Ethical Considerations in Negotiation

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

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

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 Recruitment is known as a fast paced industry, but there’s one part of our role as recruiters that can’t be rushed; building relationships. In my experience, creating long-term relationships with our clients, candidates, and colleagues is invaluable. Not only does this approach lead to better hiring decisions, but it also shapes careers, fuels business growth, and creates networks of trust that last for years. Here’s why long-term relationships should be the foundation of any great recruitment strategy: 𝟏. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞  The best partnerships – whether with clients or candidates – aren’t built in a single conversation. They develop over time, through consistency, honesty, and delivering results. When businesses work with recruiters they trust, they gain a true partner, not just a service provider. The same applies to candidates. Many of the strongest hires come from professionals we’ve known for years and placed more than once. 𝟐. 𝐀 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐁𝐞 𝐚 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰 One of the most rewarding aspects of long-term relationship-building is seeing how careers evolve. Many candidates we’ve placed early in their careers have gone on to become hiring managers or senior leaders, and when they need to build their own teams, they often return to the recruiters they trust. A single placement can turn into a lifelong professional partnership. 𝟑. 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬  Understanding a company’s culture, leadership style, and long-term growth strategy takes time. The deeper that understanding, the better the hires. Clients who treat recruiters as strategic partners rather than short-term vendors see the biggest return on investment – not just in speed to hire, but in quality and retention. 𝟒. 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬  In today’s job market, candidates expect a personal, transparent process – one where they feel valued beyond a single application. A recruiter who stays in touch, offers advice, and provides genuine career guidance builds relationships that last. And when candidates have a great experience, they refer others, expanding the recruiter’s network even further. 𝟓. 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧  The recruitment industry is built on trust and reputation. The most successful recruiters are the ones known for honest, long-standing relationships that create value for both businesses and professionals over time. At the end of the day, recruitment is about people, not transactions. The strongest partnerships aren’t measured in placements but rather in careers built, businesses grown, and trust earned.

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

🔥 Ethics in AI-enabled medical devices is not an abstract debate. It is governance by design. In AI-enabled medical mobile health devices, ethics constitutes a governance-by-design framework that structures system behaviour and user interaction in domains where legal boundaries are evolving, indeterminate, or insufficiently expressive of the principles they intend to uphold. ⚖️ Even where permissible boundaries are formally defined, they may fail to capture proportionality, fairness, or human impact in adaptive systems. Ethics therefore performs both a pre-regulatory and interpretive function — ensuring that device architecture reflects the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Regulatory silence does not diminish responsibility. Formal compliance does not exhaust it. 🔖 With that lens in mind, I highly recommend "Teaching AI Ethics: A Guide for Educators" by Leon Furze. It is a remarkably practical resource for anyone teaching — or trying to structure thinking around — AI ethics. The book explores key domains including: 🔹Bias 🔹Environment 🔹Truth 🔹Copyright 🔹Privacy 💎 Despite not in the narrower regulatory ethics sense, I found particularly interesting the chapters on social chatbots, power concentration and the hidden workforce. A few reflections particularly resonated: 1️⃣ Copyright We are no longer debating hypotheticals. The Stability AI vs Getty Images case showed how far legal clarity still has to go. Courts may rule that models do not “store” copyrighted works, yet broader consensus questions whether algorithmic weights encode protected material. Copyright is becoming a volatile and imperfect proxy for ethical compliance, especially in multimodal GenAI and mixed authorship contexts. 2️⃣ Privacy Privacy now extends well beyond consent mechanisms. Retroactive use of training data, bystander privacy, national sovereignty, and the tension between GDPR data minimisation and large-scale model training all expose ethical boundaries that law alone does not resolve. 3️⃣ Conversational interfaces In healthcare, conversational components and adaptive interfaces further complicate emotional and relational boundaries — even in certified medical devices where boundaries must be clear and respected. 4️⃣ Power & the hidden workforce Behind AI systems lies invisible labour and increasing concentration of power. The question of alternative development models that distribute capability and accountability more broadly is not theoretical — it is structural. What this guide does exceptionally well is move ethics beyond slogans and into structured inquiry. For those working in adaptive AI, medical devices, digital health governance, or standards development — it is an excellent teaching companion and a useful provocation. Ethics, properly understood, is not about slowing innovation. It is about stabilising it. 📌 We are working to solve in this space. #AIethics #DigitalHealth #MedicalDevices #Governance #AI #Standards

People with more power often underestimate how much their formal authority amplifies their actions, while people less power often hold simplified views of power, and underestimate their agency. X: "I don’t understand why they’re waiting for me to weigh in—it’s like they can’t move without my approval, even on the simplest things." Y: "Why won’t they just make the call? They’re the ones with the authority—why leave everyone else stuck waiting?" You end up with two loops: Loop 1—People with more power - People with power expect autonomy from others, resenting the perceived dependence. - Authority amplifies presence, causing others to defer or wait for guidance. - This deference frustrates the leader, who sees it as a lack of competence or initiative. - Their frustration creates tension, further discouraging autonomy in others, who fear mistakes or rebuke. - The cycle repeats, with powerholders resenting the dependency they unknowingly perpetuate. Loop 2—People with less power - People without power perceive power holders as all-encompassing decision-makers (assuming they hold ultimate control and responsibility). - This belief underestimates the structural and systemic constraints that limit the power holders’ actual influence. - When power holders hesitate or express frustration, it feels like avoidance, confirming the belief that the leader needs to step in. - They act cautiously or defer entirely, increasing the leader’s sense of responsibility and reinforcing the power imbalance. - The dynamic perpetuates both deference and frustration, making autonomy feel risky or impossible. Power holders overestimate 1) their control and 2) resent being seen as the bottleneck, while non-power holders underestimate their own agency and wait for decisions from "all-powerful" leaders.

If you’re a manager, founder, or emerging leader trying to make sense of the hidden forces shaping your organization, this one’s for you. We've been lying to ourselves about power in leadership. We talk endlessly about vision, culture, values - all the comfortable, sanitized words that make us feel noble. But we whisper about the one thing that actually shapes everything: power. Power shows up in three forms we rarely acknowledge: The power of access - Who gets invited to the real conversations? Who's on that other WhatsApp group you don't know about? Proximity matters more than titles. The power of influence - Who do people actually listen to? Sometimes it's authority, sometimes expertise, sometimes pure charisma. But influence travels through trust, not titles. The power of narrative - Who controls what we're talking about? Who frames the questions? The real story is often told at water coolers, not in boardrooms. These forces create an invisible organization within your visible one. And while you're perfecting org charts, this shadow structure is determining your success or failure. The solution isn't to eliminate power - it's to see it clearly. Map it. Name it without shaming it. Work with it rather than pretend it doesn't exist. Try silent brainstorming before group discussions. Rotate leadership opportunities. Create anonymous input channels. Debrief not just what happened, but who influenced what happened. Because when we're naive about power, we create cultures of manipulation rather than collaboration. The most dangerous power is the kind we refuse to acknowledge. And the most effective leaders aren't the ones who avoid power games. They're the ones who play them with intention, not to control, but to create. #LeadershipTips #PowerDynamics #RobertGreene #WorkCulture #TeamManagement #LeadershipSkills #OrganizationalPsychology

FAIR does not mean equal. We often assume that fairness in the workplace means treating everyone exactly the same. But fairness sometimes demands a different approach – one which recognises that sameness and fairness are not always the same thing. Being fair requires us to understand the difference between equality and equity. Equality is the term used to describe a situation when everyone is given the same support regardless of their individual circumstances. Think of equality as dividing a cake into equal slices, with no regard for who is hungry, allergic to sugar, has special dietary requirements or baked it in the first place. It sounds neat and tidy. But it rarely results in fair outcomes. Equity, on the other hand, is about fairness through difference. It takes into account each person’s unique background, barriers and needs. Instead of offering identical support, it offers the right support. Equity is about what each individual needs to succeed and how support can be given to get them there. Imagine three people of different heights trying to look over a fence to watch a football game. If each is given the same size box to stand on, only the tallest will get a clear view – that is equality. If the shortest gets the highest box, the medium-height person gets a mid-sized one and the tallest gets nothing because they do not need it, then that is equity. The goal is not that everyone has the same box but everyone can see the game. Nowhere is this distinction more important than in workplaces. In a workplace, equality might mean offering every employee the same training session. Equity means offering additional coaching to those who did not have the same educational opportunities. Equality might be offering everyone the same work-from-home policy. Equity might mean adapting those policies to accommodate someone with a disability or someone caring for an ageing parent. Equity does not mean favouritism. It means recognising that some people are running the same race but with heavier shoes – or shoes that do not fit. Critics often argue that equity feels unfair, is uncomfortable and creates favourites. But equity does not pit people against each other. It lifts those who have been left behind. This can feel challenging to those who are used to seeing fairness as strict uniformity. But offering the same thing to everyone in unequal circumstances does not level the playing field – it reinforces the imbalance. This is not to say equality is irrelevant. Equality is a worthy goal – a future state where we might not need equity based adjustments because everyone does start from the same line. Organisations that embrace equity build cultures of inclusion. They recognise that support does not have to be identical to be fair but is has to be meaningful. #management #equity #equality #workplace #aimwa #fairness #leadership #hr #humanresources Cartoon used under licence: CartoonStock

Handling conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas in my role as a broker is a critical part of what I do, and I approach it with confidence and a clear sense of responsibility. Here's how I tackle these situations: 1. Transparency is Key: I firmly believe that transparency is the best policy. Whenever a potential conflict of interest arises, I address it head-on, openly discussing it with all parties involved. Transparency builds trust and ensures everyone is on the same page. 2. Stay Informed: To make informed decisions, I stay up-to-date with the latest industry regulations and ethical standards. Being well-informed allows me to navigate complex situations confidently and ethically. 3. Seek Guidance: If a dilemma seems particularly challenging, I'm not afraid to seek advice from colleagues, mentors, or industry experts. A fresh perspective can shed light on the best course of action. 4. Prioritize Client Interests: My clients always come first. When making decisions, I consider what is in their best interest above all else. It's essential to remain loyal to my clients and act in their favor. 5. Maintain Independence: I maintain my independence and objectivity in every transaction. While partnerships and relationships are essential in this business, I ensure that they never compromise my ability to represent my clients effectively. 6. Document Everything: Clear documentation is vital to show that ethical standards have been maintained. I keep records of all transactions and communications, which can be invaluable in case of disputes or ethical challenges. 7. Continual Self-Reflection: I constantly reflect on my actions and decisions to identify areas for improvement. Ethical dilemmas can be valuable learning experiences that help me grow as a professional. In the dynamic world of real estate, conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas are bound to arise. However, I tackle them with confidence, guided by a commitment to ethical conduct and the best interests of my clients. How about you? How do you handle these challenges in your profession? Let's share ideas and learn together!

A vibrant multiracial democracy is possible in this country and should extend beyond the ballot box into our workplaces. Workers deserve safety and democracy on the job—and collective bargaining is one of the most powerful tools for ensuring that. Collective bargaining is a form of solidarity organizing that workers use to have a stronger voice. Instead of dealing with the boss one-on-one, for example, workers join together to negotiate as a whole. History has shown that there is power in numbers and bargaining with one voice for equitable pay, safer working conditions, and better benefits is more likely to get results. The goal is to get a fair deal for everyone. Collective bargaining helps level the playing field and protect vulnerable workers by addressing pay equity, work-life balance, and anti-discrimination measures. In short, it helps thwart systemic inequities and improve working conditions across the board. But it’s not just workers who benefit. Collective bargaining benefits us ALL. When educators collectively bargain, they have won smaller class sizes for students, better funding for school facilities, updated materials, and supportive services like student counseling. When teachers organize for better working conditions, fair wages, and professional development opportunities, students and the broader community win by benefiting from less teacher turnover, and educators who are likely to feel more motivated and effective when they work in dignified conditions. The same logic applies across sectors. Patients of healthcare providers who collectively bargain benefit from safer staffing levels, which leads to better patient outcomes, reduced medical errors, improved quality of care, expanded healthcare services, and overall patient safety. The ripple-out impacts of collective bargaining don’t stop there. Studies have shown that collective bargaining helps narrow the public-sector pay gap—benefiting workers and the public through the quality of public services. We all benefit when workers are able to negotiate fair wages and dignified conditions. Workers have higher disposable income which helps support local economies. In sectors like public transportation, food and water safety, and emergency services, collective bargaining leads to better service delivery by ensuring workers are well-trained, fairly compensated, and not overworked. Many workers engage in a tactic called “bargaining for the common good”, a strategy to use the power of worker unity to engage in broader advocacy efforts that benefit the public, like pushing for expanded access to public health, quality education, and safety standards. For our democracy, our public good, and our common future, the rights of workers should be defended, strengthened, and expanded.