Negotiation | Consultant & Professor with 30+ years of global experience | Negotiation by Design | Negotiation Institutional Capacity Building | #NegotiationByDesign | Dutiful Advocate to my Clients |

Need to strengthen your negotiation strategy and drive more profitable deals?

As a global negotiation consultant and professor, I help organizations build an Institutional Negotiation Capacity—transforming negotiation into a strategic advantage.

I’ve spent three decades honing my craft—originally sparked by a chance encounter in a negotiation workshop led by Roger Fisher. 

That serendipitous moment ignited my passion for negotiation, and since then I’ve guided executives, entrepreneurs, and leaders at world-renowned institutions like the Kellogg School of Management, McGill University, and Columbia University’s ICCCR.

At Negotiation by Design®, we go beyond surface-level tactics. We embed negotiation into your organizational DNA, cultivating a shared language, continuous learning, and long-term strategic advantage. 

Fluent in Spanish, English, and French, and backed by degrees from Columbia University, DePauw University, and an EMBA from Kellogg, I bring a nuanced global perspective to every client engagement.

My personal life—parenting Mateo and Anabel, exploring trails on my mountain bike, and cooking up a storm—has taught me that the best lessons often arise from unexpected moments. These experiences remind me that true negotiation mastery combines skill, humility, and a human touch.

Together, let’s transform how your organization negotiates—unlocking better deals, stronger relationships, and sustainable results.

Ready to unlock your team’s full potential? 

Click “Connect” or “Message” me now, and let’s explore how I can support you.

Or book a meeting at  https://calendly.com/negotiationbydesign

Pablo Restrepo

You never know which small detail will unlock a negotiation.

Years ago, I helped negotiate a merger.
It was between two security companies.
Both provided alarm monitoring.

I focused on the process.
I invited the owner of the other company to dinner.
It was an Italian restaurant.
We shared Italian wine and conversation.

We talked about many things.
Then we shared our passions.
His was playing tennis.
Mine was MTB.

He told me his kids were great tennis players.
He said they could get a scholarship.
However, that would be easier in the USA.
Not in Colombia.

At the time, it seemed unimportant.
It mostly helped build trust.

It took two months to agree on the main conditions.
Then we got stuck on the CEO of the merged company.
Obviously, he wanted the role for himself.
But my client wanted to choose the CEO.

That is when I remembered "that" dinner.
Our strategic plan included opening an operation in Miami.
So the solution became obvious.

We offered him to lead the operation in Miami.
He could move there.
It fit his ambition for his kids.
They could play tennis at school.
And pursue a sports scholarship.

This shows something important.
You do not know what information helps...
... until it becomes useful.

What unexpected detail has helped you unlock a negotiation? 

I'd love it if you share a quick example in the comments.

Negotiation power is being impeccable.

One sentence builds bridges.
One unfiltered word can burn them down.

Last week at Universidad de los Andes, I worked with exceptional executives.
It was during our Strategic Negotiations program.

We discussed how emotional “leakage” derails even the best plans.

To master the art of being impeccable, use the FILTER method.
It is a 6-step mental checklist.
Run it before you open your mouth.

Step 0. Raw thought:
Don’t suppress the impulse.
Notice it.

Research suggests that naming the feeling internally helps you manage it.
Otherwise, the emotion manages you.
It is data, not a directive.
 
Step 1. Intention check:
The question: Am I advancing the conversation, or just trying to “win”?

The insight: If your goal is to punish or humiliate, you are venting.
You are no longer negotiating.
Real influence needs a clear path to agreement.

Step 2. Choice check:
The question: Does this need to be said by me, right now?

The insight: Not everything true is useful.
Not everything useful is timely.
If it is neither, stay silent.
 
Step 3. Compassion check:
The question: How will this land emotionally?

The insight: You do not need to agree to be respectful.
Softening your delivery without diluting your message prevents the other party from entering a "defensive crouch." 
 
Step 4. Empathy check:
The question: Can I see this from their side of the table?

The insight: Empathy is not about being “nice.”
It is about discovery.
Understand the constraints shaping their behavior.
That strengthens your leverage.
 
Step 5. Respect and impact check:
The question: Does this attack the problem or the person?

The insight: Relationship capital is the currency of future deals.
Avoid “loss of face” at all costs.
Respect preserves the bridge you may need to cross later.

Step 6. Listening check:
The question: Am I responding to what they said?
Or to what I think they meant?

The insight: Studies show most “difficult” people just feel unheard.
Test your assumptions before reaching conclusions.

The final decision: Speak, or don’t.

Only after these filters do you decide:
 • Say it as is.
 • Say it differently.
 • Say it later.
 • Don’t say it at all.

Being impeccable with your words does not mean speaking more.
It often means knowing when to stay silent.

Which of these six filters is hardest to maintain under pressure?
Let’s discuss below.

No alternative text description for this image

Is your negotiation style holding you back?

We all have a default setting at the bargaining table.

But research into social motives, our innate preferences for outcome distribution, suggests one thing:
Relying on a single natural inclination is a strategic liability.

Mastering deals requires shifting between four distinct archetypes.

• The Individualist: 
Primarily focused on maximizing personal gain.
They are forceful and claim value, rather than creating it.

• The Cooperator: 
Driven by mutual results.
They utilize information exchange to grow the pie for all parties.

• The Competitive: 
Motivated by the gap between their outcome and yours.
This win-big mentality often blocks collaborative breakthroughs.

• The Altruist: 
Prioritizes the counterpart’s success.
While noble, it is rare and often risky in professional settings or in high-stakes negotiations.

The real skill is knowing when to switch.
If you start with cooperation, you often find better solutions and higher satisfaction.
But claiming your fair share? That's non-negotiable.

Elite negotiators don't stick to one style.
They see styles as tools, used situationally.
They build value first, then pivot to secure their fair share.

Which style is your default, and when has it failed you?
Let’s discuss in the comments.

In negotiation, your “honesty” is often just your ego wanting a microphone.

Most professional and personal damage doesn’t stem from deep-seated betrayal. 

It happens because of impulse. 

It happens the moment your mouth starts warming up, and your brain whispers: “Teach them a lesson.” 

The truth is usually accurate, but it isn’t always useful. 

True influence isn’t about winning a moment. It’s about mastering these 10 tactical pillars. They transform high-stakes conflict into high-value collaboration.

1. Listen to learn: 
Active listening is the most effective strategy. It reduces defensiveness. 
Ask questions to uncover core concerns. 
Repeat back what you heard. 
Confirm understanding before presenting your own view.

2. Multiply the issues: 
Avoid fixating on a single point. 
Price and deadlines are common traps. 
Introduce multiple variables. 
Create room for smart trade-offs. 
Satisfy all parties.

3. Sit on the same side: 
Frame the dispute as a shared puzzle. 
Shift the dynamic from “me vs. you” to “us vs. the problem”. 
Find better solutions.

4. Label the power play: 
When faced with manipulative behavior, calmly describe it out loud. 
Naming the tactic neutralizes its power. 
Refocus the conversation on the technical solution.

5. Acknowledge the sacred: 
Do not attempt to use “logic” against someone’s core values. 
Validate their deeply held beliefs. 
Do it without necessarily conceding your position. 
Keep the door open.

6. Defang the threat: 
Treat an ultimatum as a temporary lapse in judgment. 
It can also be a cry for help. 
Ignore it once. 
Allow the other party to retreat without losing face.

7. Pivot to the objective: 
When emotions spike, introduce neutral data and facts. 
Objective criteria act as gravity. 
They pull an emotional argument back to solid ground.

8. Find the north star: 
Identify the overarching goals both parties share. 
Think project success or long-term peace. 
Work backward from that shared destination.

9. Sell the gain: 
Reframe your solution to emphasize relationship capital. 
Emphasize what is being gained. 
Do not focus on what is being “given up”.

10. Maintain agility: 
A rigid negotiator is a brittle one. 
Treat your strategy as a flexible draft. 
Adjust your tactics as you learn more. 
Focus on the other side’s true interests.

The next time you are “technically correct” and ready to fire back, pause.

Ask yourself: “Am I trying to advance the conversation, or just win the moment?” 

The answer is the difference between a signed deal and a total disaster.

Ever feel like you’re losing a negotiation before it even starts?

It usually happens the moment the other side drops a number.
In negotiation theory, this is the Anchoring Effect.
It is the psychological tendency to fixate on the first number mentioned.
Even when it is completely unrealistic.

If you’re buying a home, the seller may list it at $900k.
The market may say $820k.
That $900k becomes the anchor.
If you don’t cut the chain immediately, it pulls every move you make.
It pulls you toward their overpriced starting point.

Here is how to defuse a heavy anchor without “protesting too much”:
	
1. Call it out (the direct defuse)
Never throw your counteroffer over the fence.
Invalidate their number first.

Say: “I’m not trying to play games, but we are miles apart on price. That starting point isn’t feasible based on current comps.”
	
2. Don’t linger on their number.
A common mistake is spending 20 minutes explaining why their price is wrong.
That obsession validates the anchor.
Mention it’s non-viable.
Then pivot immediately to your proposal.
	
3. Use the Midpoint Rule.
A strong predictor of the final deal is the midpoint between the first semi-reasonable offer and the counteroffer.

If they anchor high, counter strategically low.
Pull the midpoint back into your ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement)
	
4. Justify with “third-party” constraints.
Don’t make it personal.
Use appraisals, inspection reports, or market data.
Explain why your number is the "fair" one.
It’s harder to argue with a bank valuation.
It’s easier to dismiss a personal opinion.

You can’t defend against a tactic you don’t see coming.
Recognize the anchor.
Defuse it clearly.
Set your own baseline.

How easy is it for you to counter a very aggressive first offer?

The best gift you can give your Valentine today isn't a box of chocolates. 🍫 

It’s a simple question: "How do you need me to show up right now?" 

In a world of constant pings and notifications, our presence is the rarest currency we have. 
But presence without direction can sometimes miss the mark. 

Next time your partner (or even a teammate) shares a challenge, don't guess. Ask if they need: 

👂HEAR: They just need a safe space to vent. No solutions, no "I told you so," just active listening and validation.  

🤗 HUG: They don't need words at all. They need physical or emotional comfort and the feeling of being supported.  

🆘 HELP: They are looking for a brainstorm partner, a strategy, or a literal hand to solve the problem. 

Why this works: 
  - It eliminates "support friction." 
  - It honors their specific needs over your instinct to "fix." 
  - It turns a standard conversation into a moment of true connection. 

The "full presence" we always talk about in negotiation starts at home. Today, give the gift of being truly seen and heard. 

Happy Valentine’s Day to those celebrating! ❤️ 

How do you prefer to be supported when you're stressed? Let’s hear it in the comments. 👇

undefined undefined

Ever faced a corporate giant and felt your leverage vanish?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: size isn’t power in negotiation. Alternatives are.

Your BATNA is your backbone, and their BATNA is often far weaker than they want you to believe.

Take my client, "PackCo" (name changed to protect confidentiality). They supply plastic bottles to PepsiCo.

One day, an email hits the inbox:

“We’re rolling out a 5% cost-reduction program. Please revise pricing accordingly.”

Inside PackCo, panic. 

PepsiCo represented 90% of the plant’s volume. A 5% cut would wipe out EBITDA. Losing the account could shut the factory. 

The team felt trapped, because they only stared at their downside.

Then we asked one question that changed everything:
What can they do if they can’t reach an agreement with you?

In my article below, I tell the rest of the story, and I break down four practical moves backed by Harvard’s Program on Negotiation: 

- Mapping dual BATNAs
- Reality-testing theirs
- Upgrading and signaling your BATNA
- Counter-anchoring with value instead of price

Next time a Goliath emails first, don't negotiate from a place of fear.

Negotiate from your alternatives.

Because if you don't, they always win.

Ever stared up at a corporate “giant” and felt your knees wobble? Relax: bulk doesn’t buy bargaining power; alternatives do. If the other side can’t w

Open article: In Negotiations, Size Doesn’t Equal Power. Your BATNA Does by Pablo Restrepo • 3 min read

In Negotiations, Size Doesn’t Equal Power. Your BATNA Does

Ever had a deal collapse because the other side was being “irrational”?

It’s tempting to walk away and blame their ego.

But in 2026, top-tier negotiators know “winning” against a biased counterpart is a myth.

If they can’t see the value, you both lose.

The real power move?

Don’t exploit their bias, neutralize it.

Here are 3 ways to “debias” your counterpart and save the deal:
	
1.	Kill the “fixed-pie” myth
Most people default to believing that for them to win, you must lose.
This “mythical fixed-pie” stops them from exploring tradeoffs.

The fix: Don’t argue over one slice, like price.
- Introduce multiple issues at once: delivery speed, payment terms, exclusivity, etc.
- This forces the brain to shift from “competing” to “problem-solving.”
	
2.	Use “irrationality” to build contingent agreements
If they are overconfident about a future outcome, don’t try to prove them wrong.

Use it.

Example: “Our sales will double by Q4!”

The fix: Propose a “bet” inside the contract.
- “If sales double, we pay X.”
- “If they don’t, we pay Y.”

This bypasses the bias.
Both sides feel they’ve won on their own estimates.

3.	Give them “thinking space.”
Biases like escalation of commitment and egocentrism thrive under pressure.
A forced fast decision often triggers a defensive “No.”
Not a rational choice.

The fix: After a strong proposal, encourage 24 hours to review it.
- Suggest they get an “outsider’s perspective.”
- This lowers the heat.
- It helps their rational “System 2” thinking kick in.

The bottom line: A biased negotiator is an uncreative negotiator.

Your goal isn’t to be the smartest person in the room.

It’s to help the other side be smart enough to say “Yes.”

Which negotiation bias do you find most frustrating to deal with? 
Let’s discuss in the comments.

Three ways to "debias" an irrational negotiator

When you get a “no” in negotiation, stop persuading...

... and start diagnosing.

Because most negotiators hear "no" and think:
“Let me explain better.”
“Let me convince harder.”
“Let me add pressure.”

That’s not negotiation.
That’s panic with vocabulary.

A “no” is data.
And it usually belongs to one of these 3 buckets:
	

1. Misalignment
They’re saying "no" because you’re missing something fundamental.

A) You’re not meeting their interests/priorities.
Ask: “What’s your #1 priority here?”

B) You’re violating their fairness beliefs.
Ask: “When you say ‘fair’, what standard are you using?”

C) They don’t trust you (intent or delivery).
Ask: “What would make this feel safe to say yes to?”
	

2. Constraints
They’re saying "no" because the system around them blocks a "yes".

A) Real restrictions (budget, policy, timing).
Ask: “What’s truly non-negotiable vs just default?”

B) Better BATNA.
Ask: “If we disappeared, what would you do instead?”

C) Wrong stakeholders.
Ask: “Who can say yes, and who can kill this?”
	

3. Tactics
They’re saying "no" because they’re playing a game.

A) Bluffing.
Say: “Help me understand what makes that final.”

B) Win-lose mindset.
Say: “I don’t trade concessions. I trade value.”

C) Predators/hardball.
Say: “We proceed only with a clear process + everything in writing.”


Your job after a “no” isn’t to be more persuasive.
It’s to be more precise.

Because persuasion without diagnosis is just noise with confidence.

Which “no” do you face most often: misalignment, constraints, or tactics?

Better metrics do more than track a deal... 

... they build the negotiator.

If you aren’t measuring the right variables in negotiation, you aren’t truly improving; you’re just repeating the same habits with different counterparts.

High-level skill acquisition requires a learning loop, as Professor Leigh Thompson suggests.

Without metrics, your post-game review is an anecdote.

With them, it becomes institutional capability.

Use these three pillars to sharpen your edge:
	
1. Substantive metrics (the “What”)
  • Analyze ex post: Measure final price, volume, and terms.
   • The optimization: Measure against your aspiration point, not just your “walk-away” price.

2. Relationship metrics (the “Who”)
  • During the deal: Is there enough trust for high-level information sharing?
  • After the deal: Is the bond strong enough to ensure smooth implementation?
  • A “win” that leaves resentment is a long-term liability, not a victory.

3. Process metrics (the “How”)
  • Real-time indicators: Are you anchoring effectively and asking open-ended questions?
  • The benefit: Process metrics allow you to pivot during the session, preventing suboptimal agreements.

When you track the Process and Relationship alongside Substance, you transform negotiation from a “soft skill” into hard institutional muscle.

Stop settling for outcomes you can’t explain. Start measuring what you can control.

When you review a negotiation, do you measure these three metrics, only two of them, or just the substantive outcome? Let me know in the comments

The Smart Negotiator's Scorecard

Most tough negotiators are not impossible.

They are protecting something they fear losing.

That changes everything.

When you stop reading resistance as aggression and start seeing it as pressure, ego, or uncertainty, negotiation becomes much more strategic.

The smartest negotiators do three things well.

First, they uncover what is really behind the other side’s “no”.

Second, they create a path forward that helps the other person feel respected, in control, and able to save face.

Third, they know when to calmly call a bluff and walk away instead of rewarding pressure with unnecessary concessions.

The key takeaway is simple:

Great negotiation is not about overpowering difficult people. It is about understanding what is driving their behavior, reducing friction, and structuring options that make agreement easier without giving away value.

That is how you get better outcomes, move faster, and protect the relationship at the same time.

If you can read what is happening beneath the surface, offer a dignified way forward, or confidently step back when needed, you stop treating conflict like a battle and start turning it into collaboration.

How to turn “No way!” into “Let’s find a way.” Why this matters for Smart Negotiators: Better outcomes. You’ll stop tough negotiators from squeezing o

Open article: Taming the Impossible Counterpart in Negotiation by Pablo Restrepo • 3 min read

Taming the Impossible Counterpart in Negotiation

I thought anger was the problem.

The real issue was underneath it.

Growing up, the rule was simple: “Calm down, then we can talk.”

I was taught that anger blocked communication. So, when my son became a teenager, I used that same tool. I thought I was being the “rational adult.” In reality, I was an authoritative wall.

It failed miserably.

Then I read John Gottman’s work on emotionally intelligent parenting. It changed my home life and how I teach strategic negotiation. It showed me that every “difficult” person has layers to decode.

A few months ago, we clashed with my son over a Saturday night curfew. He wanted 2:00 AM. I wanted 11:30 PM. 

The explosion was immediate: shouting, a slammed door, and “You don’t trust me!”

In the past, I would have enforced the rules harder. Instead, I went to his room and looked for the layers:

• The secondary emotion: Anger. The noise.

• The primary emotion: Irrelevance. He felt the strict time showed I didn’t trust his judgment or maturity.
	
• The need: Status and self-governance. He didn’t just want to stay out late. He wanted to feel like the CEO of his own life.

The solution: the reliability dashboard

I stopped negotiating the clock. I started negotiating the system.

I told him, “I don’t actually care about the time. I care about your safety and your ability to manage your life. Let’s move from ‘rules’ to a ‘Reliability Dashboard’.”

We set up a two-week self-governance trial. He had no curfew at all, if he met three “KPIs”:

• The safety ping: a proactive text at 11:00 PM, before I asked.
• The morning metric: being at the breakfast table by 9:00 AM, sharp.
• The performance baseline: no drop in his school grades.

The result

The energy shifted instantly. He wasn’t fighting a “cop” anymore. He was managing a contract.

The “wow” moment? After three days of staying out late, he started coming home at midnight on his own. He realized that 2:00 AM made him feel terrible the next day. Because he made the decision, he chose the responsible path himself.

Whether at a boardroom table or a kitchen table, emotions work the same way.
	
• Stop managing the person. Start designing the system.
• Listen past the anger to find the primary emotion.
• Solve for the need (autonomy), not the demand (the curfew).

Negotiation isn’t about winning the argument. It’s about reframing the conversation until the solution is obvious to both sides.

Negotiation by Design

Administrator Director

Inversiones FRS SAS

Administrative Assistant

Tandem Insourcing

Administrative and Financial Director

Suramericana

Insurance Adviser

Tandem Negociación y Resolución de Conflictos Ltda.

TF AUDITORES

Junior Auditor

Cavipetrol

Customer Service Assistant

Nielsen

Human Resources Assistant

Experienced Administrator with a demonstrated history of working in the management consulting industry. Skilled in Research, Negotiation, Spanish, Business Planning, and Customer Service. Strong professional graduated from Universidad de La Sabana.

taplio

The Battle

Pablo Restrepo

Martha Santos Gómez

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScorePablo Restrepo's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Pablo Restrepo

Martha Santos Gómez

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Pablo Restrepo's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScorePablo Restrepo's LinkedIn Performance