Chaos is merely order waiting to be deciphered.
José Saramago
[This article is the first in an ongoing series on elite negotiation case studies, research and best practices flowing from my consulting work and the next book I am working on]
Introduction
President Trump has become rather famous for his particular style of negotiation, presented in some detail in his book “The Art of the Deal” and since then displayed in much greater detail and publicity in this, his second term in office.
It can be described, in generous terms, as an abrasive, aggressive and winner-takes-all approach to negotiation. Less generously, it may also be described as a manipulative, even coercive approach to negotiation, a might-is-right powerful assault on opponents, a negotiation equivalent of realism in geopolitics. We saw many examples of these negotiations in public and social media this last year, with negotiations and preparation sessions involving Ukraine and a range of tariff decisions coming to mind as some of the clearest examples.
Were this simply a study of one man’s negotiation eccentricities, we could approach that as an isolated instance of this particular negotiation style, but I have noticed quite a comeback in the popularity of this style in boardrooms and on factory floors, one that we can call a Trumpist approach to negotiation. Like the president’s approach, it values aggression and a brash, shoot-from-the-hip one-man-standing style, with its own lore and jargon, where we find references to “4-D chess” and invitations to “cry more”.
President Trump of course did not invent this aggressive style of negotiation, and this is not a targeted attack on him personally. He does however present a very publicly visible example of the style, and its popular comeback deserves some attention in our series on elite negotiation.
Before we then dissect ten reasons why this negotiating style is generally a poor strategy at the elite level, let me clarify that I am certainly not an advocate for an overly friendly and conciliatory negotiating style. At the negotiating table, your job is to win, and to leave profit or benefit on the table, or to be too generous, is as much of a failing of your, or your principal’s best interests as the Trumpist approach. Elite negotiation is not a polite tea party, and in criticizing these specific negotiation techniques I am not implying that being nice and polite is the correct approach. It is a question of degree, of scale, of nuance and timing.
My argument here is not a question of the correct morals or ethics, or good manners, but simple efficiency and the science of negotiation. Simple self-interest, if you will. But that, the correct approach to elite negotiation, is a project for another day. For now, let us focus on why you should be very cautious in using these Trumpist techniques.
Ten reasons why this negotiation style can be damaging
Here in late February 2026, I suppose that I could argue, with some merit, that political events in themselves are showing us why this negotiating style is to be avoided. Certain conflicts, like the Ukraine-Russia war, the Iranian situation and even the war in Gaza are stuck in cycles of harmful repetition. Threats and promises have brought very little real progress.
But let’s leave geopolitical negotiation outcomes aside for the moment, and apply these techniques to more commercial matters, to our own negotiation practices and goals.
1. Trust
When we treat people like obstacles on the way to our goals, when we break our word, when we become too volatile during negotiations, we damage or lose people’s trust in us. Trust, as modern case studies show, is the jet-fuel that turns an average or good deal into an exceptional deal. In once-off negotiations this is of course often not valued as an asset, but this is a short-sighted view, and reputational damage in one negotiation may very well carry over into other negotiations. Trust is the magic that carries us through when the parties are all on thin ice, when probability arguments hang on razor-thin edges, and when we need to have that little nudge that gets us over the line. The converse is equally true. Distrust colours and affects even good offers, and makes the going harder than necessary.
2. Relationship harm
Burning our negotiation bridges are hardly ever a good strategy in the long run. Whether in the commercial or political worlds, today’s enemy may be needed as tomorrow’s friend. The brash negotiation style tends not to care too much about the harm of zero-sum outcomes, it does not try to jointly problem-solve, and humiliation and harm often follows in its wake. As any experienced elite negotiator will testify, good relationships become a currency in our practices, assets to be applied in tight corners and tough negotiations.
This does not in any way mean that relationships should be fostered at the expense of good negotiation outcomes, and if an enemy must be made then so be it, but if we set out to undervalue, or disregard, long-term relationships in negotiation practice, as Trumpist negotiators invariably do, we unnecessarily burn an asset we will no doubt need later on.
3. Procedural fairness
One valuable insight that modern conflict studies has brought to elite negotiation is the realization that procedural fairness in negotiation is not just a matter of ticking boxes, or even a challenge of who bests the other side. A range of multidisciplinary contributions show that people deeply resent even the impression of being unfairly treated or taken advantage of, and that they are quite prepared to make irrational decisions, even to their own disadvantage, to punish real or imagined procedural offenders.
4. It shuts down the differentiation phase
One of the most undervalued and underutilized concepts in elite negotiation is the various phases in that process, particularly for our purposes, the so-called differentiation phase. This is where the parties, if they are allowed or skilled in using the process, exchange formal or informal information, where direct and indirect useful information about the other side, their strengths and weaknesses, their reasoning processes, their options and alternatives are gathered. Excessively aggressive, confrontational and potentially humiliating negotiation, and the expectation thereof, shuts people down, and the important differentiation phase gets skipped, attenuated or becomes a defensive exchange of curated minimums.
5. Irrational anchoring derails problem solving
Allied to the previous result, but in practice leading to very different results, is the chilling effect that Art of the Deal-style negotiation has on problem solving and creativity. Readers will have background knowledge on the psychological effect of early anchoring, and if that anchoring amount, or time limit, or condition, is irrational and too aggressive, it also severely limit efforts, and the willingness to participate, in problem solving and creative negotiating. Even considering workable alternatives become more difficult, or even impossible.
6. Face-saving
Modern conflict studies have made available a treasure trove of practical knowledge on the importance of face-saving as a conflict and negotiation demand. In honour-based individuals, organizations or communities, honour of the individual and / or community is far more important than the outcome of a particular negotiation, something that the more individualistic Trumpist negotiator often struggles to accept. This means that there is a very specific way to negotiate with such counterparts, and aggression, taunting, competitiveness that may be perceived as being disrespectful and zero-sum phrasing cause havoc before, during and after these negotiations. The simple merits and objective facts and figures of a particular negotiation framework may all pale into insignificance against the face-saving realities and negotiation dynamics.
Even where the use of power coerces a specific result, one has made a significant enemy for life if these landmines are not understood and carefully navigated. People become quite prepared to go down and take you with them once these dynamics have been activated.
7. Alliances against you become easier
Negotiating as if you are in a Clint Eastwood movie makes alliances and a range of complex contingency agreements against you not just probable, but nearly inevitable. Your negotiating style eventually makes for the strangest bedfellows, all just interested in negating your efforts, or even (as case studies show) punishing you. We should remember the vast amount of science supporting the insight that we are far less cool and rational, and far more emotionally driven in our negotiations, conflicts and decision-making processes than what we may think. Feelings do not care about your facts, in these negotiating scenarios.
8. You become predictable
As much as this style of negotiation may take the inexperienced or unwary by surprise, potentially leading to a number of ill-considered or rushed concessions, the experienced negotiator will calmly watch even your so-called unpredictability, and notice patterns there. Your bravado, the threats, the bombast, the exaggeration and the ego on display all become patterns and spirals of information to be used against you.
9. It leads to compromise
Despite all the soap opera and lights associated with this negotiating style, it is still based on compromise. Go in far too high and aggressively, scare everyone, settle for something perceived to be more reasonable. Those are the piano wires, and they become very visible after a while. A negotiating style that simply requires your opponent to weather the first loud storm and then we get to compromise, is a very outdated style more suited to playing poker in the old Wild West. Compromise is a terrible conflict and negotiation strategy.
10. Your walkback awaits
Several other negotiating styles and individuals have long ago worked out the specifics of this type of negotiation. There is nothing that the Kremlin School of Negotiation, for instance, appreciate more than someone who charges into the boardroom armed with this strategy. Precise responses, timing, sequence and even a short list of results have been worked out with meticulous care, and the time will come during your negotiations when your long, slow walk back to a much poorer result will begin.
Conclusion
Being a tough, skilled negotiator is a wonderful gift, and these people will always be highly sought-after individuals. The meek and the mild may inherit the earth, but not now. Being a tough negotiator is a question of skill, timing, preparation and experience. This has very little to do with being loud and aggressive, or with pushing envelopes until people break. In my individual and team elite negotiation courses we gradually bring students to realize this and choose the former option, not as a question of ethics or manners, but as a demonstrably superior negotiating skill.
Trumpist negotiation is often a mask that hides insecurities, of personality or actual negotiation positions. It sometimes suits the bully, the selfish, the manipulator. Your job is to win your negotiation mandates. Your roadmap to do so optimally is not the Art of the Deal.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. This series flows from and inspires my work on my new book on elite negotiation. A significant part of that is actual field work. I would love to hear from you about your own negotiation experiences, insights, questions, frustrations or ideas at the email address below, all of course managed with complete confidentiality.
2. My article on Trump era negotiation, specifically in the diplomatic arena, which may be regarded as a companion piece to this article: https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/effective-diplomacy-in-the-age-of-trump-20-a-few-conflict-management-strategies-for-the-south-african-government
3. The art of the insult, and other difficult negotiating challenges: https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/changes-in-diplomacy-and-conflict-negotiation-styles-strategic-benefits-and-drawbacks-in-modern-conflict-negotiation-patterns-and-dealing-with-the-art-of-the-insult
4. Relevant articles for our conflict work, can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za
(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.)
(c) Andre Vlok
February 2026