Evaluating Outcomes of Negotiation

That VC asked who was picking up my kids. So I started tracking every bias. 165 investor meetings. 73 inappropriate questions. I documented them all. The data will make you angry. Good. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻: • 31 asked about childcare arrangements • 19 questioned my "work-life balance" • 14 asked if my husband was "okay with this" • 9 wondered how I'd handle travel with kids 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿: VCs who asked about my kids? 0% conversion. VCs who asked about unit economics? 23% conversion. Meeting #47: "How does your husband feel about you running the company?" Meeting #48: Pitched to his rival. Got a cheque. 𝗜 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱: -10 points for each personal question -20 points for childcare concerns -30 points for "husband" questions -50 points for suggesting I hire a male CEO The worst offender? -140 points. Still took the meeting. Still said no to their offer. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱: Bias is predictable. Track it. Your time has value. Protect it. Their questions reveal their thinking. You don't need their approval. The pattern is clear: Investors who focused on my personal life weren't serious about my business. 𝗦𝗼 𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵: Created pre-meeting filters Asked my own screening questions Walked out of 3 meetings (yes, really) Turned down two term sheets (painful but necessary) Only engaged high-conviction investors Your kids aren't a liability. They're watching you build empires. What's the worst bias you've faced in a pitch? #BiasInVC  #FemaleFounders  #FundraisingData

Adaptation & resilience are now central to climate finance discourse. On one hand, this is long overdue. On the other, this rising emphasis reflects a deeper failure: we have—and continue to—woefully underfund mitigation, with the disastrous consequences long predicted. It would be one thing if we were waking up to the need for adaptation while also doubling down on mitigation—the only means to fundamentally reduce risk. But we’re not. Attention is tilting toward adaptation/resilience without a coherent plan to fully decarbonize our global economy. That is a losing strategy. Adaptation is essential—and underfunded—but it has hard & imminent limits: - Insurers warn that climate volatility could collapse private insurance markets; public reinsurance will also become unsustainable. - Extreme heat will cross lethal thresholds, even in shade with water. - Coastal infrastructure cannot be endlessly elevated or protected. - Crop yields will decline; climate-resilient varieties have limits. - Tipping points—coral reef collapse, permafrost thaw, rainforest loss—are irreversible and non-adaptable. - Climate-smart technologies will be overwhelmed by compounding extremes. Financing adaptation & resilience is absolutely essential. But doing so while allowing emissions to rise fundamentally misses the point. And that’s where we are: - Emissions are rising when they must drop steeply & swiftly. - Clean energy investment is less than half of what’s needed annually. - Fossil fuel demand must fall, yet FF subsidies exceed global public climate finance. - Sea surface temperatures hit records in May 2025, and the ocean’s carbon sink is weakening, removing one of our last natural buffers. These trends will make adaptation more expensive, less effective, and eventually impossible. We must also be clear-eyed about market-driven adaptation. Capital will (appropriately) flow to protect asset value and to investments that generate returns - both are legitimate and important. But critical adaptation needs—like restoring tropical forests & protecting the most vulnerable—require robust public finance and will not be delivered by the market alone. None of this is new: - The International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Net Zero by 2050 report laid out a decarbonization roadmap we are failing to follow. - The Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance quantified specific financing needs that were ignored in COP finance negotiations. - The IPCC warned that beyond 1.5/2°C, adaptation becomes increasingly ineffective or impossible. - Experts have LONG shown that with rising emissions, damages grow exponentially while adaptation benefits plateau—and that adaptation is already failing in sectors like agriculture and coastal defense. Let’s advance a coherent conversation on financing BOTH full decarbonization and adaptation, based on a rigorous understanding of how systemic decarbonization is achieved, and on the public/private financing needs for adaptation and resilience.

“But, you said we will get 4x ROAS!” In our industry, there’s always someone making louder promises. It’s tempting to join the race, promise big numbers, get the deal, deal with the fallout later. But here’s what most people miss: It’s easy to talk up results in a pitch deck. It’s much harder to build real, repeatable success in the wild. That’s why I’m a firm believer in that classic advice (Tom Peters said it best): “Under promise and over deliver.” Not because I want to play it safe, or because we can’t achieve bold results. But because I’ve seen what happens when the entire ecosystem starts chasing unrealistic benchmarks. Margins shrink, trust erodes, and clients hop agencies the minute a new, shinier offer comes along. This isn’t just about protecting my agency. It’s about building a healthy market where fair pricing, sustainable growth, and honest expectations win out over one-upmanship. I’ve worked both sides: corporate and agency. I know how much pressure there is to show up with “guarantees.” But now, I’d rather have tough conversations up front than scramble for explanations later. In business and in life, overpromising looks flashy but rarely pays off. A spouse who hears “I’ll bring you the stars” is happy for a day. But it’s showing up, doing the work, and quietly delivering more than you promised, that’s what sticks. I’d rather be the one who delivers steady, compounding wins than someone chasing their own hype. If you’ve ever faced the pressure to “promise the moon,” you know how tempting it is. But the real win? Building trust that outlasts the campaign.

“Fossil fuel exporting countries—including the United States, Canada, Saudi Arabia, among others—are likely to block or significantly weaken references to fossil fuels and commitments to take action. The consensus required in the UN climate change process has hindered action for decades, not to mention the presence and influence of the fossil fuel industry in negotiations. Overcoming this impasse and releasing the chokehold the fossil fuel industry has on climate action requires innovation. That’s why a growing bloc of nations led by Vanuatu and Tuvalu are calling for an official mandate to negotiate a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. Colombia, a significant coal and oil exporter, also recognized the need to end the era by calling for a Fossil Fuel Treaty during the first week of COP28. This treaty would end the expansion of oil, gas, and coal; wind down existing production to levels that would keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the target set in the Paris Agreement; and accelerate the transition to clean energy and other low carbon solutions with wealthy producer countries leading and providing resources and technical assistance to countries more dependent on fossil fuels and with less capacity to make the shift. Given the limits of the UN consensus process, a bloc of nations—including Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Niue, Timor-Leste, Antigua and Barbuda, Palau, Colombia, and Samoa—has begun independent negotiations on a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, including hosting high-level diplomatic dialogues with other nations not yet in the bloc at COP28. Countries have come together to address historic threats like nuclear weapons, ozone depleting substances, landmines, and, most recently, plastics. Similarly, international cooperation is needed to ensure the phase out of fossil fuels. The creation and use of alternative forums have proven effective in many of these cases. Take, for example, the Land Mine Treaty. When it was clear the process within the UN was not advancing, Canada invited other nations to join them in Ottawa for talks outside of the existing forum until a new agreement was reached. Our planet and future hangs in the balance. It’s time for governments to take action commensurate with the problem and stop throwing fuel on the fire. A key step would be joining the countries seeking a mandate to negotiate a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.” https://bit.ly/3Nk8ald

Here's the number one reason you lose deals to competitors. Storytime. Several years ago, I walked into a bike store. Within a few minutes, the salesperson told me which bike to buy. I left. Why? I didn't feel understood. It felt like the salesperson was putting his best interests first. Yes, it's a feeling. That's how most B2B salespeople make you feel. They ask you a bunch of questions to quantify pain so they can sell you a bike. Then I went to Racer's Edge. John didn't try to sell me a bike. Instead, he made me feel understood: "What brings you in today?" "I'm looking for a road bike." "What's motivating you to get a road bike?" "I have a triathlon bike, but I'm heading to Colorado and need a lightweight bike for climbing." "You want to get out of the Florida flats and climb mountains." "I do!" "What is it about the mountains?" "I love nature." "It makes you feel connected with beauty and serenity." "It really does." "TT bikes aren't optimal on climbs, but it'll work well enough with practice and the right cassette." "What do you mean by the right cassette?" John didn't sell me a bike that day. He sold me a 54/40 chainring 11-23 cassette. More importantly, John made me feel understood. He understood the reason why I wanted a bike rather than selling me a bike. When you make people feel understood you build trust. No trust, no transaction. I've spent over 15k with John. I have recommended people too. Knowing how to make people feel heard and understood is a sales superpower.

M&A isn’t just math. It’s psychology. Sellers rarely walk away because of numbers. They walk because they don’t trust you. And trust doesn’t get built in a spreadsheet. It happens in conversations, real ones. The kind that take time. The kind that happen over dinners, site visits, late-night phone calls. When I talk to great buyers, they all say the same thing: the deal turns when the relationship turns. When the seller stops seeing you as “the other side of the table” and starts seeing you as someone who actually cares about what happens next. Legacy. Culture. People. Those matter as much as valuation. Sometimes more. In Buyer-Led M&A™, we teach teams to stop trying to “win” the negotiation and start trying to understand the person. When you do that — when you really invest the time to listen, to show up in person, to build that foundation of trust — you unlock a completely different kind of deal dynamic. You can have the best model in the world, but if the seller doesn’t believe in you, it won’t matter. You’ll lose the deal, not because of price, but because of disconnect. Trust isn’t a soft skill in M&A. It’s the hard edge that makes every other part of the process work. What are you doing to build trust? For me, dinner or drinks help you learn about their personal life (family, hobbies, etc.). You can unlock a real conversation. Let me know your tips in the comments.

Did you know that women in biotech and pharma earn just 88 cents for every $1 their male counterparts make? I've observed a troubling trend that may be perpetuating this gap. Over the past 6 months, I've documented 23 separate LinkedIn posts from professionals (all women, 21 of whom work in HR or TA) proudly announcing they rescinded job offers because candidates attempted to negotiate their compensation packages. What's particularly concerning is how this behavior creates a feedback loop 5 female candidates recently told me they were afraid to counteroffer specifically because they had seen these posts. Some wouldn't even allow me to negotiate on their behalf—despite knowing additional compensation was available. The data suggests a problematic dynamic When men negotiate, they're often perceived as "ambitious," while women displaying the same behavior are labeled "difficult." This cultural difference starts early in how we socialize children and carries through to professional environments where it manifests as tangible financial disadvantages. As recruitment partners, we have a responsibility to recognize these patterns. Negotiation is a standard part of the American employment process—not a character flaw or sign of disloyalty. When TA professionals (especially those with SHRM credentials or who champion DEI initiatives) brag about punishing negotiation attempts, they're actively suppressing women's wages and contradicting their stated values. For hiring managers and companies How are you ensuring your compensation practices aren't inadvertently reinforcing gender pay disparities? Are your recruiters and HR teams trained to recognize these biases? For candidates, Negotiation is your right. If an offer is rescinded solely because you respectfully inquired about compensation adjustments, that's a significant red flag about company culture. What steps is your organization taking to ensure fair compensation practices across gender lines? I'd love to hear your thoughts. #BiotechEquity #FairCompensation #RecruitmentBestPractices #GenderPayGap #TalentAcquisition

You don’t build trust on close day. You build it every day before that. Long before contracts are signed, deals are earned through reps: honest conversations, transparency when things shift, and the discipline to say “no” when it’s not right. This isn’t a transactional business. It’s a relationship business. Schedule a call if you’re looking to build a long-term reputation, not just short-term wins.

Stop counting SLAs. Start measuring outcomes. ↳ SLAs don’t build trust. Results do. Many organizations rely on SLAs because “they’re easy to report.” But they miss what matters most: Metrics green on dashboards—even when users aren’t satisfied Response/resolution targets hit, but the impact still dampened by rework and follow-ups SLAs that protect process, not user perception Here’s what high-trust IT leaders do instead: 1️⃣ Define impact-based outcomes, not just response time ↳ E.g. reduced interruptions, more time for strategic work, improved user satisfaction 2️⃣ Measure experience along with delivery ↳ Regular check-ins, sentiment, feedback, alignment with business KPIs 3️⃣ Show outcomes in plain language ↳ Share results the business cares about—like cost savings, reduced downtime, or increased efficiency The payoff? ✔ Greater trust in IT's delivery ✔ Less firefighting ✔ Stakeholders stop checking SLAs—they start asking “What changed?” I’m pro-ITIL. SLAs have their place. But if your reporting stops there, you’re leaving trust—and growth—on the table. 💬 What outcome metric would you like your business leaders to see most from IT? ♻️ Repost if you believe metrics should move from dashboards to outcomes. 🔔 Follow me, Bob Roark, for Grove Method insights on driving trust and impact in ITSM.

In an industry focused on measuring everything from length of stay to readmission rates, we've overlooked our most fundamental metric: trust. This invisible foundation determines whether our sophisticated systems and advanced technologies actually improve health outcomes. When patients trust their providers, they share critical information, adhere to treatment plans, and return for necessary care. When providers trust their systems, they experience less burnout and make better clinical decisions. Trust isn't just a nice-to-have—it's the prerequisite that makes all other healthcare outcomes possible. The Trust Deficit Yet healthcare faces a profound trust crisis. Patients question whether financial interests outweigh clinical judgment. Providers wonder if systems support their work or just monitor productivity. Both navigate fragmented journeys where crucial information disappears between handoffs. We've designed systems that actively undermine trust: confusing billing, fragmented communication, and environments prioritizing efficiency over connection. Each frustrating interaction erodes the trust essential to healing. Trust as a Design Principle What if we designed for trust as intentionally as we design for efficiency? This means: +Creating transparency where there's typically obscurity: Making costs clear before services are rendered, explaining the why behind clinical decisions, and acknowledging uncertainty when it exists +Building consistency where there's typically variation: Ensuring care feels cohesive across touchpoints and providers share a complete picture of the patient's journey +Enabling human connection where there's typically transactional exchange: Designing environments and workflows that support meaningful conversation and relationship building +Demonstrating competence through thoughtful details: From clear wayfinding to seamless transitions between departments, showing that every aspect of the experience has been considered Measuring What Matters If trust is essential, we must measure it with the same rigor we apply to clinical metrics. This goes beyond satisfaction surveys to capturing specific moments where trust is built or broken: +Did you feel your concerns were taken seriously? +Was information shared in a way you could understand and act upon? +Were financial aspects of your care explained clearly and accurately? +Did your care team demonstrate they were communicating with each other? +Would you feel comfortable bringing up a sensitive health concern with your provider? Trust as Competitive Advantage The organizations that will thrive in healthcare's future aren't just those with the best technology or the most efficient processes—they're those that systematically build and protect trust at every touchpoint. In a world where patients have increasingly diverse options for care, trust becomes the differentiator that builds loyalty and word-of-mouth referrals.