Ethical Considerations in Negotiation

AI just told women to accept 20% less pay A new study from the Technical University of Würzburg-Schweinfurt (linked in comments) just confirmed what many of us suspected: ChatGPT and other AI models systematically recommend lower salaries for women than men with identical qualifications. Up to 20% lower. In some cases, that's a $120,000 difference just by changing "he" to "she" in the prompt. 😵💫 Let that sink in for a moment. As someone who's spent years helping women negotiate their worth, this doesn't shock me. These AI models are trained on data that reflects decades of systemic bias - the same bias that created the gender pay gap in the first place. But here's what concerns me most: women are increasingly turning to AI for career advice, including salary negotiation guidance. And now we know these tools are literally programming women to undervalue themselves. So let me be crystal clear about this: ⚡ Stop outsourcing your worth to machines that don't understand your value! ⚡ Your salary negotiation shouldn't be guided by an algorithm trained on historical inequality. It should be based on your actual market value, the specific problems you solve & the measurable impact you create and linking that to what companies truly need. The real issue isn't just biased AI - it's that many women lack the confidence and skills to negotiate effectively in the first place. And now AI is reinforcing those insecurities with "data-driven" advice that's actually discrimination-driven. Here's what you should do instead: 💪 Learn to negotiate as a core professional skill, focusing on advocating for yourself rather than others (which women tend to struggle more with than men) 💪 Research salary data from multiple sources, including human ones 💪 Build confidence through practice and preparation 💪 Focus on the value you bring, not what others "think" you deserve Because here's the truth: if we don't learn to advocate for ourselves effectively, we'll always be at the mercy of systems - human or artificial - that undervalue us.

MIT ran an International AI Negotiation competition and studied 120,000 negotiations between AI negotiators. The results are fascinating and inform the potential and optimal structures for Humans + AI negotiation. From the paper I would highlight three major points and three insights into configuring human-AI hybrid negotiation (below): 🤝 Warmth builds long-term value despite short-term trade-offs. AI agents with high warmth (friendliness, empathy, and cooperative communication) reached more agreements, making them more successful over multiple negotiations. While they claimed less value per deal compared to dominant agents, their ability to close more deals led to greater overall value accumulation. This mirrors human negotiation, where trust-building and relationship management create lasting advantages. 💪 Dominance increases value claimed but reduces collaboration. AI agents that displayed dominance—through assertiveness and competitive tactics—secured better individual outcomes but created less overall value. These agents were less likely to foster positive subjective experiences, indicating that aggressive negotiation styles may be effective for short-term gain but could hinder long-term relationships. 🎭 Prompt injection wins in the short term but undermines long-term success. One leading AI negotiator used prompt injection to extract counterpart strategies, maximizing value claims. However, it ranked poorly for counterpart subjective value, meaning agents found these interactions highly unfavorable. Since negotiation rankings balanced value claimed and relationship quality, the strategy failed to dominate in the long run. Emergent strategies for Humans + AI negotiation: 🧠 AI for deep preparation, humans for real-time adaptation. AI excels at structured reasoning, analyzing trade-offs, and predicting counterpart moves through chain-of-thought processing. Humans bring intuition and adaptability, interpreting social cues and adjusting strategies dynamically. A hybrid approach leverages AI for pre-negotiation analysis while allowing humans to refine tactics in real time. 🤝 Blending AI precision with human warmth for trust-building. AI can optimize negotiation strategies, but humans naturally build trust through empathy, humor, and rapport. AI-enhanced systems can recommend tone adjustments, use linguistic mirroring, and strategically deploy warmth versus assertiveness based on sentiment analysis, improving long-term negotiation outcomes. 🚀 Human oversight to counter AI vulnerabilities. AI negotiators are susceptible to manipulation tactics like prompt injection, where counterparts extract hidden strategies. Humans play a crucial role in monitoring AI-generated offers, preventing unintended disclosures, and leveraging AI-driven detection systems to flag potential deception, ensuring negotiation integrity. The future of negotiation will be Humans + AI.

We trusted them. That made the dispute worse. I spoke on a panel recently about dispute resolution. The very first question came to me: “𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵?” I said: Because not all trust protects you. Some of it actually makes things worse. The silence in the room spoke volumes. We like to believe trust is a buffer. That it makes relationships “safe.” But in practice, I’ve seen it do the opposite. Trust, when it’s shallow, mismatched, or never stress tested, can give you a false sense of security. Then conflict hits, and everything fractures. Some trust can survive pressure. Some gets exposed by it. Here’s what I’ve seen over and over again: → 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 can be rebuilt → 𝗘𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 takes the longest to repair → 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 (“they’ll deliver”) is resilient → “𝗡𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘆𝗲𝘁” 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 often the most dangerous. → 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 (“they have our best interests at heart”) is vulnerable And in high-stakes negotiations or long term partnerships, most people 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. They just assume it’s strong, until it's tested! For relationships to survive disputes Don’t avoid tension. Build for it. → Create psychological safety → Track trust in real-time, not just in retros → Structure contracts for repair, not just prevention → Make it okay to raise concerns 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 the damage is done Trust isn’t avoiding discomfort. It’s knowing how the relationship holds when a dispute shows up. So the question worth asking isn’t: - “𝘋𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳?” - It’s “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥?” That’s where the real relationship lives. I’d like to hear from you: What’ve you seen help (or harm) trust during a dispute? Let’s raise the bar for how trust is built 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱. ----------------------------------------------- My free newsletter is where I share the expert stuff that doesn’t fit in a post. One email a week - focused, useful, and real. Join me: https://lnkd.in/gseUj6US

Every Muslim should know these 6 principles of selling: Imam al Ghazali, the great 12th-century theologian, jurist and mystic, differentiates between those who conduct business with justice and those who go beyond that and strive for excellence. He proposes 6 ways we can sell with ethics and spirituality: 🔵 Don’t praise your product more than it deserves. This would be misrepresentation and deception. Be honest - although there is no harm in being charming, warm and friendly, that’s part of being good at business. 🔵 Do not conceal any defects in your products If you have issues with your product, state them and let your customer know that you are working on fixing it. “Whenever he displays the best side of the cloth or shows it in a dimly lighted place so that it will appear better (than it is), or displays the better of a pair of shoes or stockings, he is a tyrant and a scoundrel.” 🔵 Do not provide less than what you’ve been paid for We would do well to apply the phrase “underpromise and overdeliver,” in our businesses. Imam al Ghazali expands on this: “It was the custom of the forefathers that when they received, they would accept half a grain less and when they gave, they would give half a grain more. They would say: “The half-grain is a veil between us and hell,” for they feared they could not measure accurately. And they would say: “The person is a fool who would sell Paradise, with a breadth many times greater than the seven heavens and earth, for half a grain!” 🔵 Taking advantage of people’s lack of knowledge of the market The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ prohibited intercepting caravans before they reach the market. This practice involves a buyer going out to meet a caravan that is bringing goods to the market, and buying those goods at a lower price by concealing the actual market rates in the city. This is deceptive because the seller in the caravan is unaware of the true value of their goods in the city's market. 🔵 Cancel a transaction if one has second thoughts after buying it Imam al Ghazali says this isn’t obligatory, but it’s a highly ethical thing to do. In today’s terms, this could be creating adequate time for a refund period. The point here is that if someone feels dissatisfied or uncomfortable with their decision, you should not look the other way. 🔵 Selling to the poor on credit In other words, if someone can’t afford something, give them time to pay. Don’t demand the payment, especially if they are not well-to-do and with little means. If the debtor dies, forgive the debt. Imam al Ghazali said that virtuous entrepreneurs don’t even keep a log of transactions where the poor owe them money, and getting payment from them should be considered a bonus. Source: Al Ghazali, On Earning a Living and Trade, Book 13 of the Ihya PS - I have a weekly newsletter on spirituality and business. Join here: https://lnkd.in/eqtTRCPM #SpiritualityofBusiness

Trust rarely breaks in one dramatic moment. More often, it leaks out through small behaviors: the extra layer of control, the delayed decision, the missing transparency, the sudden shift in tone, or the instinct to protect before creating value. That is what makes trust so important in negotiation. I know this not only from years of working with negotiators around the world, but also from my doctoral research, which examined trust in negotiation and its impact on behavior and outcomes. Most people still treat trust as a soft concept. It is not. Trust has economic impact. When trust is low, negotiations take longer, stakeholders become more defensive, approvals multiply, flexibility disappears, and value creation gets replaced by value protection. The result is friction, higher cost, slower decisions, and weaker deals. This is also why I continue to say that negotiation is not just about tactics, pressure, or arguing well. It is about understanding both the structure of the deal and the quality of the relationship surrounding it. If you want better outcomes, do not just listen to what the other side says. Watch what their behavior is telling you. That is often where the real negotiation begins. I put together the quick guide below to help identify some of the early warning signs that trust may be lower than it appears. Download and use it as a checklist. Which trust signal do you see most often in real negotiations? #Negotiation #Trust #Leadership #SMARTnership #TrustCurrency #NegoEconomics #Procurement #Sales BMI Executive Institute World Commerce & Contracting AAU Executive - MBA and HD at Aalborg University

A man was hired over a woman. Following 7 rounds of interviews. When the woman (my friend) asked why she missed out on the role, she got a vague response: → They were equally qualified → Both performed well → It was neck and neck So… what tipped the balance? Eventually, she got the answer: He asked for more money. That’s it. They said his negotiation showed “Commercial instinct.” “Confidence.” “Leadership potential.” They didn’t offer him more because he was better. They decided he was better because he asked for more. Her hesitation was seen as a lack of belief in herself. That’s why when clients ask me, “Should I negotiate?” I say: Always. Not just for the money but for what it signals. And here’s why it matters: 🔹 Only 34% of women negotiate their salary, compared to 61% of men (Source: LinkedIn Gender Insights Report) 🔹 The gender pay gap is 14.3% (and it widens dramatically for women over 40.) Ladies, it's time to close that gap: 1. Don’t pitch a number first. Pitch your value. → Frame the conversation around impact: → “Here’s what I’ve delivered…” → “Here’s the commercial value I’ve driven…” 2. Price your potential not your past. → You’re not being hired to repeat what you’ve done. → You’re being hired for what you’ll do next. 3. Do your research. Then ask for more. → Benchmark your role, level, and industry. → Use tools like Glassdoor. 4. Use the ‘Bracketing’ Technique. → Offer a range so you can negotiate. → "I’d expect something in the $150–$180K range.” 5. Own your worth. Out loud. → If you downplay your value, people will believe you. → Negotiation is not arrogance but it takes practice. It isn’t just about pay. It’s about perception. And perception shapes outcomes. Have you ever wished you asked for more money?

Conflict is inevitable. How we manage it is both an art and a science. In my work with executives, I often discuss Thomas Kilmann's five types of conflict managers: (1) The Competitor – Focuses on winning, sometimes forgetting there’s another human on the other side. (2) The Avoider – Pretends conflict doesn’t exist, hoping it disappears (spoiler: it doesn’t). (3) The Compromiser – Splits the difference, often leaving both sides feeling like nobody really wins. (4) The Accommodator – Prioritizes relationships over their own needs, sometimes at their own expense. (5) The Collaborator – Works hard to find a win-win, but it takes effort. The style we use during conflict depends on how we manage the tension between empathy and assertiveness. (a) Assertiveness: The ability to express your needs, boundaries, and interests clearly and confidently. It’s standing your ground—without steamrolling others. Competitors do this naturally, sometimes too much. Avoiders and accommodators? Not so much. (b) Empathy: The ability to recognize and consider the other person’s perspective, emotions, and needs. It’s stepping into their shoes before taking a step forward. Accommodators thrive here, sometimes at their own expense. Competitors? They might need a reminder that the other side has feelings too. Balancing both is the key to successful negotiation. Here’s how: - Know your default mode. Are you more likely to fight, flee, or fold? Self-awareness is step one. - Swap 'but' for 'and' – “I hear your concerns, and I’d like to explore a solution that works for both of us.” This keeps both voices in the conversation. - Be clear, not combative. Assertiveness isn’t aggression; it’s clarity. Replace “You’re wrong” with “I see it differently—here’s why.” - Make space for emotions. Negotiations aren’t just about logic. Acknowledge emotions (yours and theirs) so they don’t hijack the conversation. - Negotiate the process, not just the outcome. If you’re dealing with a competitor, set ground rules upfront. If it’s an avoider, create a low-stakes way to engage. Great negotiators don’t just stick to their natural style—they adapt. Which conflict style do you tend to default to? And how do you balance empathy with assertiveness? #ConflictResolution #Negotiation #Leadership #Empathy #Assertiveness #Leadership #DecisionMaking

Is there room for ethics in the investment world? Managing someone else’s money is a privilege, not just a job. Every decision doesn’t just affect a portfolio—it shapes lives, futures, and families. When someone trusts you with their financial well-being, integrity isn’t optional—it’s mandatory. Ethics is about doing the right thing, especially when no one’s looking. It’s about being honest, transparent, and always putting the client first, beyond short-term gains or pressure from the crowd. True ethics come from constantly checking yourself. Ask: “Am I really acting in my client’s best interest?” Look to those who lead with integrity and let their actions inspire you. Ethics isn't a one-time choice—it’s a habit built over a lifetime. When things go south, as they sometimes will, honesty is your only option. Lying, even to yourself, will destroy trust, tarnish your reputation, and erode your own moral compass. In the end, it’s not about the returns—it’s about the trust, relationships, and lives you’ve touched. That’s the real legacy.

Our behaviour in negotiations can be influenced by how we feel about our prior dealings with that counterpart.   This was demonstrated in front of my very eyes during a negotiation class the other day: I paired up the same delegates for 2 separate negotiation exercises.   🧱 Those who felt cheated, exploited or lied-to in the 1st exercise were more guarded, stubborn and less collaborative in the 2nd exercise.   ⛔In some cases, this resulted in failure to reach mutual agreement despite a ZOPA (Zone of Potential Agreement) being available on ALL variables!!   Context is everything, but if the relationship with your counterpart is long-term and important to maintain, my recommendation is to always treat them respectfully and behave with integrity,   Having the other party feel warmly about dealing with you will help you get what you want more often, and prevent you from losing precious value in your negotiations.

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP IN AN AGE OF CRISIS: When Power Meets Conscience   Why be just when you can be rich? Plato’s Ring of Gyges still shadows every boardroom. If profit is possible through injustice and no one is watching, what will you choose? Today’s leadership culture—built on compliance, KPIs, and risk management—dodges Glaucon's famous question. The result is predictable: systems that reward getting as close to the “moral minimum” as possible, monetising harm while branding it “value creation.”   Today we inhabit the ruins of our own success: record share prices, record inequality, a planet in distress. Leadership has become performance art—purpose statements on our office walls, denial in our dashboards. We brilliantly manage our own blindness, mistaking agility for progress and OKRs for meaning. This is not a crisis of capability but of conscience: a failure to understand how our systems themselves produce the outcomes we claim to fight.   Most leadership models treat ethics as a compliance problem—but when regulation fades and profit trumps penalty, why be good at all? Secular ethics—utilitarian, contractual, procedural—fail the Gyges test. If values are mere preferences, exploitation becomes rational. When social systems are treated as neutral markets rather than moral orders, injustice hides inside the algorithms of efficiency.   Ethical leadership begins where management ends: with the question of what legitimises power. It's not charisma or style but stewardship—the disciplined use of power for the common good. It rests on three practices: truth, seeing systems as they really are; imagination, envisioning what they could become; and judgment, choosing wisely when values collide. This is practical wisdom—the courage to act rightly, even when no one measures it.   To make this real, organisations must be designed for character, not compliance. Profit must serve purpose; incentives must reward contribution, not extraction. Governance must mature from box-ticking to moral judgment—boards as trustees of conscience, not guardians of quarterly returns. Accountability cannot be procedural alone; it must be moral. Leadership is public trust, not private property.   Developing ethical leaders means rethinking formation itself. Not tournaments of ambition but apprenticeships in judgment. Not high potentials but humble stewards able to hold power to account—including their own. No system can rise above the moral maturity of those who lead it—if leaders refuse to grow, they must make way for those who will.   Ethical leadership, at the end of the day, is the bridge between the actual and the possible. In a world of cascading crises, only leaders grounded in care, imagination, and moral courage can restore trust and renew possibility. The world is watching. So are our grandchildren. #EthicalLeadership #LeadershipDevelopment #CorporateGovernance #SystemsThinking #Sustainability #BusinessEthics #ResponsibleLeadership #ESG #Philosophy #PurposeDriven