Beyond Yes Why Traditional Negotiation Tactics Fail in High Stakes Deals

The air in the Lagos warehouse was thick enough to taste. A mixture of diesel fumes, humidity, and fear. Across the makeshift table, a man who called himself 'The Colonel' stared at me, his eyes unblinking. He wasn't a real colonel, of course. He was the leader of a militant group holding two oil workers hostage, and he had just demanded a ransom of ten million dollars.

"We will not be paying ten million dollars," I stated calmly.

The Colonel laughed, a short, sharp bark. "Then your men will die. It is that simple. Just say yes, and they can go home."

For many, the goal of negotiation is to 'get to yes'. It's a phrase popularised by countless business books and seminars. It suggests a collaborative journey to a mutually agreeable outcome. And in a low-stakes discussion about office budgets or holiday schedules, it's a perfectly adequate model.

But when the stakes are life and death — or, in your world, the multi-million-pound merger, the make-or-break partnership, the future of the company — the 'get to yes' mindset is not only naive, it's dangerous. It fundamentally misunderstands the psychological dynamics of a high-stakes deal.

The Flaw in "Getting to Yes"

The traditional model of negotiation often revolves around a few core ideas: separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests instead of positions, and inventing options for mutual gain. These are not bad ideas in themselves, but they crumble under real pressure for one simple reason: they presuppose a rational actor on the other side of the table.

In my sixteen years as a Scotland Yard detective and in over 300 kidnap-for-ransom negotiations, I have rarely, if ever, dealt with a purely rational actor. And neither have you.

When you're negotiating with a CEO fighting to save their company, a founder terrified of losing control, or a union leader protecting their members' livelihoods, you are not dealing with a spreadsheet. You are dealing with a complex web of human emotion: fear, pride, ego, and a desperate need to feel safe and in control.

In these moments, trying to "invent options for mutual gain" is like trying to reason with a hurricane. It's the wrong tool for the job. Pushing for 'yes' when the other side is in a state of fear or agitation will only trigger their defences and increase their resistance. They don't hear your logic; they hear a threat.

The Kidnap Negotiator's Alternative: The Communication Sequence

In the world of crisis negotiation, we don't aim for 'yes'. We aim for influence. We understand that before you can change someone's mind, you must first change their emotional state. We do this using a battle-tested framework known as the Communication Sequence (The Negotiation Stairway), or the Negotiation Stairway.

It's a five-step process, and each step is a prerequisite for the next. You cannot skip a single one.

1. Active Listening: You must first truly hear the other side out, using specific techniques to absorb not just their words, but the meaning and emotion behind them.
2. Empathy: You then demonstrate that understanding back to them.You make them feel seen, heard, and understood.
3. Rapport: This demonstrated understanding builds a foundation of trust and connection.
4. Influence: Only once rapport exists can you beg in to influence their thinking and behaviour.
5. Behavioural Change: This is the final step, where the other party chooses to change their actions — whether that's releasing a hostage or agreeing to a key term in a contract.

Notice that 'agreement' or 'yes' is the result of the process, not the goal. The goal is to guide your counterpart from a state of emotional, defensive reactivity to a state of calm, rational collaboration.

From the Warehouse to the Boardroom

Back in that Lagos warehouse, I didn't try to argue the logic of the ten-million-dollar demand. I didn't present a counter-offer. I started at the bottom of the stairway.

I listened.

I used emotional labels. "It sounds like you feel disrespected by the oil companies." "It seems like you're under immense pressure to provide for your men."

I built rapport, not by agreeing with him, but by demonstrating that I understood his world, his frustrations, his needs. It was only after hours of this painstaking work that his emotional state began to shift. The tension in the room eased. The conversation moved from threats to problems.

And eventually, weeks later, the hostages went home safely for a tiny fraction of the initial demand.

Key Takeaways for Leaders

In your next high-stakes negotiation, I urge you to abandon the notion of simply 'getting to yes'. Instead, focus on mastering the psychological game at play.

• Diagnose the Emotion, Not the Position: Is your counterpart acting out of fear, ego, or a need for control? Address that emotion first.Your logic is useless until their fear subsides.
• Prioritise Influence Over Agreement: Your primary goal is not toget them to agree, but to create an environment where they can agree.. This requires a disciplined, step-by-step approach to building trust.
• Master the Stairway: Internalise the five steps of the Communication Sequence. in your next difficult conversation, consciously start with Active Listening and refuse to move to Influence until you have established genuine rapport.

In the world of high-stakes deals, the most effective negotiators are not the ones who argue the best, but the ones who understand human nature the deepest. They know that true, lasting agreements are not forced through logic, but forged through trust.