AI as Public Infrastructure for Better Conflict Management

Artificial intelligence is increasingly discussed as a tool that may support negotiation, mediation, early warning, and dispute resolution. Much of this discussion, however, still treats AI as a collection of separate applications: a system that summarizes documents, a chatbot that helps people prepare for a negotiation, a platform that supports online dispute resolution, or an algorithm that detects signs of conflict escalation. These applications may be useful, but they capture only part of the challenge. If AI is to make a meaningful contribution to conflict management, we should not think about it only as a set of tools. We should think of it as public infrastructure, available to everyone, not only to the privileged.

This is the central argument of our contribution, co-authored with Peter Kesting, to the Expert Perspectives on New Paths to Peace edition of Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. The edition asks how scholars and practitioners might broaden the repertoire of approaches available for preventing, managing, and resolving conflict. Its premise is not that despite a wide range of established methods of diplomacy, mediation, negotiation, or peacebuilding, the number and intensity of conflict has become higher than every before. It invites us to examine what additional capacities may be needed in a world in which conflicts are increasingly complex, information-rich, fast-moving, and difficult to contain.

Our article proposes that AI-based conflict management should be developed as public-interest infrastructure. By this we mean a shared socio-technical system designed to help individuals, organizations, communities, and institutions understand conflicts better, assess risks more carefully, explore options more systematically, and access appropriate forms of support. The key point is that such infrastructure should not be created primarily as a private advantage for those who can afford sophisticated tools. It should be oriented toward broad collective benefit, much like other forms of infrastructure that support social functioning.

From private tools to public goods

The language of public goods is useful because it shifts attention from individual use to collective value. In economic theory, public goods are often described as resources from which people cannot easily be excluded and whose use by one person does not necessarily reduce their availability to others. AI-based conflict management infrastructure would not be a public good in this strict economic sense. It would require investment, governance, maintenance, institutional oversight, and rules of access. Nevertheless, the public-good perspective is helpful because the benefits of better conflict management extend far beyond the immediate users of a particular system.

When conflicts are managed constructively, the positive effects are rarely limited to the parties directly involved. Organizations avoid disruption, communities preserve relationships, public institutions maintain legitimacy, and societies reduce the human and economic costs of escalation. Conversely, poorly managed conflicts often create negative externalities: mistrust, polarization, violence, litigation, displacement, institutional paralysis, and long-term social fragmentation. For this reason, improving access to high-quality conflict management support should be understood not only as a private service, but also as a public interest.

This has important implications for how AI systems in this field should be designed. A commercial tool may be optimized for user convenience, market share, or proprietary advantage. A public-interest infrastructure must be optimized for trust, accessibility, neutrality, accountability, and responsible use. These criteria are particularly important in conflict settings because the information involved is sensitive, the stakes are often high, and the legitimacy of the process matters as much as the quality of the analytical output.

What AI can contribute to conflict management

AI will not replace mediators, negotiators, diplomats, community leaders, judges, or political decision-makers. Nor should it. Conflict management is not simply a problem of information processing. It involves emotions, identity, power, legitimacy, trust, moral judgment, and human responsibility. However, AI can support human actors by helping them deal with complexity more effectively.

One possible contribution concerns early warning and risk analysis. Conflicts often produce signals before they escalate, but these signals may be dispersed across different sources, interpreted inconsistently, or noticed too late. AI systems can help organize large amounts of information, identify patterns, make emerging risks more visible, and help human actors recognize developments that require attention.

A second contribution lies in conflict mapping. Many disputes involve multiple stakeholders, overlapping interests, competing narratives, and hidden assumptions. Parties may focus on stated positions while overlooking underlying needs, constraints, or fears. AI can help structure this complexity by organizing information about actors, issues, interests, relationships, and possible points of misunderstanding. Used carefully, such support can make conflict analysis more transparent and systematic.

A third contribution concerns perspective-taking. In many conflicts, the formal parties at the table do not represent everyone affected by the outcome. Some voices are excluded because of power asymmetries, institutional barriers, geographic distance, fear, or lack of resources. AI cannot solve these political and ethical problems by itself, but it can help make overlooked stakeholders, interests, and consequences more visible. This may improve the quality of preparation, process design, and decision-making.

AI may also support the generation of options. Negotiations often become trapped in narrow comparisons between fixed positions. By drawing on large bodies of knowledge, analogous cases, and structured problem-solving techniques, AI systems can help generate alternative solutions, identify possible trade-offs, and suggest integrative options. The value of this function is not that the system produces the “right” answer, but that it expands the range of possibilities that humans can evaluate.

Finally, AI can support process navigation. Many people facing conflict do not know whether they need mediation, legal advice, facilitation, counseling, an internal complaint process, restorative dialogue, or another form of support. A well-designed public-interest system could help users understand the nature of their conflict, consider the risks of different pathways, and connect them with qualified professionals or institutions. This may be especially valuable for individuals and communities that currently lack access to expert conflict management advice.

Why infrastructure matters

Thinking in terms of infrastructure changes the normative and institutional questions we ask. If AI for conflict management is treated merely as a tool, then the main questions are technical: Does it work? Is it accurate? Is it efficient? Can it scale? These questions matter, but they are not sufficient. Once we think of AI as infrastructure, additional questions become unavoidable: Who governs it? Who has access to it? Who can audit it? Whose interests does it serve? How is sensitive data protected? What forms of misuse are prohibited? How are errors corrected? How is neutrality maintained?

These questions determine whether such systems can be trusted. Trust is indispensable in conflict management because parties are often suspicious of each other and of the institutions around them. A system that is perceived as biased, opaque, politically captured, commercially exploitative, or vulnerable to misuse will not support constructive conflict resolution. It may even intensify mistrust.

Public-interest infrastructure therefore requires clear governance principles. Access should be broad and non-discriminatory wherever the system is offered. Human decision-making authority must remain intact, so that AI informs, structures, and supports, but does not decide. The system must be transparent enough to be audited and challenged. Data protection must be especially robust because conflict-related information may expose individuals and communities to serious risks. Referral mechanisms must be based on clear criteria, regular vetting, and conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Equally important are red lines. AI-based conflict management infrastructure should not be used for surveillance, repression, coercive manipulation, military targeting, or political control. These risks are not hypothetical. Technologies designed to analyze social tensions can also be used to monitor dissent, identify vulnerable groups, manipulate narratives, or strengthen coercive power. For this reason, the institutional design of such infrastructure is the core condition of legitimacy.

Different users, shared benefits

The potential users of AI-based conflict management infrastructure are diverse. Individuals might use it to understand a workplace dispute, family conflict, neighborhood disagreement, or institutional problem before the situation escalates. Organizations might use it to identify recurring sources of tension, prepare for mediation, or design fairer internal processes. Communities might use it to map interests and concerns in local disputes. Educators might use it to strengthen negotiation and conflict literacy. Public institutions might use it to improve access to appropriate dispute resolution pathways.

In each of these cases, the immediate benefit accrues to a specific user or group of users. The broader benefit, however, is social. When individuals can access better conflict guidance earlier, disputes may be resolved before they become destructive. When organizations understand internal tensions more clearly, they may prevent costly breakdowns. When communities are better able to surface excluded voices, decisions may gain legitimacy. When public institutions help people navigate conflict more effectively, trust in those institutions may improve.

This is why the public-good logic is so important. The aim is not simply to give one party a better instrument for winning a dispute. The aim is to strengthen society’s general capacity to manage conflict constructively. In this sense, AI-based conflict management infrastructure should be evaluated not only by its technical performance, but also by its contribution to access, fairness, de-escalation, learning, and institutional trust.

A realistic but demanding agenda

It would be naive to assume that AI can solve the political, social, and moral challenges of conflict. Peace depends on interests, institutions, leadership, legitimacy, empathy, courage, and often difficult compromises. No algorithm can substitute for these conditions. At the same time, it would also be a mistake to ignore the potential of AI to improve the informational and analytical environment in which conflict-related decisions are made.

AI is already used in conflict management and its role is likely to grow. The more important question is whether this development will be shaped mainly by private markets, state interests, and isolated experiments, or whether we will build systems that serve a broader public purpose.

Our argument is that AI-based conflict management should be developed as public-interest infrastructure with public-good characteristics. It should be accessible, trustworthy, neutral, transparent, and governed in ways that prevent misuse. It should support human judgment rather than replace it. It should help people understand conflicts more clearly, recognize the costs of escalation, identify constructive options, and reach appropriate support earlier.

If designed in this way, AI will not create peace on its own, but it may help create better conditions for peace by expanding access to conflict management capacity. In a world where destructive conflicts remain persistent and costly, that is a goal worth taking seriously.

Source: “Expert Perspectives on New Paths to Peace,” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, including our contribution “From Tools to Public-Interest Infrastructure: Rethinking AI for Conflict Management.”

Beyond Rationality: Decision Drivers of Ethically Ambiguous Negotiation Tactics

Negotiation is often described as a rational process. People enter a negotiation with goals, alternatives, interests, and constraints. They evaluate options, compare possible outcomes, and decide how far they are willing to go to reach an agreement.

When ethically questionable behavior occurs in negotiation, the explanation often follows the same logic: a negotiator weighs the potential benefits of a tactic against the possible costs and then decides whether it is worth the risk.

That explanation is intuitive. It is also incomplete.

Our article, “Beyond Rationality: Decision Drivers of Ethically Ambiguous Negotiation Tactics,” now published open access in Group Decision and Negotiation, examines what drives negotiators to use tactics that fall into an ethical gray area. The article was co-authored with Felix Kröcher and Peter Kesting, and it explores a question that has stayed with us for a long time: when negotiators use ethically ambiguous tactics, what is actually behind that behavior?

Ethics in negotiation is rarely simple

Negotiation often involves tension. Parties want to create value, but they also want to claim value. They want to build trust, but they may also feel pressure to protect themselves. They want to be honest, but they may not always feel obliged to disclose everything.

This creates a space in which certain tactics can appear tempting: exaggerating one’s alternatives, withholding relevant information, applying pressure, misrepresenting priorities, or exploiting the other side’s assumptions.

Some of these tactics may be clearly unethical. Others are ethically ambiguous. They may be seen by some negotiators as part of the game, while others experience them as manipulative or dishonest. In many negotiations, ethical decisions do not present themselves as obvious choices between right and wrong. Instead, they emerge in situations marked by uncertainty, pressure, emotion, competition, and social expectations.

The limits of the rational cost-benefit view

A common explanation for ethically questionable negotiation behavior is that negotiators make a deliberate trade-off. They consider the possible advantages of a tactic, such as gaining better terms, increasing leverage, or avoiding a concession. They also consider the possible downsides, such as reputational damage, retaliation, guilt, legal consequences, or the breakdown of trust.

From this perspective, unethical or ethically ambiguous behavior is mainly a matter of calculation.

Our findings suggest that this view is too narrow.

Based on survey data from nearly 500 experienced practitioners, we show that the use of ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics is linked not only to rational cost-benefit considerations, but also to a broader set of decision drivers. These include emotional, reactive, normative, and socially shaped factors.

In other words, ethically questionable behavior in negotiation is not always a cold calculation. Sometimes it is fast, intuitive, situational, and only partly deliberate.

Negotiators do not always act after careful reflection

This matters because much of the advice around ethical negotiation assumes that people make ethical choices through conscious reasoning. We tell negotiators that ethical behavior pays off in the long run. We explain that trust is valuable, that reputations matter, and that manipulative behavior can damage future relationships.

Those arguments are important. But they may not be enough.

In practice, negotiators may act under time pressure. They may respond defensively to a perceived threat. They may mirror the behavior of the other side. They may feel that “everyone does this.” They may be influenced by organizational norms, competitive incentives, or the behavior of senior colleagues. They may experience anger, fear, frustration, or anxiety and then justify their behavior afterward.

This means that ethical behavior in negotiation is not only a matter of knowing what is right. It is also a matter of recognizing what is happening in the moment.

Ethical negotiation requires more than good intentions

For those of us who teach, train, or advise negotiators, this has practical implications.

Encouraging ethical negotiation cannot rely only on explaining why ethics is beneficial in the long run. That message remains valuable, but it may miss the situations in which people act before they fully reflect.

A more effective approach should help negotiators develop awareness of the triggers that can pull them toward ethically ambiguous behavior. These triggers may include:

  • feeling treated unfairly by the other side;
  • pressure to achieve a specific outcome;
  • fear of appearing weak;
  • competitive organizational cultures;
  • ambiguity about what is acceptable;
  • emotional escalation during difficult conversations;
  • social norms that frame questionable tactics as “just business.”

Once negotiators can recognize these dynamics, they are better positioned to pause, reassess, and choose a different response.

Building ethical capacity in the moment

One of the key lessons from our research is that ethical negotiation should be understood as a capability, not simply as a principle.

It is not enough to tell negotiators to “be ethical.” They also need tools that help them behave ethically when the situation becomes difficult.

That may include preparing ethical boundaries before entering a negotiation, discussing acceptable and unacceptable tactics within teams, reflecting on emotional triggers, creating space for deliberate decision-making, and developing strategies for responding when the other side uses questionable tactics.

Ethics also needs to be addressed at the organizational level. If negotiators are rewarded only for short-term outcomes, while the methods used to achieve those outcomes are ignored, ethically ambiguous behavior becomes more likely. Training individuals is important, but so is shaping the norms, incentives, and expectations around negotiation.

Why this research matters

Negotiation is central to business, politics, employment relationships, procurement, conflict resolution, and many other areas of professional life. The quality of negotiation behavior affects not only the outcomes of individual deals, but also trust, relationships, and institutional credibility.

Our study contributes to a better understanding of why negotiators sometimes use ethically ambiguous tactics. It moves beyond the idea that such behavior is always the result of deliberate calculation and shows that ethical decision-making in negotiation is shaped by a wider range of psychological and social forces.

Recognizing this complexity does not excuse unethical behavior. It does help us understand it better. And if we understand it better, we can design better training, better organizational practices, and better negotiation processes.

Many thanks to the reviewers and editors at Group Decision and Negotiation for a constructive and helpful review process. The paper is much stronger because of their input.

Source: Beyond Rationality: Decision Drivers of Ethically Ambiguous Negotiation Tactics | Group Decision and Negotiation | Springer Nature Link

Quantum Negotiation Games: Toward Ethical Equilibria

What if the next major leap in negotiation science didn’t come solely from artificial intelligence but from quantum mechanics?

I’m excited to share a new line of research that reflects how rapidly our understanding of negotiation technologies is evolving, and how unexpected scientific domains may soon shape the future of our field.

From AI to Quantum Thinking in Negotiation

For many years, my work has focused on negotiation and innovation. With the founding of Discurso.AI, we have explored how artificial intelligence can transform negotiation processes, supporting decision-making, enhancing outcomes, and scaling human capabilities. That journey has been both challenging and deeply rewarding.

Recently, however, together with my colleagues Marek Szopa and Piotr Frąckiewicz, I began asking a different question: What happens if we rethink negotiation using the principles of quantum mechanics?

The answer, it turns out, opens up an entirely new frontier, which we started exploring in our paper:

Smoliński, R., Frąckiewicz, P., Grzanka, K., & Szopa, M. (2026). Quantum Negotiation Games: Toward Ethical Equilibria. Entropy, 28(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/e28010051.

The Limits of Classical Negotiation Models

Traditional negotiation theory, largely grounded in classical game theory, often assumes a difficult trade-off between rational self-interest and ethical outcomes such as fairness, cooperation, or honesty. Canonical solutions like Nash equilibria tend to prioritize efficiency, sometimes at the cost of these ethical norms.

As a result, many negotiation support systems struggle with a fundamental limitation: ethical behavior is frequently unstable, fragile, or dependent on external enforcement mechanisms.

Enter Quantum Game Theory

Our new research applies quantum game theory to core negotiation dilemmas, including:

  • Cooperation vs. competition
  • Self-interest vs. equity
  • Honesty vs. deception

By introducing quantum strategies, based on concepts such as superposition and entanglement, we expand the strategic landscape beyond what classical mixed strategies allow.

This expanded space produces striking results.

What Changes in a Quantum Negotiation Framework?

Across quantum versions of classic games, such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, Ultimatum Game, Battle of the Sexes, and Buyer–Seller Game, we observe several consistent patterns:

  • Entanglement enables implicit coordination, even without communication.
  • Superposition broadens strategic choice, allowing negotiators to move beyond rigid either–or decisions.
  • Ethical outcomes become stable equilibria, not rare exceptions. Cooperation, fairness, and truth-telling can persist without external enforcement.

In short, quantum strategies can reconcile rational self-interest with ethical principles—not by constraining behavior, but by fundamentally enlarging what is strategically possible.

Implications for the Future of Negotiation Systems

These findings suggest a path toward next-generation negotiation support systems, systems that go beyond classical AI by designing strategic environments where ethical behavior naturally emerges as an equilibrium.

While fully mature quantum hardware is still on the horizon, quantum-inspired algorithms may arrive much sooner. These approaches could enhance:

  • Multi-agent negotiation platforms
  • Automated and smart contracts
  • Decentralized governance mechanisms
  • Decision systems where legitimacy, trust, and equity are essential

Looking Ahead

The full paper is available in open access, and we warmly invite feedback, critique, and discussion. This work is only a first step, but one that suggests negotiation science may be on the brink of a profound conceptual shift.

Happy New Year, Negotiators!

Source: Quantum Negotiation Games: Toward Ethical Equilibria | MDPI

AI in Negotiation: Theory, Evidence, and Practice

We kindly invite scholars to submit their original work to the Special Issue on AI in Negotiation: Theory, Evidence, and Practice hosted by the Negotiation and Conflict Management Research.

Call for Papers

Special Issue of the Negotiation and Conflict Management Research

AI in NEGOTIATION: Theory, Evidence, and Practice

Artificial intelligence now shapes how negotiations are prepared, conducted, and evaluated. Are negotiation theory, practice, and pedagogy ready? This special issue seeks rigorous work on how negotiation theory and practice should evolve to integrate AI responsibly. We welcome research on mechanisms (information asymmetry, trust, value creation/claiming), human-AI teaming and autonomous agents, and ethics and governance (transparency, accountability, fairness). Submissions (theoretical, empirical, methodological, or pedagogical) should propose practical implications, boundary conditions, and, where feasible, follow open and reproducible practices.

Overview

AI is changing who or what participates in negotiation, how proposals are generated and evaluated, and how agreements are monitored. These shifts raise unresolved questions about validity (what counts as a “good” outcome), agency and responsibility in human-AI constellations, and appropriate disclosure and oversight. This special issue of Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (NCMR) seeks work that clarifies these questions and develops standards, methods, and policies that align AI-enabled negotiation with professional and societal norms-building cumulative knowledge that informs practice and pedagogy.

Scope and Objectives

We welcome submissions that delineate the when, where, and how of AI in negotiation across various settings. We invite work that sharpens concepts, strengthens inference, and improves evaluation, across individual, team, organizational, platform, and international levels. Submissions may be conceptual, empirical, methodological, or pedagogical, provided they:

  • Specify the negotiation setting and AI role (decision support, co-pilot, autonomous agent) and state clear boundary conditions.
  • Define constructs and outcomes (e.g., substance, process, relationship) and defend measurement choices.
  • Use transparent, reproducible methods (e.g., documented data, code, logging/protocols) appropriate to the design.
  • Address ethics and governance (e.g., disclosure, accountability, safety) as relevant to the research question.
  • Articulate actionable implications for theory, practice, and pedagogy.

Interdisciplinary perspectives are encouraged (e.g., computer science, law, economics, organizational behavior, psychology, political science, ethics).

Potential Topics

The following examples illustrate the breadth of questions suitable for this special issue. They are illustrative, not exhaustive: submissions may address adjacent topics, introduce new constructs or benchmarks, or challenge prevailing assumptions, provided they advance cumulative knowledge about AI in negotiation.

  • Foundations and mechanisms – Identify how AI reshapes information asymmetry, power, trust, and value creation/claiming and specify when these effects help or harm outcomes.
  • Human-AI negotiations – Compare human-only, human-AI, and agent–agent negotiations; map complementarities, substitution effects, role allocation, and accountability.
  • Agents, simulation, and design – Use multi-agent environments to test mechanisms and protocols; establish calibration methods linking simulated results to human behavior.
  • Data, measures, and benchmarks – Create/shared datasets, logging schemas, and benchmark tasks (e.g., offer design, scoring, deception detection) with validity and reliability evidence.
  • Methods and evaluation – Run field/experimental studies that assess substance, process, relationship, and legitimacy; include replications, negative results, and causal designs.
  • Ethics, safety, and governance – Propose disclosure norms, auditability, and safeguards against manipulation, bias, and privacy risks; align organizational and sectoral standards.
  • Pedagogy and assessment – Develop AI-enabled training and scalable feedback/assessment tools; evaluate effects on learning, equity, and instructor practice.

Submissions may also propose standards (datasets, protocols, checklists), tooling for reproducible research, or policy/practice frameworks that enable cumulative progress in the field.

Editors

For further inquiries, please contact any member of the editorial team.

Submission Guidelines

We anticipate one or more paper-development workshops aligned with this Special Issue. One is already scheduled at the INTRA Conference at IÉSEG School of Management in April 2026, and an AI Negotiation stream will be integrated into the IACM Annual Conference in Vienna. Additional opportunities will be announced. Participation in any PDW or stream is neither a requirement for submission nor a guarantee of special consideration. Our aim is to convene like-minded scholars for collegial reflection and constructive feedback that helps shape stronger papers.

Authors should submit their manuscripts through the NCMR online submission system. Please ensure that your submission adheres to the Journal’s formatting and style guidelines.

We eagerly anticipate your submissions and the opportunity to advance the dialogue on AI in negotiation.

Timeline

  • Call for Papers issued – November 2025
  • Submission of abstracts for the paper development workshop at INTRA Conference at IESEG School of Management – February 2026
  • Paper development workshop at INTRA Conference – April 9, 2026
  • AI negotiation stream at IACM in Vienna – July 5-8, 2026
  • Paper submission deadline – September 30, 2026
  • Peer review process – October-December 2026
  • Decision notification – December 2026
  • R&R and publication processes – 2027

What Makes a Great Negotiator, According to Research

For nearly 20 years, Peter Kesting and I have observed thousands of negotiations conducted by some of the brightest negotiators on the planet. We’re thrilled that our findings are now out in Harvard Business Review in an article titled “What Makes a Great Negotiator, According to Research.” This post shares the core ideas behind the piece plus a few personal reflections on why they matter for leaders, teams, and organizations.

Our research draws on almost 1,000 documented negotiations from The Negotiation Challenge (TNC), a global competition we’ve run for years with meticulously designed scenarios, structured scoring, and expert judging. Each negotiation produces both substantive outcomes (what was achieved) and relational outcomes (trust, credibility, working climate). This dual lens lets us test a long-standing assumption in our field.

The traditional view says negotiators must choose: push hard for results or play it soft to preserve the relationship. Our data doesn’t support that. The best negotiators consistently achieve both strong outcomes and trust. In other words: great negotiation isn’t about temperament; it’s about competence.

We saw top performers who were quiet and reflective; others were energetic and highly expressive. Style varied widely. What didn’t vary among the best was skill—the ability to read the room, manage emotion, frame issues clearly, and sequence moves that create value while safeguarding credibility.

Great negotiators balance assertiveness with empathy, knowing when to compete, when to cooperate, and how to blend both without losing trust. They stay flexible, adapting strategy as new information emerges rather than clinging to a script. They make their thinking visible by structuring the conversation, naming issues, surfacing interests, and proposing options so progress is trackable. Throughout, they protect the relationship while creating value, separating people from problems without separating people from respect.

Across cases, four higher-order competencies predicted excellence:

  • Language and Emotionality – Clear framing, precise language, and emotional self-regulation. These negotiators can put complex issues into simple words and keep the temperature of the conversation productive.
  • Negotiation Intelligence – Strategic sense-making: diagnosing the situation, mapping interests, and choosing tactics that fit the context. It’s the ability to combine analysis with timing.
  • Relationship Building – Trust is not an afterthought. Top performers invest in credibility, follow-through, and psychological safety—because those are the preconditions for creating value.
  • Moral Wisdom – Empathy-guided ethical clarity and fairness instincts; these negotiators protect long-term reputation and avoid short-term wins that poison future cooperation.

Even among exceptionally capable participants, only about 5% consistently achieved both strong substantive and relational outcomes. “Integrated achievers” are rare—and that rarity is instructive. Excellence is not a personality trait; it’s the result of deliberate practice, feedback, and measurement.

Measurement matters! If we don’t assess how we negotiate, as individuals, teams, and organizations, we limit learning and progress. Use clear rubrics to define what “good” looks like, combine metrics that capture both results and relationships, and track performance repeatedly over time rather than relying on one-off scores.

For leaders and their organizations, the evidence suggests treating negotiation as a core leadership discipline, one that can be measured, taught, and improved. It may be valuable to invest in capability building around the four meta-competencies and to emphasize structured, feedback-driven practice. Incentives could be aligned to recognize outcomes that create value and sustain relationships, and it can be helpful to cultivate a “data habit” by regularly capturing negotiation performance across projects, suppliers, and internal talks to inform coaching and continuous improvement.

Writing the HBR piece reminded me how persistent the false binary remains: “win the deal” versus “protect the relationship.” Our evidence shows you can do both and the best do. It also reinforced how rare integrated excellence is. That rarity, however, is an invitation: with the right practice and measurement, more negotiators can join that 5%. Finally, the work reaffirmed a simple truth: progress requires feedback. Without structured assessment, we’re left with anecdotes and overconfidence.

This project would not exist without the vibrant community around The Negotiation Challenge: the participants who put their skills to the test, the judges who generously share their expertise, and the scholars and practitioners who have debated, challenged, and refined these ideas with us over the years.

Thank you!

Source: What Makes a Great Negotiator, According to Research

Negotiators Who Changed the World: Timeless Lessons on Leadership and Negotiation

After a year and a half of intensive research and project work, I am happy to share that our new book: “Negotiators Who Changed the World: Timeless Lessons on Leadership and Negotiation” has just been published by Springer Nature.


This project was born from a simple but powerful observation that leadership and negotiation are inseparably connected. The most effective leaders are also exceptional negotiators. They know how to balance interests, build trust, and mobilize people toward shared goals. They don’t avoid conflict; they transform it into progress.

Yet, too often, negotiation is still seen as a peripheral skill, something to be used occasionally, rather than a core capability of impactful leadership. Our book challenges that view. It shows that negotiation is about shaping history, driving change, resolving conflicts, and inspiring others to act together in times of uncertainty.

From Moral Philosophy to Modern Diplomacy

The book is organized into five parts, each reflecting a distinct facet of leadership through negotiation.

Part I – Philosophers and Strategists takes us back to the origins of moral and strategic thought. Figures like Confucius, Jesus Christ, Machiavelli, and Talleyrand reveal how negotiation draws both on ethics and power. These chapters explore the enduring tension between moral persuasion and pragmatic maneuvering — a tension that defines negotiation to this day.

Part II – State Builders and Unity Architects turns to leaders who forged nations and unified divided peoples. From Johann Rudolf Wettstein at the Peace of Westphalia and Jacques Delors shaping Europe, to Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Helmut Kohl, and Angela Merkel, these chapters illustrate how negotiation can bind fragmented communities into cohesive, visionary projects.

Part III – Peacemakers and Mediators highlights those who confronted entrenched conflict and built peace from division. Through the stories of Nelson Mandela, Anwar Sadat, Tommy Koh, Kofi Annan, Ibrahim Rugova, Emma Leslie, and Juan Manuel Santos, readers witness negotiation as a bridge between moral leadership and practical resolution — an instrument of both empathy and courage.

Part IV – Changemakers and Reformers brings negotiation closer to the individual level — where social reform and moral conviction meet. From Sakamoto Ryoma shaping modern Japan to Lech Wałęsa leading Poland’s transformation, Shirin Ebadi’s fight for justice, and Jacinda Ardern’s empathetic leadership, this section shows how dialogue and determination can spark systemic change.

Part V – Diplomats and Dealmakers explores the high-stakes world of global politics and business. Madeleine Albright, Catherine Ashton, Jens Stoltenberg, and Ratan Tata exemplify how negotiation — whether in diplomacy or corporate leadership — can shape alliances, markets, and the course of nations.

Finally, Daniel Druckman’s concluding reflections remind us that the question “Are leaders important?” is not merely historical but timeless: effective negotiation remains a cornerstone of leadership and progress in every era.

What You’ll Find Inside

Throughout its 28 chapters, Negotiators Who Changed the World takes readers on a journey across philosophy, politics, peacebuilding, reform, and diplomacy, tracing how negotiation has served as both an art and a science of human progress. From the moral teachings of Confucius to the strategic maneuvering of Talleyrand, from Mandela’s reconciliation efforts to Merkel’s quiet strength, each story reveals how individuals have shaped defining moments in world history through their ability to listen, persuade, and build bridges where others saw divides.

Beyond recounting history, the book distills the strategies and mindsets that made these transformations possible. It examines how empathy and ethical conviction coexist with power and pragmatism, how great leaders align their values with their circumstances, and how negotiation can become a tool for progress even in the most polarized environments.

The lessons are not reserved for diplomats or heads of state. They speak to everyone navigating today’s complex realities, from business and governance to education and community life. Each chapter concludes with reflections that translate historical insight into practical guidance for anyone who seeks to lead more effectively, communicate more thoughtfully, and negotiate more wisely.

If you’re passionate about leadership, negotiation, diplomacy, or history, I hope you’ll find this book both thought-provoking and deeply relevant to your own work.

Explore, preview, and order your copy here: Springer Nature – Negotiators Who Changed the World

Use code SPRAUT for 20% off your copy (available only on Springer’s website).

Table of Contents

The structure of Negotiators Who Changed the World reflects the evolution of leadership and negotiation across history. Each part captures a different dimension, from the philosophical and moral foundations of influence, to the pragmatic challenges of building nations, mediating peace, and navigating global diplomacy. Together, they show that while the contexts may change, the essence of negotiation: empathy, clarity, and purpose, remains constant.

Part I – Philosophers and Strategists

  1. Confucius: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Negotiators — Shougang Zhang
  2. Jesus Christ: The Ultimate Servant Leader — Jan Smolinski and Remigiusz Smolinski
  3. Machiavelli as Negotiator and Leaders’ Adviser — Alain Lempereur
  4. Talleyrand, Firm But Flexible — Paul Willem Meerts and I. William Zartman
  5. Avoiding a Nuclear Catastrophe: John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis — Angelo Monoriti and Antonio Attolico
  6. Henry Kissinger: Metternich, Messenger, Mediator, or Meddler? — Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Part II – State Builders and Unity Architects

  1. Johann Rudolf Wettstein and the Art of Diplomacy: Negotiating Swiss Independence at the Peace of Westphalia — Raymond Saner
  2. Jacques Delors: Orchestrating Europe’s Transformation — Spyros Blavoukos, Dimitris Bourantonis, and Savvas Papadopoulos
  3. Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan: The Father of the United Arab Emirates — Horacio Falcão and Anja Merz
  4. Mikhail Gorbachev: Lion in the West, Pariah in the East — Mark Young and Julian Wittkamp
  5. The Chancellor of Dual Unity: Helmut Kohl and the Path to German Reunification in a United Europe — Andreas Winheller and Denis Kittl
  6. Angela Merkel: The Quiet Powerhouse of Global Negotiation — Peter Kesting and Remigiusz Smolinski

Part III – Peacemakers and Mediators

  1. Bridging Divides: Nelson Mandela’s Legacy of Leadership and Negotiation — Barney Jordaan and Mark Anstey
  2. The Unpredictable Negotiator: A Look into Sadat’s Leadership — Mohamed Abdelaziz Shehab Eldin
  3. Tommy Koh: Negotiating with Mind and Heart — Joel Lee and Matilda Mag
  4. Leading Through Negotiation: The Humble Power of Kofi Annan — Antonio Attolico and Remigiusz Smolinski
  5. The Invictus Negotiator for Freedom, Democracy, and Peace: Ibrahim Rugova of Kosovo — Valon Murtezaj
  6. Emma Leslie: Confronting the Hard Realities of Peacemaking Head-On — Joshua N. Weiss
  7. Santos’s Legacy as a Peace Negotiator Leader — Margarita Canal Acero, David Aponte Castro, and Mario Puerta

Part IV – Changemakers and Reformers

  1. Master Alliance Builder: How Sakamoto Ryoma’s Negotiation Moves Shaped Modern Japan — William W. Baber
  2. Negotiating the Dawn of Democracy: Lech Wałęsa and Poland’s Triumph Over Communism — Remigiusz Smolinski
  3. Negotiating Against Oppression: Shirin Ebadi’s Fight for Justice — Joana Matos
  4. Empathy and Strength: Jacinda Ardern’s Leadership and Negotiation Prowess — Beth Fisher-Yoshida

Part V – Diplomats and Dealmakers

  1. Madeleine Albright: The Original Madam Secretary — Andrea Kupfer Schneider
  2. Catherine Ashton, and Then What? — Hans van den Berg
  3. Building Bridges, Shaping Futures: Jens Stoltenberg’s Negotiation Mastery — Roar Thun Wægger
  4. Ratan Tata: A Visionary Leader and a Powerful Negotiator — Anuj Jagannathan

Part VI – Concluding Remarks

  1. Are Leaders Important? — Daniel Druckman

Gratitude

I am deeply grateful to all the authors and contributors for their intellectual generosity and collaboration, and to Dr. Prashanth Mahagaonkar and the Springer Nature team for their exceptional support throughout this journey.

This book is a testament to what negotiation can achieve when practiced with purpose: connecting minds across borders, time, and disciplines.

I look forward to hearing your reflections and perhaps, discovering together who you believe are the negotiators still changing our world today.

Das erste Angebot in Vertragsverhandlungen: Ankerwirkung und strategische Implikationen

We are delighted to share that our new article „Das erste Angebot in Vertragsverhandlungen: Ankerwirkung und strategische Implikationen“ has just been published in ZKM – Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement (Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt).

Together with my co-authors Peter Kesting (Aarhus University) and Wolfram Lipp (Hochschule Landshut), we explore one of the most critical, yet often underestimated, moments in negotiations: the first offer.

Research consistently shows that first offers exert a powerful anchoring effect, shaping not only the direction of the discussion but also the final outcome. Our article examines:

  • Why the first offer matters so much in both economic and legal contexts
  • When it is wise to make the first move – and when strategic restraint pays off
  • How counteroffers can function as a “second anchor” with their own powerful effects
  • Why asking for the “best price” can be a surprisingly effective negotiation tactic
  • How the tension between cooperation and anchoring plays out in real-world negotiations

The article offers both psychological insights and practical guidance for anyone involved in complex contract negotiations, whether in business, law, or public settings.

Full article available in ZKM via Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt.

The Negotiation Challenge for Students 2025

The Negotiation Challenge (TNC) 2025 marked a historic milestone by hosting its finals in Cape Town, South Africa, the first time the event was held on the African continent. From April 25 to 26, the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business welcomed top student negotiators from around the globe for an intense series of face-to-face negotiation rounds. This followed three online qualification rounds held earlier in the year, from February 13 to March 1.

A Global Stage for Negotiation Excellence

TNC, often regarded as the unofficial World Championship in Negotiation, brought together elite teams from prestigious institutions such as Yale, Columbia, the University of Cape Town, and many other schools from nearly all continents. The competition tested participants’ abilities to apply negotiation strategies across diverse scenarios, emphasizing both analytical and interpersonal skills.

Celebrating the Champions

After rigorous rounds, the Reykjavík University Executive MBA team emerged victorious, earning the title of 2025 Negotiation World Champions. The team, comprising Rósa Anna Björgvinsdóttir, Tim Marting, and Tobiasz Skwarczyński, showcased exceptional negotiation skills. They were closely followed by the American University Washington College of Law, which secured the silver medal, and HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, which took home the bronze.

A Collaborative Effort

The success of TNC 2025 was made possible through the collaboration of various sponsors and partners. Notable contributors included Columbia University’s Negotiation and Conflict Resolution program, Falk Academy, Derek Pead & Associates, Corporate Insights, and Rational Games Inc. Special appreciation was extended to the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business, particularly Catherine Duggan and Morea Josias, for their hospitality and support. The event was wonderfully orchestrated by Siham Boda and Derek Pead, our Negotiation World Champions 2020.

The Negotiation Challenge 2025 would not have been possible without our amazing judges! We explicitly thank: Christian Glade, Siham Boda, Derek Pead, Anja Merz, Yaniv Ofek, Frieder Lempp, Reymond Ndlovu, Nicole Marshal, Alexander von Reden, Shougang Zhang, Rodrigo Gouveia, Sebastian Schäfer, Matthias van Hullebusch, Michal Putyra, and Horacio Facao (not in the picture).

Looking Ahead

Building on the momentum of this year’s event, TNC announced that the 2026 finals will be held at IÉSEG School of Management in Paris from April 9 to 11. Aspiring negotiators worldwide are encouraged to prepare for another opportunity to demonstrate their skills on an international stage.

For more information on The Negotiation Challenge and upcoming events, visit students.thenegotiationchallenge.org.

N-Conferance X Forbes: ,,The Art and Science of Negotiation” with Remi Smolinski 

A short summary of our research on negotiation performance recorded at the N-Conference 2024 in Zurich.

Part 1

Part 2

More about negotiation performance can be found in our paper that introduces the Negotiation Competency Model: Smolinski, R. and Xiong, Y.; In Search of Master Negotiators: A Negotiation Competency Model. Negotiation Journal 2020; 36 (3): 365–388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12332.

Start-up funding negotiations with venture capitalists: understanding the behaviors and strategies of experienced entrepreneurs

Delighted to share that our paper: Start-up funding negotiations with venture capitalists: understanding the behaviors and strategies of experienced entrepreneurs has been published in International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research!

This study investigates how seasoned entrepreneurs negotiate to obtain VC funding, identifying three key dimensions of their behavior: negotiation competencies, power tactics, and negotiation style. The findings offer practical insights for entrepreneurs aiming to improve their negotiation skills and suggest that training programs can be developed to foster these behaviors, potentially leading to better funding outcomes. Based on our research, we’ve designed and refined our negotiation training for aspring entrepreneuers and have successfully tested it with first clients.

Many thanks to my co-authors: Christian Glade, Peter Kesting, and Dominik Kanbach for a great collaboration and to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and feedback.

We look forward to receiving your feedback and read your thoughts! Please reach out to us if you’re interested in collaborating on this or related topics.

Source: Start-up funding negotiations with venture capitalists: understanding the behaviors and strategies of experienced entrepreneurs