The research suggests it's gendered. One study that has always stayed with me found that men were more likely to describe negotiation as a game or sporting contest, while women compared it to invasive dental treatment.
Working primarily with women, my sense is that "negotiation" arrives carrying a lot of baggage before the conversation even begins. What resonated most in your piece is the idea that the word itself may shape behaviour. If negotiation feels adversarial, heavy or uncomfortable, people delay engaging with it. They put off the relationship-building, narrative-shaping and influence work that could have been happening weeks or months earlier, and focus instead on the conversation itself.
Where I diverge slightly is on replacing negotiation with influence. Influence is certainly at the heart of it, but influence is broader than negotiation. Every negotiation involves influence, but not every act of influence is a negotiation.
I also wonder whether some of the discomfort runs deeper than the word itself. Capitalism requires us to put a price on value. Much of the personal development world tells us our worth is beyond price. Perhaps some of the 'ick' comes from navigating the gap between those two ideas.
So I find myself landing somewhere slightly different: not abandoning negotiation as a concept, but fundamentally reimagining what people believe it to be.
Brilliant notes. Thank you for the counter on negotiation v. influence. Wasn’t my intention to replace the word, simply to show the direction makes more sense to me.
The number of senior people who treat the tactics as the whole game, because that's the only part visible to them, is remarkable. The real influence work happens in rooms they didn't know were part of the negotiation. By the time they're at the table, the deal is pretty much shaped. Really enjoyed reading this
This is such a sharp observation: the nervous system often classifies the conversation before any conscious philosophy or strategy has a chance to help.
The distinction I would add is that the word itself is not the root. It is the cue.
“Negotiation” activates an existing nervous system prediction about what the conversation will cost: conflict, rejection, disapproval, exposure, lost opportunity, or discovering that your contribution will not be valued.
Replacing it with “advocating for my worth” may create more space. But that remains a reframe, and a reframe does not necessarily resolve the prediction generating the alarm.
The layer my work focuses on is resolving that nervous system prediction directly through a physiological mechanism. This is not a gradual process of understanding the fear, regulating through it, or practicing a new response while the alarm remains active. The prediction itself can resolve—often in under three minutes.
Once it resolves, the person does not need a safer word in order to remain present. They can call it negotiation, advocacy, compensation, or a difficult conversation and still retain access to their clarity, judgment, and capacity to act.
Language changes the frame.
Resolution changes what the nervous system predicts will happen inside it.
I've wrestled with this word too.
The research suggests it's gendered. One study that has always stayed with me found that men were more likely to describe negotiation as a game or sporting contest, while women compared it to invasive dental treatment.
Working primarily with women, my sense is that "negotiation" arrives carrying a lot of baggage before the conversation even begins. What resonated most in your piece is the idea that the word itself may shape behaviour. If negotiation feels adversarial, heavy or uncomfortable, people delay engaging with it. They put off the relationship-building, narrative-shaping and influence work that could have been happening weeks or months earlier, and focus instead on the conversation itself.
Where I diverge slightly is on replacing negotiation with influence. Influence is certainly at the heart of it, but influence is broader than negotiation. Every negotiation involves influence, but not every act of influence is a negotiation.
I also wonder whether some of the discomfort runs deeper than the word itself. Capitalism requires us to put a price on value. Much of the personal development world tells us our worth is beyond price. Perhaps some of the 'ick' comes from navigating the gap between those two ideas.
So I find myself landing somewhere slightly different: not abandoning negotiation as a concept, but fundamentally reimagining what people believe it to be.
Brilliant notes. Thank you for the counter on negotiation v. influence. Wasn’t my intention to replace the word, simply to show the direction makes more sense to me.
The number of senior people who treat the tactics as the whole game, because that's the only part visible to them, is remarkable. The real influence work happens in rooms they didn't know were part of the negotiation. By the time they're at the table, the deal is pretty much shaped. Really enjoyed reading this
I very much appreciate you taking a moment to validate my work. Sometimes I feel crazy with the depth I focus on this.
Not at all crazy, getting into the detail and obsessing is also my thing!
This is such a sharp observation: the nervous system often classifies the conversation before any conscious philosophy or strategy has a chance to help.
The distinction I would add is that the word itself is not the root. It is the cue.
“Negotiation” activates an existing nervous system prediction about what the conversation will cost: conflict, rejection, disapproval, exposure, lost opportunity, or discovering that your contribution will not be valued.
Replacing it with “advocating for my worth” may create more space. But that remains a reframe, and a reframe does not necessarily resolve the prediction generating the alarm.
The layer my work focuses on is resolving that nervous system prediction directly through a physiological mechanism. This is not a gradual process of understanding the fear, regulating through it, or practicing a new response while the alarm remains active. The prediction itself can resolve—often in under three minutes.
Once it resolves, the person does not need a safer word in order to remain present. They can call it negotiation, advocacy, compensation, or a difficult conversation and still retain access to their clarity, judgment, and capacity to act.
Language changes the frame.
Resolution changes what the nervous system predicts will happen inside it.