The Role of Trust in Negotiation

In the U.S., you can grab coffee with a CEO in two weeks. In Europe, it might take two years to get that meeting. I ’ve spent years building relationships across both U.S. and European markets, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s this: networking looks completely different depending on where you are. The way people connect, build trust, and create opportunities is shaped by culture-and if you don’t adapt your approach, you’ll hit walls fast. So, if you're an executive expanding globally, a leader hiring across regions, or a professional trying to break into a new market-this post is for you. The U.S.: Fast, Open, and High-Volume Americans love to network. Connections are made quickly, introductions flow freely, and saying "let's grab coffee" isn’t just polite—it’s expected. - Cold outreach is normal—you can message a top executive on LinkedIn, and they just might say yes. - Speed matters. Business moves fast, so meetings, interviews, and hiring decisions happen quickly. But here’s the catch: Just because you had a great chat doesn’t mean you’ve built a deep relationship. Trust takes follow-ups, consistency, and results. I’ve seen European executives struggle with this—mistaking initial enthusiasm for long-term commitment. In the U.S., networking is about momentum—you have to keep showing up, adding value, and staying top of mind. In Europe, networking is a long game. If you don’t have an introduction, it’s much harder to get in the door. - Warm introductions matter. Cold outreach? Much tougher. Senior leaders prefer to meet through trusted referrals—someone who can vouch for you. - Fewer, deeper relationships. Once trust is built, it’s strong and lasting—but it takes time to get there. - Decisions take longer. Whether it’s hiring, partnerships, or leadership moves, things don’t happen overnight—expect a longer courtship period. I’ve seen U.S. executives enter the European market and get frustrated fast—wondering why it’s taking months (or years!) to break into leadership circles. But that’s how the market works. The key to winning in Europe? Patience, credibility, and long-term thinking. So, What Does This Mean for Global Leaders? If you’re an American executive expanding into Europe… 📌 Be patient. One meeting won’t seal the deal—you have to earn trust over time. 📌 Get introductions. A warm referral is worth more than 100 cold emails. 📌 Don’t push too hard. European business culture favors depth over speed—respect the process. If you’re a European leader entering the U.S. market… 📌 Don’t wait for permission—reach out. People expect direct outreach and initiative. 📌 Follow up fast. If you’re slow to respond, the opportunity moves on without you. 📌 Be ready to show value quickly. Americans won’t wait months to see if you’re a fit. Networking isn’t just about who you know—it’s about how you build relationships. #Networking #Leadership #ExecutiveSearch #CareerGrowth #GlobalBusiness #US #Europe

How to destroy your reputation??? By transparently disclosing your usage of AI… Whereas shaky studies without peer review are getting a lot of clickbait attention, high-quality peer reviewed studies on the impact of AI often do not get the exposure they deserve The recent study of Oliver Schilke and Martin Reimann is a great example In the paper “The Transparency Dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust”, published in the top journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes they do a series of 13 experiments in different settings to study how transparently disclosing the use of AI impacts your trustworthiness. The results are striking: They consistently find that transparently disclosing the use of AI NEGATIVELY impacts the extent to which people see you a trustworthy. In other words, people get punished for transparently disclosing the use of AI as they are seen as LESS trustworthy than people who use AI, but do not disclose it. Why is this the case??? The researchers find that disclosing the use of AI negatively influences your legitimacy (i.e. perception of others whether your behavior is socially appropriate), which leads to a reduction in trustworthiness. Why do these researchers talk about a paradox??? They also found out that, when people do not disclose the use of AI and, subsequently, a third party discloses their use of AI, the decrease in trust will be even more outspoken. In other words, there is a huge punishment for not disclosing the use of AI and getting caught later on. I think these findings have huge implications. Think about the academic world. Journals oblige authors to clearly disclose their usage of AI. However, if you do disclose it, your trustworthiness is likely to get hit (which will negatively influence your likelihood of getting published). Colleagues, who decide to hide their usage of AI, will be seen as more trustworthy and have higher likelihood of getting published (although they face the risk of huge penalty when they get caught…). In a world with huge publication pressure, I am not optimistic about scholars’ willingness to transparently disclose AI usage… Disclaimer: This post was not written with the help of AI so you can fully trust me 😉 Lina Sophie Knees Philipp Klöckner Philipp Hartensuer Elisabeth L'Orange

In the West, trust often begins with capability: “Show me what you can do, and I’ll believe in you.” But in Japan, it starts with character: “Let me understand who you are, then I’ll trust what you do.” At monoya, we’ve felt this difference deeply. When we first started engaging with Japanese partners, we expected our portfolio and success stories to do the talking. They didn’t. Meetings were polite but reserved. Decisions moved slowly. Then we shifted gears—less pitching, more listening. We invested in relationships. We showed up consistently. We respected silence and patience. Over time, trust started to build—not because we talked about our work, but because we shared our values. One moment that stands out: a partner told us, “What mattered wasn’t your proposal—it was how you carried yourself.” That stuck with us. In Japan, trust isn’t built in the boardroom—it’s built in the in-between moments: over dinner, during shared silences, through consistent follow-ups. It’s relational, not transactional. For global teams entering Japan, remember: trust here is earned slowly, but it’s rock-solid once it’s there. Have you experienced this cultural shift in trust-building? I’d love to hear your thoughts. #Trust #JapanBusiness #CulturalInsights #monoya #CrossCulturalLeadership

Something strange is happening in B2B buying. Deals are being won and lost before sales calls even happen. Not because of features. Not because of price. But because of something most B2B companies barely think about. Dentsu's massive 2024 B2B buyer study - over 14,000 interviews - reveals a shift that's rewriting the rules of how enterprise software gets purchased. And most companies are completely unprepared for it. The shift? Brand marketing now drives more revenue than most companies realize. And the ROI is measurable, predictable, and massive. B2B buyers only evaluate 2-5 vendors on average, according to TrustRadius's 2024 B2B Buying Disconnect Report. That's it. Once you make that shortlist, you have a 71% chance the buyer sticks with their initial favorite. The entire "evaluation process" often just validates a choice they've already made. But here's the ROI kicker: TrustRadius found 78% of buyers select products they've heard of before starting their research. Forrester's Business Trust survey found 77% of purchase influencers consider a vendor's brand awareness as a key factor in whether they trust that organization. The revenue impact? Forrester found 83% of B2B influencers who trust a supplier plan to continue doing business with them. That's not just win rate - that's lifetime value. The LinkedIn B2B Institute and Ipsos research confirms the pricing power: buyers explicitly state they'll pay premiums for trusted brands because it mitigates risk in complex B2B deals. Brand marketing doesn't just win deals. It wins them at higher prices with better retention. Brand marketing isn't a cost center - it's a revenue multiplier. When 78% of buyers choose from brands they already know, awareness directly equals pipeline. Yet only ~30% of B2B marketing budgets go to brand. We're investing backwards. Meanwhile, 68% of buyers say all vendors sound identical (Dentsu). And every $1 cut from brand investment costs $1.85 to rebuild (BCG). Smart companies track brand perception religiously. They know which buying situations trigger their brand. They measure if messages actually change perception. But 79% of CFOs see no clear metrics connecting brand to revenue. Because most companies guess instead of measure. You should do brand tracking at minimum once a year. You can run one with Wynter and gets results in 2 days https://lnkd.in/dV2umFPy

Why facts alone won’t save the planet When I think about what makes someone care about the natural world, it rarely begins with statistics or graphs. It begins with a moment. For me, it was an encounter I had at age 12 with frogs in an Indigenous community in the Ecuadorian Amazon (https://lnkd.in/g882Ui8X fascination that turned to urgency when I later read about an oil spill near where I had stayed. Since then, I’ve come to believe that connection, not just information, is what stirs people to act. During a recent conversation with Jessica Morgenthal for her Resilience Gone Wild podcast (https://lnkd.in/gpsw-B7i), we spoke about that idea: how empathy for one being can lead to concern for an entire ecosystem. When people talk about “a herd of gazelles,” it’s abstract. But tell the story of one gazelle—its habits, its struggle to survive—and suddenly it matters. We often relate most to individuals, not collectives. The same is true for human stories of conservation. When Mongabay reported on a community in Gabon fighting to protect its forest, it wasn’t primarily the data that moved the environment minister to intervene—it was meeting the people whose lives were entwined with those trees and realizing how their stewardship sustained a healthy and productive system. I’ve found that even the smallest connections can shift perspective. When snorkeling, I sometimes encounter a fish that swims beside me and seems to remember me when I revisit the site the next day. We don’t share language or biology, yet there’s an unmistakable recognition. If we can connect with a fish (https://lnkd.in/gxz9fJtd), surely we can connect with one another. That belief has shaped my journalism. Facts establish credibility, but stories create meaning. In a world where trust in science and media has increasingly faltered among many audiences, storytelling offers a bridge—a way to make people feel before they analyze. The same principle applies beyond conservation. Whether we’re talking about communities, politics, or technology, change begins with empathy. We don’t protect what we don’t love, and we don’t love what we don’t understand. The task, then, is to help people see the world as alive, particular, and personal—and to remember that even one small connection can open the door to care.

Fundraising in India is a beautiful, brutal dance. After 15 years of knocking on doors, writing proposals, and building relationships in the charity space, I've learned that money follows trust, not just need. And trust is earned in whispers, not shouts. Most fundraisers think it's about the pitch. The perfect slide deck. The heart-wrenching story. The immaculate impact metrics. But that's just the costume you wear to the real party. The truth is messier. More human. More honest. First, nobody cares about your organization. They care about the problem you're solving. Stop talking about your NGO's journey and start talking about the journey of the people you serve. Your founder's story matters less than the story of the girl who can now read because of your work. Second, relationships outlast transactions. I've watched fundraisers chase cheques like they're chasing buses – desperate to catch the next one, forgetting that the real journey happens when you're walking together. The donor who gives you ₹10,000 today could give you ₹10 crores in a decade if you treat them like a partner, not an ATM. Third, most Indian donors don't want innovation. They want reliability. They've seen too many NGOs come and go, too many promises evaporate. They're tired of funding pilots that never take flight. Show them consistency before you show them creativity. Fourth, your finance team is your secret weapon. In a country where trust in institutions is fragile, your ability to account for every rupee isn't just good practice – it's your survival strategy. I've seen brilliant programs collapse because someone couldn't explain where the money went. Not because of corruption, but because of chaos. And finally, the hardest truth: fundraising isn't about money. It's about meaning. People don't give to causes; they give to become the person they want to be. The businessman who funds your education program isn't just building schools – he's rewriting his own story, becoming the hero his childhood self needed. I've sat across from millionaires and watched them cry when they talk about their mothers. I've seen corporate leaders who manage thousands of crores struggle to write a personal cheque for ₹5,000. I've witnessed wealthy donors argue over a ₹500 expense while approving ₹50 lakhs in the same meeting. Because money isn't rational. It's emotional. It's cultural. It's complicated. The fundraisers who thrive in India aren't the ones with the fanciest degrees or the most polished English. They're the ones who understand that in this country, giving is deeply personal, profoundly spiritual, and incredibly relational. So stop treating fundraising like a Western import that needs to be implemented. Start treating it like what it is – a conversation about values that's been happening on this soil for thousands of years. Because when you get it right, you're not just raising funds. You're raising hope.

You're standing in front of a microwave, hoping for a meal in seconds. When it dings, what you get is a soggy mess. That’s what happens when we try to rush TRUST in business. It’s tempting to believe that one email or post will seal the deal, but that’s rarely true. Trust isn’t a quick fix; it’s more like a slow-cooked dish that needs time to develop. And that’s what makes it valuable. Think about the brands you trust. Did they earn your loyalty overnight? Probably not. They showed up consistently, delivered on promises, and proved their worth over time. They understood that trust is the foundation of success, and it can’t be rushed. As an entrepreneur, it’s easy to want quick results, but the relationships that lead to long-term success are built slowly. It’s not about quick wins; it’s about playing the long game, where trust is everything. The next time you’re tempted to take a shortcut, remember: You can’t microwave experience or relationships. But if you invest the time, the rewards are worth it.

You think prep is optional. Until the deal tanks and you realise you had no leverage from the start. Why? You didn't define your ZOPA. You didn't pressure-test your BATNA. You walk in negotiating blind. I use a 3-part approach before negotiations: 𝟭. 𝗠𝗮𝗽 𝗺𝘆 𝗭𝗢𝗣𝗔. The range where a deal can happen. Most people guess it. I quantify it! • What’s my ceiling? • What’s their likely floor? • Where’s the overlap, or is there one at all? • If there’s no overlap, I don’t force a deal. • I test assumptions, explore flexibility, or reposition entirely. 𝟮. 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝘆 𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗡𝗔. This isn’t just a fallback. It’s your negotiating power. • If it's a weak BATNA, you’ll rationalise a bad deal • If it’s strong, you can walk calmly and confidently. Before I enter the room, I know exactly what “𝙣𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙡” looks like, and I’ve made sure it’s viable. 𝟯. 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀. Don’t just analyze your own position. Stress test the other party’s too. • What’s 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 BATNA? • How costly is “no deal” for them? • What internal pressures are shaping their priorities? You don’t need to guess. You need to ask better questions and pay attention to what’s not said. Deals don’t just hinge on numbers. They hinge on trust. It's, clarity, leverage, and relationship strength that shape the agreement. Don’t just hope for a deal. Actively shape it, with precision and control. ------------------- Hi, I’m 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻, and I help you master negotiation & communication for any situation. - Master Facilitator and EQ-i Practitioner - 24 yrs | 44 countries | 150+ clients - Negotiation | Conflict resolution | Closing deals 📩 DM me or hop on a call (link in the Featured section)

Next time you're in a crucial negotiation, this common mistake could cost you the deal. I handle approximately 10+ deals/week and I've seen people push too hard for a 'yes' and that's the worst thing It's even backed by psychology. Research shows people are more motivated to avoid losses than pursue gains. This idea, known as loss aversion, comes from The Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s Prospect Theory, which explains why we prefer small certain rewards over risky larger ones. We’ve to understand that the harder you push for that "yes"- The more defensive the other party becomes, the faster they look for escape routes, and trust erodes. What actually works is: 💡 Start with the “no” Before pitching, ask what would make this deal a hard no for them. Identifying deal-breakers early allows you to address concerns before they become roadblocks. 💡 Reframe your pitch around their losses. Instead of highlighting what they’ll gain, focus on the problems they’ll avoid or the risks they’ll reduce by saying yes. 💡 Turn the table. Ask questions that let them sell the deal to themselves: “What would make this a no-brainer for you?” “What’s one thing you’d change to feel confident moving forward?” Remember: You're not trying to win an argument. You're building a foundation for a long-term business relationship. The goal isn't forcing a "yes" - it's creating an environment where saying "yes" feels like the natural next step. Have you ever lost a deal by pushing too hard? Or won one by stepping back? Share your negotiation story below.

Bad news is like fish. The longer it sits, the worse the whole situation smells. The Dilemma: A high-stakes launch is on the roadmap. Your team has brilliantly de-risked the plan, securing the most critical milestone ahead of schedule. Rock-solid work. But... they also know the full scope won't make the original date. And leadership? They haven't been told yet. The temptation to stay silent is powerful. The logic is seductive: "Let's not raise a flag until we have the perfect solution," or "Let's wait for a 'better time' to deliver this news." Here’s the counterintuitive truth: Waiting is the riskiest move you can make. Transparency without all the answers isn't weakness; it's a strategic advantage. A Better Way: Proactive Transparency Escalation isn't failure; it's a tool for alignment and trust-building. You don't need a perfect solution. You just need to own the narrative. My playbook for this conversation: 💪 Lead with the Win: Start with the good news. "We've secured the most impactful part of the launch and will deliver it early." 💪 State the Reality, Simply: Be direct. "This smart pivot means the subsequent phases will be delayed." 💪 Show Proactivity: Demonstrate control. "We are actively re-planning the remaining milestones." 💪 Own the Next Step: Provide certainty on communication. "We will share a full, revised plan with you by next week." When you do this, you're no longer delivering "bad news." You're delivering a reality-checked, responsibly managed plan. You're treating your leaders like partners. Surprising your leadership is a risk you can't afford. Building their trust is an asset you can't put a price on. Don't wait until the house is on fire. Be the leader who points to the smoke and says, "I've got this, and here's the plan." – 👉 Follow me, Rony Rozen, for more real-world insights on tech leadership.