Negotiation is one of the most important leadership skills—and also one of the most misunderstood. It shapes agreements, partnerships and careers, but even seasoned professionals still debate what truly defines a good negotiator.
To understand what really drives negotiation performance, we analyzed thousands of negotiations conducted through The Negotiation Challenge, a global competition that, since 2007, has tested leaders and students from more than 50 countries.
Also read:
Take your business to the next level with the country’s top entrepreneurs!
This unique data set, covering nearly 1,000 documented negotiations, offered a rare opportunity to observe how objectives, strategies, substantive outcomes, and relationship quality interact.
The results challenge the traditional view: negotiators do not align on a single spectrum that goes from “hard” to “soft”. Instead, they occupy a two-dimensional space: substantive performance (how much value they create and capture) and relational performance (the trust they build). Four distinct profiles emerge consistently:
- Integrated directors — effective and reliable.
2. Competitive maximizers — effective but costly.
Continues after advertising
3. Compliant harmonizers — sweet, but underperforming.
4. Destructive negotiators — neither effective nor trustworthy.
Interestingly, these groups appear in approximately equal proportions. There is no natural tendency toward the ideal type, nor a necessary conflict between value and trust. The difference is not in personality, but in competence.
The person on the other side of the table matters too
Of course, the results of a negotiation depend not only on one’s own behavior, but also on the skills of the counterparty. What if the other side is aggressive or treats the negotiation as a zero-sum game?
Our data includes many such cases, and the pattern holds: Even when faced with highly competitive opponents, negotiators who can maintain balance—being assertive without being hostile—tend to perform better.
Around 5% of participants in The Negotiation Challenge consistently achieve good substantive and relational results across all contexts and partners. They may not get the best deal in every round, but they perform above average across all dimensions assessed.
Continues after advertising
Evidence shows that while the counterparty matters, technical mastery matters more. The best negotiators adapt to the style on the other side of the table, without simply mirroring it.
Skill, not style, defines success
The age-old debate between “hard” and “soft” negotiation styles is meaningless. The real distinction is in competence: between negotiators who can combine assertiveness and empathy — and those who cannot.
The best negotiators combine solid substantive results with high-quality relationships. The quality of a negotiation relationship is not determined by how much is achieved, but by how it is achieved. Fairness, transparency and respect do not weaken a position — they strengthen it.
Continues after advertising
Bad results rarely arise because someone is “too nice”. They come from poor preparation, rigid tactics, or a low ability to create and capture value. High-performance negotiators combine discipline with empathy, knowing when to cooperate, when to compete, and how to balance both without losing trust.
The implication is profound. The debate between “hard” and “soft” styles is outdated. The real difference is between competent and incompetent negotiators — between those who can align assertiveness and empathy and those who cannot.
The belief that there is an inevitable conflict between results and relationships is outdated and counterproductive. It prevents negotiators from developing the full set of skills that make both possible: creating value together, claiming it assertively, and building lasting trust at the same time.
Continues after advertising
Our ongoing research identifies the competencies that enable integrated achievers to thrive on both dimensions — grouped into four broad meta-competencies that define master negotiators.
If negotiation performance can be observed, taught and improved, what exactly should we train?
Our data reveals four major meta-skills that, together, form a model of negotiation excellence. Each represents a distinct but complementary dimension of performance.
Continues after advertising
1. Language and emotion — the visible layer of performance
A negotiator’s language and emotional presence shape the first and last impression left on the counterpart. This meta-competency includes clarity of expression, active listening, and emotional regulation.
The best ones communicate with precision and logic, formulate demands constructively and listen to understand, not to rebut. They manage emotions — their own and those of others — transforming tension into productive energy. Research shows that well-regulated emotions and empathetic communication are associated with greater joint gains and stronger relationships.
2. Trading intelligence — the cognitive engine
Negotiation intelligence is the ability to recognize the structure of a negotiation and apply the right tactics at the right time. It integrates a broad set of tools: understanding interests and best alternatives to a negotiated agreement, setting the agenda, making and defending first offers, managing concessions, creating and capturing value through creative exchanges and options, and using objective criteria.
High-performing negotiators demonstrate strategic adaptability — the ability to switch between cooperative and competitive tactics as conditions change. In complex, multi-party negotiations, they also excel at team performance, coordinating roles and maintaining a unified strategy under pressure.
3. Building relationships — trust as a strategic asset
Trust and relationships are not “soft interpersonal skills”; are measurable predictors of success. Effective negotiators deliberately invest in rapport (relationship creation)structure discussions in a transparent way and fulfill commitments.
They are culturally sensitive, able to read and respect different norms and adapt their behavior accordingly. These habits promote openness, facilitate the exchange of information, and expand the value that both parties can capture. Trust, once built, becomes a renewable source of negotiating power.
4. Moral wisdom—the hidden compass
At the deepest level is moral wisdom — the ethical and empathetic guidance that guides decision-making. It determines how information is shared, how promises are kept, and how fairness is balanced with firmness.
Ethical transparency and genuine empathy do more than generate goodwill; they shape long-term results. Master negotiators combine assertiveness and empathy, showing that effectiveness and integrity are not opposites, but virtues that reinforce each other.
What great negotiators do differently
Excellence in negotiation is a leadership discipline — one that can be measured, taught, and scaled in teams. For leaders and organizations, the message is clear: excellence in negotiation is not a matter of personality, but of skills that are deliberately developed and constantly evaluated.
Develop negotiation skills, personally and organizationally
Many organizations still underestimate how vital negotiation is to their performance. Agreements, partnerships and internal alignments depend on people’s effectiveness in negotiating. Experience alone is not enough—mastery requires structured, deliberate training.
Measure what matters
Improvement starts with measurement. Regularly assessing negotiation skills helps you identify strengths, fill gaps, and track progress. Structured negotiation competitions make capabilities visible and create a common language of learning.
Redefine strength
Many negotiators still confuse firmness with aggressiveness. Competition data shows the opposite.
The most successful negotiators—across countries, industries, and styles—are friendly, respectful, and connected. They project trust through fairness and empathy, not intimidation. Rudeness does not generate respect—it destroys it.
c.2025 Harvard Business Review. Distributed by New York Times Licensing
