

is gained when you get it wrong. 



How to provide 

experiential learning? 

So, how to create learning, 

changing, improving experiences 

without exposing the 

organization to the damaging 

consequences of getting it 

wrong? One way is, of course, to 

learn on small negotiations and 

apply that knowledge in more 

complex situations. Another is 

to attend experiential training or 

watch other more experienced 

negotiators at work. But role 

play, either in a qualified training 

setting or with real negotiations, 

practicing specimen responses, 

anticipating dialogue and 

challenge from the counterparty 

or war-gaming scenarios, is a 

powerful mechanic for creating 

the requisite experience. 

Introducing feedback from 

peers or video review makes the 

experience even more powerful. 

Unfortunately, only 17% of clients 

we surveyed (Negotiation Culture 

Index 2021) get the chance to 

role-play negotiations internally 

before they happen. 

Picture this. Your favorite sports 

team is about to walk out onto 

the field of play to start their 

match. Their only preparation 

and coaching: “Go and score 

more points than the other 

team.” That may be okay in 

a casual situation, but it would 

not be acceptable in any 

professional environment. 

58% of our clients surveyed stated 

that they do not plan beyond their 

objectives for negotiations. Which 

league would that put them in? 

Contextualizing 

experience 

Paradoxically, our most challenging 

stakeholder conversations are with 

those who are most experienced in 

negotiating. Habits are built from a 

collection of experiences, personal 

preferences, and past successes. 

This is a proven survival trait, and 

it works in most situations, but not 

necessarily in negotiation. 

Negotiations differ. Even 

negotiations with established 

counterparties differ because 

context varies, so it is important 

to be able to recognize when 

your experience helps you to 

navigate through familiar or 

similar circumstances, and when 

it blinds you to changes such as 

fluctuating market conditions, 

evolving balance of power or shifts 

in personnel. So, we cannot treat 

all negotiations the same if we 

wish to change the outcome. 

This is where we can support 

situational approaches to 

negotiation and provide experience 

that spans a broad spectrum of 

negotiating styles. 

The Gap Partnership

Review culture 

How often do you review 

the negotiations that your 

organization conduct, particularly 

if the outcome has been less 

than optimal? And, if you do, 

how often do you dig into how 

the negotiations unfolded as 

well as the performance against 

stated objectives? 

In negotiation, the what is often 

celebrated, but it is rare that the 

how lives anywhere but in the 

head of the individual. 

It is the how that provides the 

learning. Recording, analyzing, 

and sharing the how is vital for 

an organization to grow and 

learn. In the most successful 

businesses, negotiations are 

systematically reviewed in order 

that the learnings, good or bad, 

can be shared. This is difficult, 

because reviewed as a verb is 

often mentally replaced with 

judged which can lead to learning 

opportunities being avoided for 

fear of the consequences. 

To counteract this, objective 

methods to understand all 

elements of the negotiated 

activity can be implemented. 

Only 29% of the clients that 

we surveyed review their 

negotiations after completion. 

I wonder what opportunities 

are being missed? 

Corporate memory 

It is our responsibility to 

provide our teams with the 

capability, knowledge, support, 

and experience to improve 

the commerciality of 

the organization. 

Organizational experience 

requires that we create a 

corporate memory to capture the 

outcomes of each significant 

event. We can no longer rely on 

longevity of employment to retain 

knowledge, so we have to put 

processes in place to ensure that 

critical learning is managed and 

made available to all. 

Given the speed with which 

individuals rotate through 

roles and organizations, either 

through attrition or by design, 

it is surprising that there is not 

more investment in corporate 

memory to support the retention 

of commercial experience. From 

a recent survey, we found that 

only 5% agreed that they had a 

structured corporate memory 

in place. As one respondent 

commented, “If records are 

kept, they are only about the 

outcomes…which is pretty 

close to pointless.” 



And from another: “Corporate 

memory almost doesn’t exist, 

except from personal efforts, 

which is unacceptable for a 

company like xxx. Having worked 

for a retailer back in the day, we 

even had profiles of the people 

we negotiated with, passed 

down from your predecessor, 

so you would have an in-depth 

understanding of who you’re 

dealing with as an example.” 

Learning from experience 

Experience is not merely 

the opportunity to be part of 

negotiating activities but includes 

providing the framework for putting 

that experience into context, 

learning from it and applying it in 

other circumstances. Experiences 

should be regarded as positive, 

even if the outcome is less than 

optimal, and will reinforce the 

learning culture. 

Experience is a vital, living 

resource which can be leveraged 

to improve the commerciality of the 

organization in the years to come, 

so that it does not continually learn, 

forget, and have to learn again. 

Experiences should be regarded 

as positive, even if the outcome 

is less than optimal, and will 

reinforce the learning culture. 

The Gap Partnership

Case study 

Diagnosis 

Who 

A prominent and critical state-run organization 

with more than 40,000 employees and 

a commercial budget in excess of $1bn. 

What 

Three-year negotiation culture and 

commerciality program. 

The organization had recently appointed a new commercial director to 

head the commercial services division with a mixture of permanent and 

specialist contractors. One of the first initiatives that the newly appointed 

commercial director undertook was a review of commerciality within 

the division and across the organization, with specific focus on crossfunctional 

interaction, consideration, and impact on commerciality. 

The outcome of the review was to assess capability, capacity and process 

to assess effectiveness within the commercial services division as well 

as cross-functional engagement, and then develop a program to enhance 

commerciality and deliver ROI and value contribution to the organization. 

Solution 

The Gap Partnership’s 

approach was to propose 

a three-step process: 

Step 1: Scoping sessions 

with key stakeholders within 

the organization, inside and 

outside the division, to assess 

their perspective of both 

the division and the 

organization’s commerciality. 

The scoping sessions were 

focused into three key areas – 

people, process and organization. 

This approach enabled a 

benchmark to be established and 

it also enabled key stakeholders 

to engage in the subject of 

commerciality, assessing the 

level of importance they attached 

between commerciality, outcome 

and value. 

Step 2: Following the scoping 

session and before developing 

a solution, we conducted a 

Negotiation Culture Index (NCI) 

survey with the key stakeholders, 

which would measure individual 

position/perspective on key 

commercial influences and impact 

in each of the three key areas. The 

outcome of the survey enabled 

the commercial director to have 

specific insight into the internal 

perspective on commerciality, 

with comparative analysis, 

prioritization, and an effective 

internal SWOT analysis. 



Step 3: Following the NCI survey 

output report and assessment, 

we developed a negotiation 

culture program, aligning 

a phased solution over three 

years with the three key areas 

of focus – people, process 

and organization. 

The key aims of the program 

were to: 

• Enhance the negotiation 

skillset of the team, develop 

their commercial mindset, 

and drive overall commerciality 

within the division. 

• Introduce robust best practice 

processes through specific 

project engagement. 

• Develop a framework to 

support negotiation efficiency 

and effectiveness and support 

enhanced commerciality 

(mindset and approach). 

• Work with the leadership 

to develop internal and 

external comms, development 

programs, and organizational 

change programs to enhance 

commerciality across 

the organization. 

Outcome 

The organization have 

implemented a three-year 

negotiation culture and 

commerciality program, with a 

phased approach, implementing 

each of the key deliverables 

in the three core focus areas. 

In year one, the initial people 

deliverable identified key 

stakeholders and influencers within 

the division and put them through 

a negotiation capability workshop, 

with the aim that their experience 

would lead them to be enablers 

within the division to engage in 

a commerciality mindset change. 

Following this, further workshops 

were planned for various levels 

within the division. 

Additional year one deliverables 

included running negotiation 

execution projects with the 

team and organizational 

stakeholders on two key 

negotiations, introducing 

process and methodology 

so that they benefit from 

both the experience as well 

as learning a best practice 

process and approach. 

A key benefit was to ensure that 

stakeholders were involved in the 

process and experienced a different 

approach that could be credited 

with a beneficial project outcome, 

thereby aligning key influencers to 

the benefits of the approach. As 

a result of the first project and an 

above objective outcome, The Gap 

Partnership were invited to engage 

on a third negotiation project. 

The development of the 

organizational change program 

was scheduled to year two. 

The Gap Partnership

If you can’t describe what you are 

doing as a process, you don’t know 

what you’re doing.” 

W. Edwards Deming 


Section B: Process

If you get stuck, draw with a different pen. 

Change your tools; it may free your thinking.” 

Paul Arden 

Part 4: Tools and processes 


“It ain’t what you do, it’s the 

way that you do it – that’s 

what gets results”, famously 

stated The Fun Boy Three 

with Bananarama back in 1982. 

This sentiment has surprising application 

to negotiation, and its relevance is born out 

in the increasing number of requests that 

The Gap Partnership is receiving to support the 

development of negotiation toolkits, processes 

and guides, or frameworks as we describe them. 



Capability is a core element of 

successful negotiation culture 

development. Frameworks take 

the thinking behind negotiation 

planning and combine that with 

company philosophy, culture, 

terminology, and ways of 

working to create a unified way 

of doing business. 

It’s intriguing that despite being at 

opposite ends of the commercial 

process, the act of negotiating a 

sales agreement is near-identical 

to the process of agreeing a 

procurement contract – or a 

company merger for that matter, 

although the size of the numbers 

and information needs will differ. 

In developing a corporate 

culture – indeed, any culture – 

it is important to have similarity 

of method, language, and 

measurement. This brings a 

cohesiveness which transcends 

departmental boundaries. If an 

organization is using the same 

process and toolkit to manage 

all its negotiations, this means 

that the governance process is 

simplified because executive 

management sees similar 

templates, formats, and KPIs, 

and are therefore able to assess 

investments, risks, and approvals 

on a consistent basis. 

We work with a client in the 

natural resources business who 

has been using a template that 

we developed with them several 

years ago. Every investment 

decision or negotiated agreement 

has to be presented to the board 

on the same planning templates 

to enable the key internal decision 

makers to compare proposals on 

a like-for-like process, with the 

appropriate due-diligence applied. 

So, what is the basis behind a 

negotiation framework? They are 

described by many as playbooks 

and they can be just that; define a 

series of anticipated or common 

scenarios, build the hypothetical 

solution in terms of approach, 

variable deployment, tactics, 

thinking and planning, then codify 

it in the form of a how-to guide 

which works through all of the 

essential steps to manage the 

negotiation. If your organization 

has clear principles which guide 

decision making and investment 

choices, these can be integrated 

into the thinking so that they are 

an implicit part of the process. 

The Gap Partnership

A few years ago we worked 

with an international CPG client 

to produce a playbook that 

was designed to respond to a 

specific retailer scenario across 

many geographies. The sales 

leadership team came together 

to develop the playbook with us, 

which we then deployed across 

five continents, localizing it to 

ensure that it was relevant 

to local experiences and 

market conditions. 

But negotiation frameworks 

can be more embedded than 

this example. If we are going 

to develop a framework that 

integrates into existing 

business systems, 

decision-making and data 

availability we need to start 

further back in the 

process – understanding 

all of the touchpoints and 

interdependencies that lead to a 

successful negotiation outcome. 

Only about 50% of this activity 

is externally facing. In fact, a 

disproportionate number of 

negotiations are suboptimized 

due to internal factors rather 

than the counterparty’s actions. 

Mapping the workflow not only 

enables greater clarity about 

what enables a negotiation 

to be successful within your 

organization, but also allows 

you to look at existing ways of 

working through a different lens. 

Objectives 

Restrictors 

(Market specific) 

Internal External 

Balance 

of power 

Supplier 

segmentation 

Stakeholder analysis 

Strategic 

approach 

Review 

Market data 

Supplier strategy 

Business strategy 

Internal systems 

Sequencing 

Risk 

analysis 

Tracker 

Agenda 

Move 

planner 

Timing 

plan 

Comms 

planning 

Variable 

valuation

Integrating cost and value 

data enables quicker decisionmaking 

and what-if? discussions, 

because the options can be 

modeled and combinations 

of variables explored. 

Why should the negotiation 

process be divorced from 

the sales, procurement, 

remuneration or company 

acquisition process? If it can 

be seamlessly integrated, then 

the benefits act as a multiplier 

to the existing outcomes. 

Let’s discuss tools. In our 

parlance, a tool is not something 

that users are forced or 

compelled to use, which 

complicates their life and that 

they only complete because they 

are told to do so. A tool should be 

something that makes their job 

easier; it’s far simpler to make a 

hole in the soil with a good spade 

than with our hands. Equally, 

it’s easier to open a muchanticipated 

bottle of wine with 

a corkscrew than to try to pull 

it with teeth. (I know. I’ve tried.) 

Negotiation tools should be 

developed with the same 

philosophy. The goal is for the 

user to say not, Why do I have to 

use this?, but rather, How did I ever 

manage without it? 

Put effective tools together with 

a business process that works 

internally and the knowledge to 

use them and you have a recipe 

for successful negotiation. 

The Gap Partnership

Case study 

Who 

A multinational consumer packaged 

goods company. 

Diagnosis 

What 

Our client was looking to enable a new approach to their 

joint business planning (JBP) process with a key customer. 

The trajectory of the relationship between the two parties had been gaining 

momentum over recent years, however, the prior JBP negotiation process 

had been disjointed across categories. Our client felt that their planning 

had lacked rigor and coordination across their portfolio. Additionally, 

uncertainty from the pandemic threatened to derail recent progress due to 

pressures on both parties as they approached this year’s JBP. Our client’s 

objective was to develop a JBP negotiation planning process that provided 

enterprise-level consistency and clarity, while also providing flexibility for 

category specific engagement. 

Solution 

Enterprise-level planning 

The project began with defining 

the enterprise level approach that 

our client would use to engage 

their customer. The foundation for 

this project was driving alignment 

toward the overall objectives for 

the JBP by defining the type of 

relationship our client aimed to 

foster. We worked with the team 

leader to outline key success 

metrics, financial objectives, 

and intangible measures such 

as the engagement they expected 

across levels and functions of both 

organizations, communication 

cadence, and expectation 

for monitoring and course-correction. 

Additionally, we helped establish 

clear messaging themes, principles 

for category-level execution, and 

customer engagement roles and 

escalation parameters. 



Category-level planning 

Once the foundation had been 

established at the enterprise level, 

we worked with the team leader 

to roll out the planning approach 

to the six category teams that 

engage the customer in JBP 

planning. We designed working 

sessions that covered four key 

areas: internal alignment, category 

tailoring, risk management, and 

engagement planning. 

The category working sessions 

started with gaining alignment 

to the enterprise-level approach. 

We shared the objectives 

and guardrails with the team, 

along with guiding principles 

for how we aimed to drive the 

relationship, the business, and 

the negotiation strategy. 

Communication themes were 

shared with the team to ensure 

consistency and coordination at 

all levels of the business. 

We then worked with the category 

team to identify and prioritize key 

variables and initiatives that fit 

within the established framework, 

focusing on identifying how their 

priorities aligned with those of 

their customer. 

of key risks to anticipate as they 

entered the process. We also 

helped teams identify preventative 

actions for each risk and potential 

responses should they come 

to fruition. 

Lastly, we helped category teams 

develop specific engagement plans 

for working with their customer 

on their JBP. This consisted of 

defining key internal and external 

actions, communication plans, 

and timelines to drive their plans 

to completion. 

Outcome 

As a result of the planning 

process, our client was able to 

confidently deploy a coordinated 

and effective JBP negotiation 

strategy that accomplished their 

enterprise and category-level goals. 

Additionally, the team was left with 

a powerful planning framework 

that will serve as a useful tool as 

they engage in future JBPs and 

continue to develop their team’s 

negotiation culture. 

Each category team then identified 

potential risks and their impact 

to the business. This provided 

a holistic view for the team lead 

The Gap Partnership

We live in a society bloated with data 

yet starved for wisdom.” 

Elizabeth Kapu’uwailani Lindsey 

Part 5: Data and systems 


The world is changing quickly. 

Sometimes it feels like the 

world is turning more quickly; 

is a day still 24 hours? 

Speed of response and speed of decisionmaking 

characterize today’s business world. 

This can lead to two phenomena. One is the 

greater need to trust your instincts and take 

a decision based upon your reading of the 

situation in front of you. The other is to assume 

that you have lost control of the cadence of a 

negotiation and that it is now in control of you. 

Neither of these situations is ideal when it is 

our responsibility to a) take objective, rigorously 

considered commercial decisions, and b) be in 

control of the situation, ourselves, and the other 

party/parties. So, what can we do to alleviate or 

resolve this conundrum? 



Turning data into 

decision support 

Negotiation is often hampered 

by a lack of available information 

to successfully analyze our best 

path to reach our objectives. 

This is not suggesting that we 

should remove human judgement 

from negotiation. It is the ability 

to support that judgement 

with relevant input or improve 

that judgement with real-time 

information that represents 

the real challenge – and the 

biggest opportunity. 

During the negotiation, 

counterparties will throw new 

variables into the mix, identify 

alternative routes and priorities, 

or create blockages with the 

potential to derail the negotiation. 

In these situations, it is critical that 

the negotiating team are able 

to quickly analyze options and 

value the choices that are created 

or create new options and routes 

to success. 

In order to do this, it helps if we 

recognize that information has two 

components: the data to provide 

accurate understanding, and the 

systems to turn that data into 

intelligence for decision support. 

Data sources 

Remarkably, negotiation data is 

often limited in many organizations 

to the financial analysis of our 

favored variables – if that. 

Let us consider why we need the 

data and, therefore, what our most 

important data sources might be: 

a) Internal financial data 

If we are going to accurately 

assess the deal as it unfolds, 

real-time financial data is vital. 

Moving components of the 

negotiation will affect the relative 

attractiveness of the deal, and 

without this we can become 

fixated on isolated variables – 

sometimes missing the real value 

in the deal or the bigger picture. 

b) Counterparty financials 

Okay, so we cannot see their P&L. 

But we can take a good stab at 

developing a picture of the critical 

elements of their profitability. We 

can estimate certain elements and 

use publicly available reports to 

populate the missing pieces. 

Imagine if we could create a 

mirror analysis which showed all 

of the most important components 

of a negotiation through the 

profitability lens of both parties? 

That would allow us to predict 

more accurately what will drive 

their decision-making, and it might 

also enable us to identify the lowcost 

high-value variables more 

easily to create an offer that is 

more attractive for them to accept. 

The Gap Partnership

c) Market data 

Market data has long been used 

by leading sales organizations to 

construct compelling marketing 

stories. But it may have been 

overlooked as a primary source 

of power. As we know, the 

accurate analysis of the balance 

of power is a cornerstone of 

negotiation planning. Use of realtime 

commodity data, or more 

recently algorithmic analysis of 

shopping trends and consumer 

pricing, has changed negotiation 

power in favor of the data-owner. 

But this potential game changer 

is not restricted to commodity 

supply or online retailers, so 

looking creatively at the aspects 

of your negotiation relationship 

and market dynamics which 

affect the mutual balance of 

power, and then identifying the 

data which will inform you better, 

is time well spent. 

Systems 

System (ˈsɪstəm): a set of things 

working together as parts of a 

mechanism or an interconnecting 

network; a complex whole. 

When we think of systems, our 

mind often jumps to the tech that 

we use to support our everyday 

operational activities. Systems 

suggests a large investment or 

a complex array of connected 

apparatus. It doesn’t need to be 

this. Connected, yes. Complex, 

not necessarily. 

First and most important, and 

reusable once we have the model 

refined, is the creation of an agile 

analytical tool which can assess 

total deal value as the deal 

unfolds. Surprisingly, perhaps the 

most complex element that has 

arisen when we have supported 

the creation of such tools is the 

ability to define the relative value 

and cost of intangible variables. 

It is difficult but not impossible. 

If we are to create a mirror 

analysis or negotiation balance 

sheet, we will need the ability to 

anticipate and define the cost 

and value their variables, but also 

the agility to include any new 

ideas they may bring into the 



negotiation as it unfolds. 

The better we understand the 

data, the more effectively we 

can provide the reporting and 

analysis tools. 

A successful collaboration on 

effective negotiation systems 

usually involves the input of the 

commercial department leading 

the negotiation, a commercial 

finance brain with a creative 

attitude, and a smart tech person 

who can adapt the resources on 

offer and/or create sophisticated 

spreadsheets to sort the data into 

information. This, like many tools, 

requires creativity, foresight, and 

forward planning, but will save 

time and money in the long term. 

Start with what you 

can do 

To improve the negotiation 

process, it is ideal to have the 

systems and available data for 

planning. This data should be at 

the fingertips of the negotiating 

team, with the provision to slice 

and dice it in multiple combinations 

to foster creativity and the optimal 

use of all available variables. 

With detailed understanding of 

our most typical negotiations, 

we can design our data sources 

and systems to support the 

negotiation process, removing 

internal blockages and enabling 

the decision-making to be more 

productive and less subjective. 

It can be difficult to know where 

to start, because creating the ideal 

rarely occurs on our first attempt, 

so I would suggest that we start 

with what we can do using the 

data that we have on hand, create 

a minimum viable product, and 

build out from there. 

I will leave the last words to 

Charles Babbage who is attributed, 

in 1822, to have originated the 

concept of a digital programmable 

computer: “Errors using 

inadequate data are much less 

than those using no data at all”. 

The Gap Partnership

Case study 

Who 

A multinational consultancy firm. 

Diagnosis 

What 

Negotiation framework for major ($10m+) 

procurement contracts. 

The procurement function formed part of a central service hub for 

the member organizations around the world. As such, consistency 

of approach, stakeholder alignment, and member compliance were 

challenging, so there was a requirement to create a streamlined, 

logical, and easy-to-manage process for conducting significant central 

contract negotiations which satisfied the needs of all members. 

Solution 

A framework was specified 

following a series of sponsor and 

stakeholder interviews, and it was 

agreed that the overarching goals 

and deliverables would be: 

1. A toolkit which encouraged 

use because it was intuitive, 

modular, and integrated with 

other procurement tools. 

2. A methodology for capturing 

and managing members’ 

requirements through the 

course of the deal creation 

and execution. 

3. A governance process which 

enabled alignment to be 

gained at the commencement 

of the project and maintained 

through the course of the 

negotiation process. 

4. A method and dashboard 

for capturing tangible and 

intangible outcomes from 

the project and negotiation. 

5. A flexible framework which 

challenged accepted practice 

and norms, and which could 

be used for multimillion-dollar 

negotiations, with a light 

version suitable for less 

complex projects. 

As part of the initial scoping, 

we developed a workflow with 

our client, based upon recent 

contract negotiation experiences, 

as well as the needs of the 

procurement team and key 

member organizations. 



Outcome 

We developed a framework which built upon a pragmatic negotiation 

process structure (below). Into each section we built a modular set 

of tools, using Microsoft Excel as the primary tool for ease of data 

manipulation and familiarity, but presented in a clean, uncluttered 

format with a set of guidance notes in a style that suited our client’s 

organizational and communication norms. 

Pre-negotiation 

During negotiation 

Post-negotiation 

Review 

Implement 

Align 

Repackage 

Propose 

Information share 

Precondition 

Map the project 

Strategy 

Execution 

KPI measurement 

The Gap Partnership

You don’t climb mountains without a team, 

you don’t climb mountains without being 

fi t, you don’t climb mountains without being 

prepared and you don’t climb mountains 

without balancing the risks and rewards. 

And you never climb a mountain on 

accident – it has to be intentional.” 

Mark Udall 

Part 6: Risk and power 


Risk and power. 

The two most misunderstood 

and poorly managed aspects 

of negotiation. 

And yet if they are understood 

fully and integrated into corporate 

mentality and negotiation culture, 

they become some of the most 

powerful enablers in the 

negotiator’s toolkit. 

Why are they so often 

misunderstood, or worse, 

ignored? Perhaps because they 

are too scary to consider, may 

not give us the answer we want to 

hear, or undermine our assertive 

internal argument. But embracing 

risk and understanding our power 

helps, organizationally, to plan 

more effectively, mitigate 

or avoid risk and impact our 

power positively. 

Let’s consider risk and power 

in the context of organizational 

psychology and how to encourage 

the active management of each 

in a negotiation context.


Risk 

We encounter risk every day. 

Some people are risk averse 

– avoiding it at all costs and 

therefore missing opportunities. 

Conversely, some embrace risk 

– taking more opportunities but 

exposing themselves to failure. 

Organizations are the same, 

although their appetite for risk 

tends to change over time. In 

the early years of any successful 

organization’s existence, it is 

highly likely that many risks 

were taken in order to accelerate 

and succeed. However, the risk 

of failure was unlikely to be 

catastrophic, and was 

probably limited to a few 

risk-embracing individuals. 

But as an organization grows, the 

culture and risk profile naturally 

change as the impact of failure 

increases and the number of 

individuals impacted multiplies. 

This is not a bad thing. In fact, it 

is a survival instinct that kicks in. 

Unfortunately, organizations can 

also be somewhat myopic when 

it comes to risk – over-reacting 

to relatively low probability risks 

and ignoring high probability risks 

which are too big to countenance. 

This is also affected by survivor 

bias, in which culture is influenced 

by those who have remained 

longest, not necessarily those who 

are the best. A great illustration of 

survivor bias dates back to World 

War Two. The American military 

asked statistician Abraham Wald 

to study how best to protect 

airplanes from being shot down. 

They could not armor the whole 

plane, as it would be too heavy. 

They had decided to examine the 

planes returning from combat, see 

where they were hit the worst – 

the wings, around the tail gunner 

and down the center of the body – 

and then armor those areas. 

Luckily Wald realized that their 

analysis was missing a valuable 

part of the picture: the planes that 

were hit but that had not made 

it back. As a result, the military 

were planning to armor exactly 

the wrong parts of the planes. 

The bullet holes they were 

looking at indicated the areas a 

plane could be hit and keep flying 

– exactly the areas that did not 

need reinforcing. 

“And the day came when the risk to 

remain tight in a bud was more painful 

than the risk it took to blossom.” 

Elizabeth Appell 

The Gap Partnership

The key to introducing risk 

into a negotiation culture is 

to encourage its objective 

evaluation. In our work, we use 

a simple equation that considers 

the probability and likely impact 

of each risk. Dependent on the 

consequent score, the negotiator 

is able to decide how to manage 

that risk. 

• Low probability/low impact 

risks can be ignored. 

• High probability/low impact 

risks should be confronted 

and managed. 

• High probability/high impact 

risks require significant 

mitigation and/or avoidance 

steps which should be 

escalated and agreed upfront. 

The other aspect of risk that is 

often missed is its impact on 

long-term contracts and our 

ability to build risk management 

into our variables for negotiation. 

My go-to quote when it comes 

to negotiating risk is this, from 

United States Secretary of 

Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a 

news briefing on Iraq in 2002: 

“There are known knowns; there 

are things we know we know. 

We also know there are known 

unknowns; that is to say we know 

there are some things we do not 

know. But there are also unknown 

unknowns – the ones we don’t 

know we don’t know...” 

This is Rumsfeld’s reference to 

the Johari Window methodology 

which was originally developed 

by psychologists for individuals 

to understand their relationships 

with others, which was adapted 

by the intelligence community 

to analyze risk. 

It is common that the known 

knowns are actively negotiated 

when contracts are being 

developed, but how often are the 

known unknowns; the elements of 

the future which we know might 

change but we don’t know how? 

But even the unknown unknowns 

can be accounted for in our 

negotiations, by building in 

consequential breaks and 

opportunities for periodic review 

within the contract period. 

Developing new, long-term 

contracts must be an attractive 

prospect for many organizations 

at the moment because of the 

security that it brings – but we 

need to consider the known 

unknown of how the world 

recovery is going to progress. 

And how many contracts agreed 

in 2019 were no longer worth the 

paper on which they were written 

due to the unknown unknowns 

that developed through 2020? 

Perhaps use of the Johari 

Window would enhance our 

view and assessment of risk? 



“The most common way people give up their 

power is by thinking they don’t have any.’’ 

Alice Walker 

Power 

Anyone who has attended one 

of our training programs or a 

negotiation support engagement 

will be aware of the emphasis 

that our consultants place on the 

understanding of power. 

Psychologically, most individuals 

and organizations underestimate 

their power in negotiations. 

Power is dynamic, and in 

negotiations it provides options. 

Ignoring the power that 

your organization has, your 

counterparty has or how you 

can shift the balance of power 

is a common, but fundamental 

failure point in organizational 

negotiation planning. 

As a manager or leader, one of 

the first set of questions I would 

ask a negotiating team is, “How 

has our power changed?”, “What 

has influenced it?”, “How has that 

impacted our negotiating position 

and options?”, and “What can we 

do now to change it in our favor?”. 

planning that negotiating 

teams conduct ahead of 

their negotiations? 

How can you help the 

organization understand that the 

preconditioning of the other party 

never stops, and that the next 

negotiation starts as soon as 

the ink is dry on the last one? 

The fact is that if we put the 

negotiation to bed, breathe a 

sigh of relief and start back into 

business as usual, we could be 

missing a critical opportunity. 

Systemic risk and 

power assessment 

Objective risk and power 

assessment should be a 

habitual part of the process. 

A relatively simple set of tools 

and management techniques 

will embed the thinking so that it 

becomes second nature. So why 

is it so rarely accomplished? 

So, the question I would pose 

to you is how can you integrate 

this positive and constructive 

questioning process into the 

The Gap Partnership

Case study 

Who 

Leading manufacturer in the consumer 

packaged goods sector. 

Diagnosis 

What 

A price increase that they wanted to announce in the 

marketplace in three months. This manufacturer operated 

in both the branded and private label space, although 

this price increase was only on the branded business. 

If successful, the expectation was that a private label 

price increase would follow. 

Their main reason for engaging with The Gap Partnership 

was that the previous two price increases over the last 

three years were largely unsuccessful, with only about 

30% of their target being realized. This price increase was 

also more challenging as it was in the double digits, more 

than twice the standard price increase in the category. 

When the organization approached us there were a few notable factors 

that worked in their favor. They approached us early, and we had time to 

put together a well-thought-out strategy. The business circumstances 

were favorable as the industry had seen a growth in demand and a 

shortage of supply. Lastly, there was a limited number of manufacturers 

in this category, with the client being the only company that made private 

label products, increasing the retailer’s dependency on them. 

On the other hand, the perception in the industry was that this 

organization was not effective at utilizing the power they had. Their 

leader and ultimate decision-maker prided himself on the relationships 

he had with the retailers and placed a lot of importance on those 

relationships. He had also preconditioned the trade over the last number 

of years such that when the situation became tense, he would swoop 

in to “save the day” and the relationship. This served to undermine his 

company’s power and the empowerment of the broader team. 



Solution 

For the price increase to be 

successful, we focused on 

two key areas. The first was 

the time available before the 

announced price increase to shift 

the perception of power in our 

favor. Secondly, we needed to 

have a very well-thought-out and 

carefully managed escalation 

plan, which prevented the past 

mistakes of the white knight 

syndrome in the final stage of 

the negotiation and sent the 

message that the sales team 

was empowered to see 

this through. 

Outcome 

Being in control of time, having 

a robust communication plan and 

shifting the perception of power, 

in conjunction with a supplystrained 

industry, resulted in the 

price increase being accepted 

in full by the retail community. 

This set the organization up for 

a successful price increase on 

the private label business two 

months later. 

To shift the balance of power, 

we had devised several actions 

that were to take place over the 

next couple of months, and that 

were designed solely for the 

purpose of shifting the perception 

of power in the minds of 

the retailers. 

The escalation and 

communication plan was crafted 

in such a way as to keep the 

senior leader that had “saved 

the day” in previous years away 

from the negotiations, sending 

the message that the sales 

team was empowered to make 

the necessary decisions for 

their business. 

The Gap Partnership

If values matter in an organization, you 

have to be prepared to act consistently.” 

Carly Fiorina 


Section C: Organization

Start with good people, lay out the 

rules, communicate with your employees, 

motivate them, and reward them. If you do 

all those things effectively, you can’t miss.” 

Lee Iacocca 

Part 7: Engagement 


The creation of any successful organization is 

reliant on selecting, motivating, and retaining 

the right people. This is employee relations 

101. A negotiating organization is no different. 

What is different is the profile of the people 

that you choose to hire, reward, and promote. 

The first issue that we need to 

overcome is the perception of 

what makes a good negotiator. In 

some cultures, a good negotiator 

is someone with the ability to 

haggle and tough talk their way to 

a deal. In others, it is the qualities 

of the diplomat, able to juggle 

variables and achieve a win-win 

solution. It is important to identify 

the individual qualities that will 

define your negotiation culture, 

because that will significantly 

impact your selection choices. 

At The Gap Partnership we 

recognize there are many 

qualities required of a great 

negotiator, because it is the 

ability, or the potential, to flex 

between the requirement to 

be appropriately tough, and 

the sophistication to change 

chameleonically to a 

relationship maker and 

deal builder. 

It is apparent to us, but often 

less so to our clients, because 

managers traditionally grow 

through their career in a limited 

number of disciplines, that the 

qualities that make a great 

sales negotiator also make a 

great procurement negotiator. 

The biggest differentiator is the 

personality profile that attracted 

them to sales or procurement 

relatively early in their career. 

Recognize also that a great 

external negotiator is more likely 

to have the skills to be a great 

internal influencer as well.


Selection and assessment 

Step 1: Create your ideal profile. 

There are many routes to success 

here, and different approaches 

can be combined in order to 

achieve the desired result. 

It is helpful to have a sliding scale 

approach to the various qualities, 

otherwise everything becomes a 

priority, and we will end up with a 

perfect but impossible profile to 

fill or achieve! We would generally 

use ten key negotiation traits as 

a starting point, but this can of 

course be modified or simplified. 

1. Nerve. 

2. Self-discipline. 

3. Tenacity 

4. Assertiveness. 

5. Instinct. 

6. Caution. 

7. Curiosity. 

8. Numerical reasoning. 

9. Creativity. 

10. Humility. 

Identifying the negotiators in your 

business who best exemplify 

these characteristics will give you 

a shortcut to a synthesized ideal 

profile. Perhaps, instead, you’d 

like to use your competitive set 

or counterparties as the example 

to follow? 

Step 2: Create a tool or 

questionnaire to objectively 

assess each individual’s fit 

against the identified ideal. 

Step 3: Design a set of 

assessment exercises with 

clear judging criteria that will 

corroborate or test the outcomes 

of the profiling exercise. 

Remember, failure to perfectly 

fit the profile is normal – it is an 

ideal after all – but the ability 

to flex style and the capacity to 

change becomes a more specific 

requirement the further that an 

individual strays from the ideal. 

Step 4: Develop a capability 

framework that addresses the 

common development areas, 

along with a coaching toolkit 

and specific interventions where 

high-impact negotiators need 

tailored support. 70:20:10 is still 

the preferred route to capability 

nirvana, but it is important to 

recognize the role of the manager 

in this doctrine. If the manager 

is not sufficiently incentivized, 

prioritized, and supported in their 

task of providing on-the-job skills 

development, then the critical 

70% will fail. If we can recognize 

that 70:20:10 is a continuum 

which relies on all elements of 

the process to be successful, 

then we will make more effective 

capability investment decisions 

and develop a more complete 

negotiation culture. 

The Gap Partnership

Reward 

Developing a reward base that 

works in encouraging great 

negotiation behavior can be 

complex. To be effective, the 

reward structure needs to 

consider the balance between 

fixed and variable reward, longand 

short-term results, tangible 

and intangible measures of 

success, and that doesn’t fit 

into a simple matrix! 

Simply measuring the deal will 

focus negotiators on the act of 

negotiating, but not encourage 

them to look through the win to 

the management of the outcome, 

the implementation. 

Again, we can take this in steps: 

Step 1: Define what matters. If 

cost and profitability are critical 

drivers of success, then recognize 

this. If relationship and long-term 

partnerships are considered 

more important, then this is 

what needs to be motivated and 

rewarded. Keep it uncomplicated; 

a simple guide is that a high 

variable structure tends to drive 

the former, while a high fixed 

structure encourages the latter. 

Step 2: Create your measures, 

the fewer and more transparently 

measurable the better if you want 

to influence behavior. At this 

point we need to consider how to 

measure less tangible or longerterm 

measures for activities 

which may have a payback over 

more than the yearly assessment 

cycle – perhaps a sliding benefit 

which rewards the payback over 

a number of years as it accrues? 

Step 3: Publish and socialize 

the plan. This will allow you to 

identify and possibly iron out 

wrinkles before it’s too late. Test 

it, because someone will find 

a loophole – it’s human nature! 

Step 4: Implement and review. 

Tweaks are better than 

wholesale changes at the end 

of year one, unless it has been 

catastrophically driving 

adverse and negative 

unanticipated behavior. 

Changing a culture needs to start 

with the top and requires patience 

to take the team on the journey 

with you. As successes accrue, 

positive change will magnify. 


Case study 


Who 

A newly merged 

aerospace supply chain 

company “NewCo”. 

What 

We were asked to support 

them in a post-merger cost 

release initiative. 

Diagnosis 

This merger was expected to significantly increase the acquirers scale, 

customer base, geographic footprint and product diversity. Critical to the 

merger was the company’s ability to identify and capitalize on opportunities 

for revenue and cost synergies. 

Solution 

The Gap Partnership consultants 

conducted on-site work sessions 

with the key stakeholders from 

“NewCo”, along with a team from 

a performance improvement 

consultancy to prepare for 

this initiative. 

The first element of this 

engagement was dedicated to 

understanding “current state” 

where the groups collaborated 

to share information on each 

of the key suppliers – detailing 

current relationships, contracts, 

key activities, successes, and 

challenges. A critical part of 

this workstream was facilitating 

dialogue around historical 

precedent with suppliers as 

individual organizations premerger, 

the shift in balance/ 

perception of power, and the 

new opportunities available 

to “NewCo” post-merger. 

The different skillsets, experience 

and perspectives from the varying 

groups allowed for disparate yet 

relevant thinking, stimulating 

a healthy level of debate and 

enabling the client to synthesize 

all relevant learnings and 

insights and align behind a single 

comprehensive understanding 

of current state to leverage in 

strategic planning sessions. 

In the second week, the team 

built upon the knowledge from 

the previous week to develop the 

overall approach they would use 

to engage each supplier along 

with the sequencing and timing. 

Specifically, leveraging The Gap 

Partnership’s approach to strategic 

negotiation and planning tools, the 

team was able to finalize and align 

on objectives, define guardrails 

and restrictions, develop a topline 

negotiation strategy (along 

with contingencies), understand 

outstanding risks and ways to 

mitigate, evaluate and prioritize 

potential trading variables, 

and develop preconditioning/ 

communication plans, for each 

of their key suppliers. 

Outcome 

The Gap Partnership’s approach 

and expertise in strategic 

negotiation allowed the clients 

to develop a robust negotiation 

strategy and tactical engagement 

plan, alongside a comprehensive 

communication strategy that 

instilled confidence for front-line 

negotiators to execute. 

The Gap Partnership

The single biggest problem in communication 

is the illusion that it has taken place.” 

George Bernard Shaw 

Part 8: Communication 


When we are teaching negotiation skills to our clients, 

it quickly becomes clear that communication skills are 

at the center of everything that can make negotiation 

successful. Interpersonal communications, internal 

communications, and external communications all 

have significant impacts on the end result. 

And we are all pretty good at communication – we 

would not have reached the dizzying heights in our 

careers without being good at it. But we also have 

communication blind spots. Therefore it is valuable 

to have a negotiation team with different skill sets 

and a communications plan which considers the 

communication or information needs of all key parties. 

Interpersonal 

communications 

We don’t negotiate with 

organizations; we negotiate with 

people. And people have different 

styles, prejudices, and needs. 

When you are establishing the 

negotiation parameters early 

in the process, it is sensible to 

discuss with your counterparty 

not just what is to be discussed 

but how the negotiation is going 

to take place, particularly as 

virtual communication media 

are increasingly normal. 

Some are more comfortable 

in the virtual world, and we 

may even see elements of the 

negotiation taking place via 

instant messaging. 

Managing virtual negotiations 

interpersonally, we have a model 

which considers four aspects 

which interrelate when choosing 

how to conduct our negotiations, 

and we describe it as the 

negotiation balance: 

The Negotiators 

The Negotiation 

Technology 

Relationship 

Complexity 

Impact 

Characteristics of the interaction 

between participants 

Characteristics of the 

nature of the negotiation 

Ideally relationship and technology 

should be aligned with complexity and impact 



The technology used to conduct a virtual negotiation 

interaction will influence the execution and the outcome 

Technology 

High 

Potential for miscommunication and misinterpretation 

Low 

Text only Voice only Voice and visual Face-to-face 

Relationship 

The quality of relationship between the negotiators 

is defined by the levels of: 

• Trust 

• Shared experience and understanding 

• Tolerance 

• Belief in the integrity of their respective intentions 

• Transparency 

• Commitment to a mutually beneficial outcome 

High 


Low 

Low quality 

High quality 

Complexity 

The complexity of a negotiation meeting encompasses: 

• The number of variables 

• The ease with which these variables can be: 

Quantified, measured, traded 

• The number of participants in a meeting 

High 


Low 

High complexity 

Low complexity 

Impact 

• The significance of the outcome – positive or negative 

– of a negotiation meeting 

• For each participant 

• For each organization 

• The extent to which the outcome of a negotiation could 

influence other negotiations conducted between the 

participants or organizations 

High 


Low 

High impact 

Low impact 

The Gap Partnership

Internal communications 

More is always better 

when it comes to internal 

communications. Negotiation 

can be a lonely place, particularly 

if it is not going exactly to plan, 

and we know that our leaders 

do not like surprises. 

So, there are a few rules 

to follow: 

1. Keep it simple. 

2. Don’t catastrophize. 

3. Ensure that all the risks 

are understood. 

4. Ensure that all the risks 

are addressed. 

5. Update progress or 

difficulties regularly. 

6. Include sponsors in 

changes to plans. 

Poor internal communication 

can lead to lack of understanding 

about or deviation from the 

agreed negotiation plan. Regular 

communications of key activities, 

progress, and decisions to be 

taken are key to success. 

This requires a recognized 

framework, escalation processes, 

decision and empowerment 

guidelines, and clearly defined 

roles and responsibilities. 

External communications 

Early is the key word with external 

negotiation, particularly if you are 

initiating the activity. Some assert 

that the pre-positioning for the next 

negotiation starts as soon as the 

previous negotiation ends. Prepositioning 

is an underutilized and 

undervalued tool in negotiation, 

especially among those who 

believe that the negotiation 

starts when you first walk 

into the negotiating room. 

In negotiation, our external 

communications can easily 

be governed by our emotions. 

Our ego can lead to us saying or 

writing things that we may regret, 

providing too much information 

when we should be holding back, 

or communicating too quickly when 

it may be better to wait a while. 



This is natural but it can 

dramatically alter the course of 

a negotiation, so why not have 

an objective advisor, someone 

who you trust who is not directly 

involved in the negotiation itself 

but with whom you can discuss 

the communications you receive 

and can help you construct 

your responses? 

Management of external 

communications includes the 

careful planning of positioning 

activities ahead of the faceto-face, 

monitoring of the 

execution of agreed messaging 

and feedback of responses, 

and internal support to listen 

to, read and interpret incoming 

communications to ensure that 

the nuances and the unsaid 

messaging is identified and 

then responded to with clarity 

and care. 

Illusion 

George Bernard Shaw said, 

“The single biggest problem 

in communication is the illusion 

that it has taken place”. 

The biggest illusion in negotiation 

communication is that you have 

messaged enough, early enough, 

with enough thought and enough 

clarity that it has been effective in 

achieving your goals. 

The Gap Partnership

Case study 

Diagnosis 

Who 

A national government lobbying group who advocate 

for a highly regulated industry. We supported one 

of the group’s internal boards comprised of senior 

level executives representing powerful and dominant 

companies in the industry. 

What 

We worked with the board to create a messaging and 

communication strategy targeted to key influencers, 

to engage positively and proactively to shift the 

perception of the industry’s value in advance of a series 

of important discussions driving significant decisions. 

The industry representatives had to build consensus 

and alignment among them despite differing opinions 

and diverse histories, to drive toward a mutually 

beneficial common goal. 

For a variety of reasons, the industry players were facing extreme 

tension and unresolvable conflict in routine interactions with 

regulators, which became counterproductive and detrimental to 

all involved – industry, government, and even the general public. 

In-depth stakeholder interviews with board leadership from nine 

companies provided perspectives, experiences, and biases to 

understand the context of the impacts at an individual company 

level, including how each company engaged with the regulatory 

stakeholders to overcome the conflict and lessons learned 

through those interactions. The board executives found it difficult 

to think about why the regulator was behaving in a way they 

deemed irrational. Through facilitated consensus and alignment 

sessions, we successfully “got inside the other party’s head” to 

address the perceptions we needed to influence to successfully 

shift the regulator’s view of the collective value of the industry. 



Solution 

We jointly created a detailed 

stakeholder map of the 

decision-makers and influencers, 

both those directly within the 

regulatory body, and other 

powerful voices that could be 

instrumental in shifting the 

regulator’s mindset. We gained 

alignment on priority targets who 

could leverage their influence 

either top-down or bottom-up 

in favor of the industry’s position. 

Outcome 

The board’s initial meetings 

with the regulatory body were 

very productive first steps 

toward rebuilding trust and 

credibility, strengthening industry 

relationships, and shifting the 

regulator’s perception of value. 

Both parties later agreed to a 

number of collaborative actions 

to enhance communication and 

continue forward progress on 

various critical initiatives. 

Our clearly designed action 

plan and associated timeline 

focused on the objective of 

delivering consistent and 

positive messaging, unclouded 

by individual bias or experience 

but reflective of industry as a 

whole. Every individual on the 

board agreed with the plan, 

understanding that, in this case, 

the whole was greater than the 

sum of the parts. 

The Gap Partnership

Successful diplomacy is an alignment 

of objectives and means.” 

Dennis Ross 

Part 9: Alignment 


The Gap Partnership has 

developed a survey tool called 

the Negotiation Culture Index. 

It is designed to help assess the relative negotiation 

ability of an organization using objective criteria that 

we have developed over many years of supporting 

commercial organizations to achieve their goals 

through negotiation. One of the sections we explore 

is alignment, and some of the responses that we 

have collated make interesting reading: 

21% tell us leadership will go beyond agreed 

breakpoints at the end of a negotiation. 

15% tell us objectives are often changed during 

a negotiation causing problems in the negotiation. 

43% agree their escalation process is well defined 

and followed for every negotiation.


Alignment and 

empowerment 

One of the most significant 

success factors in negotiation is 

the confidence the team who are 

responsible for the negotiation 

feel when entering into the 

process. That confidence is 

boosted by many actions which 

we have discussed in earlier 

chapters, some of which include: 

1. Effective planning 

and anticipation. 

2. Role-play of real 

negotiation scenarios. 

3. Understanding the motivation 

of the counterparty. 

4. Identification of potential 

risk factors and alternative 

routes to success. 

Conversely, confidence is 

damaged by two main concerns: 

alignment of key stakeholders 

behind the objectives, and the 

empowerment of the negotiation 

team to take appropriate 

decisions with all of the 

information available to them. 

It is not unusual for the 

negotiating team to find out what 

the real objectives are when 

they complete the negotiation, 

present the result, and find that 

an important stakeholder is 

dissatisfied. It is equally a fear 

in many negotiating teams that 

they will fight to achieve the goals 

set for them – their breakpoints 

– only to find someone senior 

stepping in at the end of the 

negotiation and accepting an 

unacceptable deal. These are 

two symptoms of a lack of 

alignment within the decisionmaking 

process and a lack of 

empowerment (even trust?) for 

the negotiating team. 

It’s useful to consider the longterm 

impact of these behaviors, 

both internally on the negotiating 

teams and externally on 

our counterparties. 

Internally 

Lack of alignment internally 

can create confusion for the 

negotiating team, which reduces 

their confidence about taking the 

best route through a negotiation. 

Even alignment with one 

stakeholder about the relative 

importance of the goals that have 

been set can be difficult to attain. 

If every goal has the same priority 

or “we want it all”, this gives the 

negotiating team no room for 

maneuver and means we have 

taken away the options with 

which the team can negotiate. 

It is not uncommon that a leader 

will set stretching targets. This 

is appropriate in many contexts 

– and even in negotiation. It is an 

The Gap Partnership

extension of the concept of 

asking for more than you think 

you will get or opening extreme. 

If, however, this occurs in the 

context of negotiation planning 

and is not explicitly understood, 

then the negotiation team will be 

working with potentially unrealistic 

objectives and are predestined 

to fail. If the boss then joins the 

negotiation and breaks their own 

breakpoint by accepting less than 

the stretch targets, this can be 

extremely demoralizing for the 

team as it implies a lack of 

trust or judgment. It also creates 

a lack of trust in their leader. 

Externally 

Lack of alignment internally is 

often visible to the counterparty 

and it can frustrate the potential 

to collaboratively reach an 

agreement. It can have two main 

consequences. The first occurs 

during the process of negotiating; 

if there is confusion within the 

negotiation team about the 

relative prioritization of variables 

there will not be consistency 

of approach or response. This 

quickly kills trust between the two 

parties and competitive behavior 

can develop. 

The second can occur at the 

end of a negotiation when the 

deal is taken back for sign-off 

and stakeholders do not agree 

with the outcome, perhaps 

because they were not sufficiently 

consulted at the outset. Resuming 

negotiations of a concluded 

agreement changes the context 

and will probably focus on one or 

two critical variables which leave 

one or both parties dissatisfied 

with the ultimate result. This does 

not create the ideal conditions for 

a working partnership. 

If breakpoints are broken when the 

leader joins the party, this behavior 

will be noted by those across the 

table if they are smart. It is a point 

of weakness that can be exploited 

in future negotiations in which 

either the counterparty will direct 

all of the negotiating influence 

and communications towards 

your leader, thus undermining 

the negotiating team, or they will 

withhold all concessions until the 

end of the negotiation when they 

know they will have the biggest 

impact. Neither of these situations 

is ideal if you wish to control the 

trajectory of the negotiation. 

So, if we want an effective, 

empowered negotiating team it is 

essential to ensure organizational 

alignment behind the objectives, 

with clarity behind the prioritization. 

This needs to be achieved early in 

the planning process and actively 

reviewed as the negotiation unfolds. 

Usually in our negotiation support, 

objective alignment is the first 

and most vital step in the scoping 

stage before any other planning is 

contemplated. It can be challenging, 

but the clarity that it provides is 

incredibly empowering and leads to 

far faster, more insightful decisions 

being made at critical moments.


To tackle the potential of breaking our own breakpoints, we have found 

the introduction of escalation points provides a firebreak which can 

retain the stretch target for the negotiating team, but provides clarity 

of the real, organizational breakpoint and how it might eventuate. 

$20,000 

Negotiation ideal 

outcome 

$25,000 

Escalation point 1 

(Negotiation Team 

empowered to this point) 

$28,000 

Escalation point 2 

(Leader authorization 

required to this point) 

$30,000 

Breakpoint 

(Leader can agree subject 

to certain conditions) 

Interestingly, and perhaps 

counterintuitively, letting the 

negotiating team into the secret 

of the real breakpoint and 

providing them with points of 

empowerment generally results 

in a better outcome; they will fight 

to remain in control within their 

empowerment limits. 

Alignment improves empowerment. 

Empowerment improves trust. 

Trust improves confidence. 

Confidence improves performance. 

The Gap Partnership

Case study 

Who 

Global food consumer products manufacturer. 

What 

Negotiating retailer demands. 

Diagnosis 

We engaged the local Sales Leadership Team to assess risks 

and prioritize opportunities in both the current and post-COVID 

environments. This engagement leveraged The Gap Partnership’s 

(TGP) Business Prioritization Initiative (BPI) to proactively identify 

the negotiating retailer demands project. The key activities 

included TGP leading a strategic planning session with the 

leadership team focused on navigating a winning path forward 

with customers post-COVID. This session identified several risks 

and opportunities that the client requested TGP assess and 

prioritize across channel teams. TGP then conducted channelspecific 

negotiation identification and prioritization sessions 

focused on defining the top common strategic priorities. 

Resisting retailer demand was identified as the #1 priority 

with a focus on top ten retailers. 



Solution 

We designed a three work-session framework and worked 

across ten customer teams. 

Assess business 

dynamics and identify 

potential asks 

Review current business 

dynamic/ business 

performance which TGP 

pressure tested through 

eyes of the retailer to 

understand gaps/pain 

points versus existing 

plans to identify all 

potential demands in 

next six to nine months. 

Understand 

power and plan 

to influence 

Assessed power 

perception by facilitating 

a session which 

challenged established 

perceptions. We then built 

plans to enhance areas 

of strength and change 

areas of weakness. 

Filter, quantify 

and prioritize 

likely asks 

Filter likely retailer 

demands in terms of 

influence scope, either 

enterprise-wide or categoryspecific, 

and then quantified 

and prioritized those 

demands. We summarized 

and shared back with the 

leadership providing 

visibility to financial scope, 

probability, and timing. 

Outcome 

A clear message was delivered to customer teams that there is an 

organizational priority to be more proactive and strategic in planning 

for engaging customers. The sessions drove collaboration and healthy 

dialogue to challenge existing ways of working. 

We built upon the foundations of negotiation capability development 

across customer teams. Rather than look at negotiation as an end 

state or a reactive necessity, we helped teams understand how 

anticipative planning helps them be more prepared and less reactive. 

Customer planning session output provided visibility to financial 

scope, probability, and timing on existing or potential asks. 

The Gap Partnership

“I have four or five ideas that just keep floating 

around and I want to kind of just let one – like a 

beautiful butterfly, let it land somewhere.” 

Gillian Flynn 

Afterword 

I hope that these articles have given you food for 

thought – and not indigestion! The challenge with 

so many ideas floating around, so many avenues 

for improvement, is which one to land first. Where 

to start? 

In my experience your instinct is a good guide, 

and sometimes just starting is a great place to 

start. The danger of seeing so many opportunities 

or things to do is the inertia it creates. 

Creating a negotiation culture doesn’t need to 

be a grand design or expensive – it can be as 

simple as linking several existing initiatives with a 

common thread. Or it can be a journey that builds 

incrementally through a series of steps across 

numerous years. But it’s always best to know where 

you are headed, or you could end up somewhere 

entirely different! 

And it’s not a path that you can travel alone. 

Culture is, by its very nature a shared experience 

so, one person cannot change a culture. Bring 

your colleagues along with you, as your traveling 

companions and the changes will not only be 

valuable, but also rewarding. 

What I know from my experience working with 

many capable individuals is how empowering it 

can be to be given the guidelines, tools and support 

to be commercially successful. But like any culture, 

it needs to be fed, nurtured and valued if it is going 

to be truly influential. 

But, given the right environment and enough 

nourishment, you never know – the caterpillar may 

turn into the butterfly it has the potential to become.

Negotiation culture: A manifesto for commercial success

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?