Date-In, Date-Out: Why Great Sales Meetings Still Lose Deals
Most sales meetings feel good — until they go nowhere. Discover the Date-In, Date-Out method: a simple rule to ensure every meeting leads to momentum, not silence.
The Trump-Zelensky Negotiation: A Tactical Analysis
The Trump-Zelensky Negotiation: A Tactical Analysis The conversation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky was a textbook example of a power-imbalanced negotiation. This is not a discussion of morals, politics, or geopolitics. Instead, let’s examine it purely through the lens of negotiation strategy. Context: The Power Imbalance At the time of their conversation, Ukraine was in a position of weakness. Zelensky needed U.S. support to maintain resistance against Russia while simultaneously seeking leverage in negotiations for a peace treaty. The challenge? Trump’s worldview does not align with Ukraine’s framing of the situation. While Zelensky attempted to argue that U.S. support was in America’s own interest, this strategy failed because Trump did not share that perspective. It was a high-risk gamble that did not pay off. The Public Nature of the Negotiation One of the critical miscalculations in Zelensky’s approach was the setting of the negotiation. This was not a closed-door discussion where candid exchanges and tactical persuasion could unfold. Instead, it was a public performance. Trump was speaking to U.S. taxpayers. His vice president and secretary of state were present, reinforcing the idea that this was a staged conversation, carefully orchestrated for an American audience. Meanwhile, Zelensky was addressing his own people and European allies, which created a disjointed dynamic. The Tactical Misstep Zelensky held his ground impressively, but his chosen tactics were not suited to the context. His approach assumed that Trump would act as a conventional leader balancing interests. However, Trump was not playing the role of a statesman—he was acting as a “tank” negotiator, a style focused on dominance and winning at all costs. Tanks are relentless. They don’t seek compromise; they seek to establish superiority. How to Handle a Tank Negotiator When facing a “tank” negotiator, a frontal attack can only succeed if you match their strength—an option that was unavailable to Zelensky. The more effective strategy, especially in public negotiations, is to use a psychological disarmament tactic: write your counterpart’s victory speech for them. Instead of direct confrontation, Zelensky could have reframed Trump’s involvement as a win for Trump himself. In Aesop’s fable, the sun defeats the wind not by force, but by warming its opponent into submission. Compliments and strategic positioning could have led Trump to believe that supporting Ukraine was a demonstration of his own power and deal-making prowess. The narrative should have been shaped to align with Trump’s self-image, turning Ukraine’s needs into an opportunity for Trump to claim victory on the global stage. How Other Leaders Managed Trump This is something that foreign leaders have increasingly understood when dealing with Trump. As Fareed Zakaria recently pointed out, leaders such as Justin Trudeau and King Abdullah II of Jordan have developed an effective approach: lavish Trump with praise, announce a symbolic but minimal concession, and let him claim a win. For instance, when Trump asked Jordan to take in 2 million Palestinian refugees from Gaza, King Abdullah responded with, “Because of your wisdom and your leadership and your foresight, we’re going to take 2,000 children to treat them medically and send them back.” Trump beamed at this—convinced he had won. In hindsight, Zelensky might have benefited from studying such tactics. This is not to suggest that anyone could have done better in his position, but rather to acknowledge that the situation got out of hand partly because the negotiation approach did not align with Trump’s negotiation psychology. The Broader Context: Negotiating in the Age of Spectacle We must also acknowledge that the 19th-century salon-style negotiation is no longer applicable in the current U.S. administration. Why? Because they want us to believe that nothing should be handled behind closed doors. We are living in Guy Debord’s Société du Spectacle, where political interactions are shaped by public perception rather than private deliberation. Zelensky likely did not anticipate such a negotiation setting, as Biden and other European leaders do not operate in the same manner. The situation spiraled out of control, not necessarily due to Zelensky’s missteps, but due to the fundamental shift in how negotiations are conducted in the modern political arena. Key Takeaways Understand Your Counterpart’s Perspective – Persuasion fails when it does not align with the other party’s worldview. Trump did not see Ukraine’s survival as a necessity for U.S. security, making Zelensky’s argument ineffective. Recognize the Public vs. Private Negotiation Dynamic – Trump was playing to a domestic audience, while Zelensky was addressing his own. This created a mismatch in strategy. Adapt to the Negotiation Style of Your Counterpart – Fighting a tank head-on without equal force is a losing battle. A strategic alternative is to shape their perception of victory in your favor. Write Your Opponent’s Victory Speech – The best way to influence a strong-willed negotiator in public is to provide them with a narrative that allows them to see themselves as the winner while giving you what you need. Acknowledge the Changing Nature of Negotiations – In an era where spectacle often overrides substance, understanding the performative nature of political discourse is crucial. Private diplomacy is becoming rare, and leaders must adapt accordingly. Learn from Precedents – Other world leaders have effectively managed Trump by letting him believe he secured a great deal. Zelensky may have benefited from a similar approach. Zelensky fought hard, but the setting and tactics worked against him. In high-stakes public negotiations, understanding both the power dynamic and the psychology of your counterpart is critical to success. Tags: #Negotiation #Leadership #Reputation #ConflictResolution #Trump #Zelensky #StrategicThinking #HighStakes About the author Constantin Papadopoulos is a negotiation consultant, trainer, and author of Negotiating with Style. He helps sales professionals, founders, and leaders turn high-stakes conversations into lasting agreements. His work blends strategy, psychology, and storytelling — because in the end, how you negotiate shapes how you’re remembered.
Harnessing the Power of ‘No’ in Negotiations
Harnessing the Power of ‘No’ in Negotiations As you have already read in this newsletter, negotiation is a dance of words and psychology. One of the most intriguing steps in this dance, as I discovered through Chris Voss’s “Never Split the Difference” and Jim Camp’s “Start with No,” is the deliberate pursuit of a “no” from your negotiation counterpart. Seeking “No” to Empower Your Counterpart In a negotiation, a “no” can be more empowering than a “yes.” It provides a sense of control and security to the counterpart. For instance, compare these two questions: The second question, inviting a “no,” subtly empowers the respondent and shifts the negotiation dynamic. Strategically Surrendering Control The battle in negotiations often lies in who holds control. By maneuvering the counterpart to say “no,” you provide them with an illusion of control, without actually ceding any real power. This strategy often makes the counterpart more amenable and open, as they perceive themselves to be making the decisions. Leveraging “No” in Stalling Situations In moments where negotiations stall, a question that leads to a “no” can be a catalyst. For example: It appears our discussions haven’t progressed recently. Have you lost interest in this project? This approach invites a clear response and can effectively address and resolve uncertainties. Leveraging “No” in the decision stage Would it be a terrible idea to agree on the following next steps … ? … can be a game-changer. This tactful form of asking probes the counterpart’s boundaries and preferences without direct confrontation. It’s a way of floating ideas and gauging reactions, effectively opening the door for your counterpart to suggest alternatives or express concerns. This question, suggestive yet non-threatening, can lead the negotiation into new, mutually agreeable directions. It’s not just about getting a ‘yes’ or ‘no’—it’s about encouraging a dialogue that reveals deeper insights and paves the way for constructive next steps. Understanding the Power of Your Own “No” While encouraging “no” from others, don’t underestimate the power of your own “no.” Every proposal should be critically evaluated for its alignment with your goals and benefits. If it falls short, have the confidence to decline. We delve into the significance of your own “No” while addressing the importance of preparation. Conclusion Negotiations are not just about getting to “yes.” Sometimes, the most strategic path involves navigating through “no.” By understanding and mastering this approach, you can transform your negotiations into more nuanced, controlled, and ultimately successful interactions. What shall you do? I invite you to reflect on your past negotiations. Have there been moments where a “no” could have shifted the dynamic in your favor? How might you incorporate this strategy in your future negotiations? Share your thoughts or experiences below. Let’s discuss how the power of “no” can reshape our understanding of successful negotiations. About the author Constantin Papadopoulos Co-founder of snipers.sale and negotiation engineer. Our participants benefit from psychology, communication and business negotiation expertise to maximize their negotiation outcomes.
Do negotiations make you anxious?
Do negotiations make you anxious? In the past ten days, I’ve encountered multiple stories that highlight a common challenge: negotiation anxiety. One such story comes from the sparring sessions at snipers.sale, typically a fun exercise, which unexpectedly led to a sleepless night for a newcomer. It raises an intriguing question: Does the mere thought of sitting across the negotiation table or joining a virtual meeting trigger a sense of dread for many of us? If you’ve ever felt your heart race in anticipation of a negotiation, know that you are not alone. This article is for you. Here, we delve into the reasons behind the intimidation often felt in negotiations, ponder the potential benefits of this anxiety, and provide you with actionable steps to manage and transform these fears. Our aim is to guide you in turning negotiation anxiety from a hindrance into a source of strength.” Where does the fear come from? Fear of the unknown is often at the heart of negotiation anxiety. It’s the uncertainty about the other party’s goals, strategies, or bottom line that can paralyze or lead to rash decisions. Another significant source of anxiety is fear of loss, where the prospect of losing something of value overshadows the potential gains. Negotiators also often worry about being taken advantage of, especially in situations where there is a perceived power imbalance. In addition, the tension between achieving personal goals and the need for collaborative outcomes can create anxiety. What’s the impact of fear? Fear in negotiations often reveals itself in various, subtle ways. One common response to fear is over-reliance on others. It’s prudent to seek advice from colleagues or friends, especially when it pertains to specialized areas like legal, real estate, or business matters. However, the key is in striking a balance between this external advice and your own informed judgment. A thorough assessment of the situation, coupled with such inputs, ensures that decisions align with your strategic plan and objectives. Another significant impact of fear is the tendency to avoid negotiations entirely. Think back to instances where you might have gained a significant advantage but chose to wait or completely discard the proposal. Often, it seems simpler not to enter the negotiation arena at all. However, understanding the true cost of such avoidance is crucial. It can be the push needed to confront these fears, motivating you to develop the skills required for effective negotiation. Embracing negotiation, despite the inherent fear, can open doors to opportunities and interests that might otherwise remain unexplored. Snipers.sale’s Experience with Negotiation Fear At Snipers.sale, our firsthand experiences with emotionally charged negotiations have vividly highlighted how they can amplify anxiety. These scenarios often extend beyond the straightforward signing of deals. We find ourselves navigating complex issues like delayed payments, unresolved disputes, or even perceived injustices. Our key strategy in these instances has been effective emotion management. This involves not only recognizing and addressing our own emotional reactions but also engaging in empathetic listening and maintaining clear, transparent communication. We’ve also encountered anxiety when considering changes that could potentially benefit our position, such as asking for a price increase or revising terms and conditions. In these situations, our approach has been to strike a balance between assertiveness and fairness, always underpinned by a careful assessment of the situation. It’s about finding the middle ground where our interests are protected while maintaining equitable relations. These experiences have taught us a crucial lesson: anxiety in negotiations is not exclusive to novices; it’s a universal challenge that affects even the most seasoned professionals. Understanding this has been pivotal for our team. It’s led us to constantly evolve our strategies, ensuring they are not just effective but also adaptable to the emotional complexities of negotiation. What you can do? Understanding the context of negotiation can be a powerful antidote to fear. This includes gathering information, anticipating challenges, and formulating strategies. Clear communication also plays a key role in reducing misunderstandings and building trust. Being direct and transparent about goals, constraints, and expectations can prevent unnecessary anxiety. In addition, active listening and empathy can help to understand the other party’s perspective. Using psychological dynamics can give negotiators an edge. Techniques such as framing the negotiation positively, using anchoring to set expectations, and employing persuasive communication can improve negotiation outcomes and reduce anxiety by providing a sense of control and predictability. One last thought Our journey through negotiation craftsmanship reveals that our greatest challenge often lies within. The antidote? A moment of introspection, a look in the mirror, and a decision to take control of the negotiation process. Echoing the timeless wisdom of Yoda, ‘Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.’ This profound insight, though from a galaxy far, far away, mirrors the complexities of negotiation anxiety in our world. Fear and anxiety, while natural, don’t have to dictate our outcomes. Recognizing and understanding these emotions is the first step in transforming them from obstacles to catalysts for growth and success. The goal is not to eradicate anxiety completely but to learn to navigate it with skill and confidence. Like a seasoned athlete adjusting strategies at half-time, the key lies in having a robust game plan coupled with the agility to adapt as the game of negotiation unfolds. By embracing this approach, we empower ourselves to manage anxiety effectively, turning potential setbacks into opportunities for successful negotiations. Now, we turn the discussion over to you. How do you manage anxiety during your negotiations? Share your experiences and strategies in the comments below and let’s continue to learn from each other in this ever-evolving art of negotiation.” About the author Constantin Papadopoulos Co-founder of snipers.sale and negotiation engineer. Our participants benefit from psychology, communication and business negotiation expertise to maximize their negotiation outcomes.
The Power of Precision: How Odd Numbers Boost Your Earnings in Salary Negotiations
The Power of Precision: How Odd Numbers Boost Your Earnings in Salary Negotiations In the realm of salary negotiations, securing a hefty paycheck is not only about delivering top-notch performance; it’s also a testament to your negotiating skills. According to social psychologist David Loschelder of Saarland University, a simple but effective strategy can significantly increase your earning potential: the art of using unconventional, slightly skewed numbers. Loschelder, along with colleagues from Trier and Lüneburg, Germany, conducted experiments to unravel the science behind successful bargaining and applied their findings to salary negotiations. In their first experiment, the team posted 120 offers for items such as car tires, bicycles, and game consoles on an online platform. These items were originally priced at €200 each. The researchers strategically offered amounts ranging from €115 to €125, with intentionally precise numbers such as €121.37. The result was striking: using these unconventional amounts resulted in an average savings of ten euros. In the second experiment, the researchers took on the role of salespeople in an antique shop. They put an Art Nouveau secretary up for sale at two different starting prices- €1,200 and €1,185. Remarkably, when the item started at €1,185, it fetched an average final price of€1,046, compared to €930 when the starting price was €1,200. Starting with an amount that was €15 lower resulted in a surprisingly higher final price, averaging €116 more. According to Loschelder, these research findings can easily be applied to salary negotiations. Whether you’re discussing the price of a game console or your own salary, providing an accurate figure signals to your counterpart that you’ve thought through your request. This perception of competence can work in your favor. Odd numbers also offer another advantage. When amounts end in even numbers, such as €45,000, people often think in terms of thousands. However, stating a number like €44,700 encourages negotiation in hundreds, which gives you more room to maneuver. Rasmus Tenbergen, a salary coach who earned his doctorate in negotiation techniques at Harvard and advises large companies such as Siemens, Daimler, and SAP, supports this approach. Tenbergen explains that employees often round off their salary expectations, inadvertently giving up potential earnings. For example, if you ask for €65,000 a year, you might get a counteroffer of €60,000. But if you ask for €63,500, the typical counteroffer is more likely to be around €62,000. It’s important, however, not to set your salary too low, as your counterpart may question the value of the offer. In general, the price should not be set too low. Otherwise, the other party will unconsciously look for explanations for the low offer. “If I offer a car for €24,865 , the buyer will accept the price and say to himself: ‘That’s right, apart from the small scratch, the paint is great, and the mileage is also quite low at 85,000 kilometers. If, on the other hand, I ask only €15,323 for the same car, the buyer will argue inwardly: ‘There’s a small dent, and the car already has 85,000 kilometers on the clock. Then the offer seems too cheap,” explains David Loschelder. But there is a difference between haggling over sales prices and haggling over salaries: When it comes to offers, it’s okay to haggle to the penny, but when it comes to salary, it’s better not to. Of the 200 test subjects, some of whom didn’t even know they were taking part in an experiment, none asked why, of all things, €121.37 was being offered. “Some of the people were amused by our offers, but no one was annoyed,” says Loschelder. But if possible, you should only state your desired salary in pennies: “Otherwise you won’t be taken seriously.” Want to train your negotiation skills? Register for our next free negotiation sparrings session here About the author and snipers.sale Constantin Papadopoulos Co-founder of snipers.sale Our participants benefit from expertise in psychology, communication and business negotiation to maximize their negotiation outcomes. Follow-us on LinkedIn This post was inspired by a German article in the Spiegel – Credits to – https://www.spiegel.de/karriere/tipps-fuer-gehaltsverhandlung-krumme-zahlen-besser-als-gerade-summen-a-929073.html
To Anchor or Not to Anchor – That is the Question
To Anchor or Not to Anchor – That is the Question The Psychological Foundation of Anchoring Anchoring, as a cognitive bias in decision-making, is pivotal in negotiations. This concept was initially explored by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, pioneering figures in behavioral economics. In their landmark 1974 paper, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” they presented the anchor-and-adjust hypothesis. This theory posits that people start with an initial value or starting point when making estimates or predictions and then adjust from there. The anchoring bias occurs because these adjustments are often insufficient, leading to skewed decision-making. Tversky and Kahneman’s Empirical Evidence To substantiate their theory, Tversky and Kahneman conducted a study with high school students, who were asked to quickly estimate the product of sequential multiplication problems. The median estimates varied significantly depending on whether the sequence started with a high number (8, 7, 6, …) or a low one (1, 2, 3, …), demonstrating how the initial number served as an anchor. This experiment vividly illustrated how initial values can skew perception and decision-making. Find out more about this experiment here. Anchoring in Practice: Lessons from Personal Experience Reflecting on my early career as a sales consultant, I recall anchoring too soon in a B2B negotiation. The immediate acceptance of what I thought was an aggressive offer led to a realization of the importance of understanding my counterpart’s willingness to pay. This experience taught me the value of inquiring more about their actual reservation price before setting my anchor, highlighting the critical need for thorough preparation and understanding of the other party’s valuation framework. The Flea Market Dilemma: A Hypothetical Case Study Consider a scenario in which you discover a Renaissance masterpiece at a flea market. Should you offer a price first or wait for the seller? While it might be tempting to set the initial price, especially if you recognize the item’s true value, letting the seller anchor can be advantageous. This approach is particularly effective if the seller undervalues the item, setting a lower floor for negotiations. From a legal standpoint, while the ethics of such a scenario can be debated, focusing on the business perspective, it illustrates the importance of assessing the seller’s knowledge and valuation of the item before making your move. Strategic Anchoring: When Market Value is Known When both parties are aware of an item’s market value, anchoring can be a powerful strategy. Setting a high anchor, with solid justification, can give you leverage in negotiations, enabling room for concessions and a broader range of outcomes. Beyond the First Number: The Nuance of Anchoring Anchoring involves more than just stating the first number. It’s a complex strategy that demands an understanding of psychological dynamics, negotiation context, and value perception. Success in anchoring hinges on the negotiator’s ability to read the situation, empathize with the other party, and anticipate responses. So what shall you do? Understand the Context and the Counterpart: Research thoroughly to understand the needs, expectations, and market context of the party you’re negotiating with. Determine Your Anchor: Set an ambitious yet justifiable initial offer, considering the value and market rates of what’s being negotiated. Establish Credibility: Present your anchor confidently, using data and market trends to justify your initial offer and establish its legitimacy. Prepare for the Counteroffer: Anticipate potential counteroffers and plan your response, deciding in advance your negotiation range and limits. Use the Principle of Reciprocity: Be ready to make strategic concessions, always seeking something in return to maintain a balance in the negotiation. Conclusion: Anchoring as a Strategic Choice in Negotiations Anchoring, with its roots in the seminal work of Tversky and Kahneman, is a nuanced tactic in negotiation. Its effectiveness relies on understanding psychological influences, market dynamics, and specific negotiation contexts. By judiciously assessing whether to anchor and how to react to an opponent’s anchor, negotiators can enhance their chances of achieving favorable outcomes. Share with us your experience with anchoring in the comments. About the author Constantin Papadopoulos Co-founder of snipers.sale and negotiation engineer. Our participants benefit from psychology, communication and business negotiation expertise to maximize their negotiation outcomes.
Write Your Counterpart’s Victory Speech
Write Your Counterpart’s Victory Speech Why the real art of negotiation begins after you get what you want. When negotiations go to court, everyone has lost — except the lawyers. On April 9, 2025, Real Madrid lost 3–0 in the Champions League quarterfinal. It was a humbling night, and one that raised questions about the form of a club newly reinforced by its star signing, Kylian Mbappé. One day later, Mbappé’s former club, Paris Saint-Germain, secured a 3–1 victory in their own quarterfinal match — a performance that gave fans a reason to believe this might be their year. But the real drama wasn’t on the pitch. That same day, Mbappé’s lawyers obtained a court order to seize €55 million from PSG’s bank accounts. The claim: unpaid salary and bonuses, including what’s called an “ethical bonus.” His legal team initiated proceedings on civil, criminal, and labor grounds, after a year of failed mediation attempts. Mbappé might be within his rights. But one can’t help but wonder — is he winning the public opinion battle? Because legally, he may win. Narratively, he might already be losing. This isn’t just a contract dispute. It’s the final act of a power struggle that began in the summer of 2023. That’s when PSG tried to pressure Mbappé into extending his contract. When he refused, he was sidelined, left out of preseason tours, and treated as a liability. The message was clear: play by our rules, or don’t play at all. Mbappé called their bluff. He accepted the pressure, stayed for the season, and left on a free transfer. To many, that was the ultimate triumph. He got what he wanted — freedom, fitness, and a seat at the Bernabéu. Which leads to the real negotiation question: Was €55 million the price he paid to have a quiet final season in Paris? Maybe. Probably. That figure, while excessive on the surface, may well have been the unspoken cost of keeping tensions out of the headlines and out of the dressing room. The cost of walking away without burning everything down. But now, with PSG’s accounts frozen and lawyers on all sides, the question is no longer about fairness. It’s about framing. And when a negotiation reaches that point, the damage extends beyond balance sheets. PSG’s image has taken a hit, but they may emerge as the institution that kept its cool while a former star demanded more. If they continue their Champions League run, they write their own redemption arc. Mbappé, by contrast, risks a different narrative — that of a player who got everything he wanted, and still wasn’t done fighting. This could have ended differently. Imagine, instead, a private conversation. A proposal that reframes the dispute: “Let’s agree in principle that this money was earned. But let’s use it to fund something lasting — a youth academy, a foundation, a cause both sides can support. Let’s show Paris, and the world, that this is how professionals part ways.” Not as adversaries, but as legacy-builders. Because when a negotiation reaches the courts, it’s not about winning anymore. At best, it’s win-lose. Often, it’s lose-lose. And the cost isn’t measured in euros alone — it’s measured in trust, perception, and future leverage. Mbappé already won. He left on his terms. He’s wearing the shirt he dreamed of. But in any negotiation, there’s a moment where you have to ask: is there a version of this where both sides get to say, “We ended well”? That’s the art of writing your counterpart’s victory speech. It’s not about generosity. It’s about control. It’s about foresight. It’s about knowing that in high-stakes negotiations, the real win isn’t just walking away with what you want — it’s helping the other side walk away with their dignity, too. Because the story lives longer than the score. Tags: #Negotiation #Leadership #Reputation #ConflictResolution #Mbappe #PSG #StrategicThinking #SportsBusiness #HighStakes About the author Constantin Papadopoulos is a negotiation consultant, trainer, and author of Negotiating with Style. He helps sales professionals, founders, and leaders turn high-stakes conversations into lasting agreements. His work blends strategy, psychology, and storytelling — because in the end, how you negotiate shapes how you’re remembered.
Negotiating with a Tank: Why Power Fails Against Trump
Negotiating with a Tank: Why Power Fails Against Trump Do you know the difference between positions and interests in negotiation? And are you familiar with the anchoring effect—that subtle yet powerful tactic of shaping a discussion by setting the first number on the table? Understanding these concepts is crucial, especially when facing a negotiator like Donald Trump. Now ask yourself: Why would the classic Rapport de Force strategy—meeting power with power—be a bad idea when negotiating with Trump? When I look at the international reactions to Trump’s aggressive moves—whether from markets or governments—I can’t help but wonder: Do we really understand what he’s doing? Harvard professor Deepak Malhotra once said, “There are no irrational negotiators. There are only negotiators we don’t understand.” Let’s try to understand Trump. Behind his aggressive positions—tariffs, threats, exit deals—what are his interests? Here are three likely drivers: 1. Bringing Industrial Jobs Back to the U.S. In 1980, manufacturing represented over 21% of total U.S. employment. By 2024, that number had shrunk to just 8%. That’s not just economic data—it’s a symbol of national decline in the eyes of many American voters. Trump’s push to revive industrial jobs is aimed at recapturing a sense of economic pride and restoring middle-class stability in forgotten regions. 2. Fixing the Trade Imbalance In 1980, the U.S. trade deficit was only 0.5% of GDP. Today, it hovers around 4% of GDP, reaching nearly $900 billion annually. This imbalance is particularly acute with China and the EU—two of Trump’s primary negotiating targets. While trade deficits are complex, Trump’s view is simple: deficits mean losing, and losing is unacceptable. 3. Reducing Dependence on Foreign Manufacturing Instead of wages, a more relevant metric in this trade war is economic dependence—particularly on China. In 2001, China made up just 8% of U.S. imports. By 2022, that had more than doubled to 17%. At the same time, the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit with China surged from $83 billion to over $300 billion. Trump sees this not just as an economic risk, but as a national security threat—and a narrative he can sell. This is the story Trump tells his base: “I’m bringing jobs home. I’m stopping unfair trade. I’m protecting America.” So, how should you respond to someone like Trump? Step 1: Don’t Take the Bait Do not acknowledge or immediately respond to the tariffs. These aren’t just threats—they’re invitations to negotiate. If you react emotionally or tit-for-tat, you’re already playing his game. Step 2: Focus on Empathy, Not Ego Recognize Trump’s underlying interests: He wants to bring back industrial jobs. He wants to reduce the trade deficit. He wants to reassert U.S. manufacturing dominance. And guess what? You probably want similar things for your own country. Say so. Find common ground in shared interests—not opposing positions. This is the essence of principled negotiation. Step 3: Reframe the Anchor When the conversation turns to numbers, don’t anchor on the tariffs. Anchor on outcomes. Ask: How many jobs do we want to create—here and in the U.S.? Frame it not as a confrontation, but as a shared ambition. Use Trump’s own narrative to support yours: make him a strategic ally in your country’s reindustrialization. Final Thought: Don’t Play Chicken with a Tank This won’t be an easy ride. Negotiating with a “Tank”—a hard-charging, aggressive negotiator—is never smooth. But if you stick to your real objectives, resist provocation, and stay principled in your approach, you’ll stay in the driver’s seat. Don’t try to overpower Trump. Instead, outsmart him. Principled negotiation, empathy, and narrative control will always outperform brute force. Especially when the tank is pointing right at you. 👋 Curious to hear your thoughts: How do you think world leaders should negotiate with hardliners like Trump? Have you seen principled negotiation succeed where force failed? Let’s discuss. #Negotiation #Trump #InternationalRelations #Geopolitics #StrategicNegotiation #Leadership #Diplomacy #ConflictResolution About the author: I help leaders and sales professionals sharpen their negotiation strategies—whether they’re facing a difficult customer or a political “tank.” Co-founder of snipers.sale, speaker, and trainer on high-stakes negotiation and decision-making.