The fine line between negotiation and exploitation

I was recently in discussion with a business leader regarding a potential assignment. At the outset, I clearly articulated the scope of work, the effort involved, and the commercial terms that I believed were fair and reasonable for the engagement. During the course of the conversation, several revisions were requested, each of which expanded the scope. At the same time, I was asked to reconsider the pricing in view of their budget constraints.

After submitting the final proposal, I received a response over WhatsApp indicating that the approved budget was approximately 40% of the fee I had quoted. I was informed that this was the amount sanctioned by their management. In response, I proposed revisiting the scope and excluding certain components based on their priorities and critical requirements. However, I was told that the scope could no longer be modified because management approval had already been secured.

The situation felt unusual because the process appeared one-sided, with limited consideration for the effort, value, or scope being requested. It was similar to walking into a premium automobile showroom, selecting a high-end vehicle, and then saying, “I want this premium model at an entry-level price because that is what my management has approved.”

What made the experience more concerning was the lack of follow-through thereafter. Calls went unanswered, messages were not acknowledged, and multiple emails received no response. I eventually had to escalate the matter to someone in senior management simply to obtain a reply. The decision to proceed with the deal rests entirely with them, but professional courtesy demands a clear and respectful disengagement.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated experience. Over the past two and a half decades, I have encountered many such situations. Proposals are requested and then left unanswered for months. Ideas are explored in detail, only to be executed later through a competitor. Commitments are made, and then communication abruptly stops.

Anyone in sales, business development, or consulting is likely to have faced similar circumstances. However, the issue is not one-sided. At times, buyers may attempt to extract disproportionate value without acknowledging the underlying effort. At other times, influential sellers may give preferential treatment to large accounts while imposing premium pricing on smaller clients. In both cases, the imbalance damages trust and reduces the quality of professional engagement.

These experiences reinforce the importance of transparent communication, mutual respect for professional effort, and clarity of expectations from the outset.

Negotiation should not be approached as a contest where one party must secure an asymmetric advantage at any cost. The “win at all costs” mindset, zero-sum bias, weak ethical boundaries, or simple lack of professional maturity can all contribute to poor outcomes.

Over the years, I have found the following principles useful in negotiation:

1. Be fair, transparent, and consistent in both intent and communication.

2. Look for a genuine win-win outcome. Negotiation is not about losing when one concedes a little; the zero-sum bias is often the root of poor negotiation behaviour.

3. Avoid the “win at all costs” approach, as it can gradually push people towards unethical practices.

4. Do comprehensive homework on the scope, value, alternatives, decision-makers, and constraints before entering the discussion.

5. Know when to walk away. Not every opportunity is worth pursuing if the terms compromise value, dignity, or professional standards.

6. Maintain open communication and avoid ambiguity, delays, or selective silence. Clarity is a sign of professionalism.

7. Recognise that not everyone at the negotiation table may have received formal training in negotiation, leadership, or management. This perspective helps manage expectations and avoid unnecessary frustration. In fact, studies on workplace leadership continue to highlight gaps in formal management training; for example, Gallup’s workplace research has reported that only a portion of managers receive formal preparation for their roles. Many leaders become managers because of strong individual performance rather than structured leadership development. This makes professionalism, patience, and disciplined communication even more important in commercial conversations.

(The writer is the author of Building Blocks: Lessons on leadership that I’ve learnt on my journey, and the founder of Prajna Consulting, a boutique consulting firm. Views are personal.)