​I have for the past two months been organising a tennis session on a Sunday morning at the club I belong to. Not particularly taxing you would have thought, but in practice surprisingly challenging. First, you need to book 4 courts every week in advance, but as the club will not allow block bookings (I tried challenging this policy but to no avail), you need a team of 4 fellow members to be bookers. This means going online to the club’s website at 8am 6 days beforehand. You have to be on time because others compete for the courts and time slot we want. Also, although in theory you can book any court, mid-way through my stint some lady players complained to a colleague and to the chair of tennis that we were booking “their” courts! Then once the courts are sorted you need to find the players from a pool of some 55. Again, should be easy but people are busy, get injured, have other commitments or just change their availability. Or their response goes to junk mail. Sometimes we had 16 and sometimes only 6 players. All had to be paired with someone they had not played with recently. 
 
Anyway, it all went well and looking back on it I realised this was at least to some extent because I planned carefully, almost as if it had been a professional transaction. In addition to the team of 4 bookers, I had 2 reserves who were both required at various times. I created Word templates for the bookers and again for the players on the actual day. Not rocket science I know, but the point I want to make is that while we all readily criticise poor or even non-existent planning (see my blog 2 years ago Walk the Week - XXXX Poor Planning), we should also recognise when the best-laid plans of mice and men (to paraphrase badly) actually do work out and deliver.
 
By way of a more work-related example, some years ago when I was in private practice a very large client who was procuring some very complex and expensive technology invited me to an in person planning session. I was surprised because normally as lawyers we are only asked to attend the actual contract negotiation, with perhaps a short pre-meet in a café. This was different. Every member of the team covering all the disciplines – commercial, procurement, technical, finance, legal, operational and management – were present. The team leader (who had invited me - not interestingly the in-house legal team though they concurred) led us through creating a procurement and negotiation plan in great detail. We role played and filled a conference room with flip chart pages of notes capturing our work and the plans we arrived at. And all this was well before any contact with would be suppliers. Not surprisingly the procurement was a success, although there were subsequently some delivery challenges as there often are with the introduction of new technology. Even then we were well placed to advise again (with the rest of the team) because we had been on the whole journey, and not just called in to negotiate the terms and conditions.
 
A way of looking at this is as “scenario planning” which at an industry level was pioneered by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1970’s. Confronted with unpredictable oil markets, Shell pioneered formal scenario planning rather than relying on linear forecasting. This foresight allowed the company to survive the 1973 OPEC oil crisis largely unscathed and eventually become one of the largest energy companies globally. Scenario planning is a strategic management tool used to map out multiple plausible futures. Instead of predicting a single outcome, organizations identify critical uncertainties to prepare for "what-if" moments. This enables proactive risk management, robust decision-making, and long-term resilience. See this IBM article What is scenario planning? which discusses “the process of creating multiple scenarios for potential futures, based on a range of different uncertainties”. It comments that “With scenario planning, organizations can visualize different scenarios and reveal critical uncertainties long before a crisis occurs. This process can provide a competitive advantage by enabling enterprises to brainstorm and think through ahead of time what actions might need to be taken”. It proposes steps to create a scenario plan and discusses some different types including exploratory, operational and strategic.
 
I propose that this sort of approach can be applied just as readily and effectively to contract negotiation as to business or function strategy. AI suggests that “Scenario planning in a negotiation means mapping out multiple potential futures and preparing specific responses for each.” Harvard Law School discusses this approach in The Program on Negotiation suggesting that “Studying and examining negotiation scenarios allows us to sharpen strategic judgments, manage feelings before, during, and after a negotiation, and allow implicit ideas, assumptions, and theories to surface.” Staying in Boston this Harvard Business School paper How to Prepare for a Negotiation proposes that “Planning for expected and unexpected outcomes is essential to negotiating effectively. Negotiations are unpredictable. It's often difficult to know how the other party will respond. Preparation can make the difference between success and failure.”
 
My research suggests that it is very easy when considering this topic to stray into negotiation tactics, which is a laudable but, in some ways, narrower subject. Looking across the whole of a procurement with the negotiation and delivery teams at a strategic level before any negotiation shot is fired is a different and more profound activity. It also has the incidental benefit of creating not just a negotiating team with a common purpose and objectives, but a set of people who understand the project and can be reengaged if it starts to go off the rails. This happened with the example I cited above and meant we could reconvene as a team to reset and stabilise the project.
 
Nowadays I think technology such as AI can help with this process, but as yet anyway, is no substitute for getting people together in a room to discuss and develop a common purpose and approach.
 
As Benjamin Franklin said “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
 
While the American baseball player Yogi Berra shrewdly observed “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else.”
 
And the racing car driver Bobby Unser proposed “Success planning is where preparation and opportunity meet.”
 

​I confess to being a football fan and like millions of others around the globe am watching the world cup in North America with increasing enthusiasm. My family has accused me, quite rightly, of being a bit fanatical over sport such as football or tennis – getting really upset when my team or player performs badly or loses and overly ecstatic when they win. But why is this? What is the cause of this mildly irrational behaviour which I am sure I am not unique in experiencing. In my blog back in February Managing our Chimps in Negotiations I referred to The Chimp Paradox by Professor Steve Peters, a sports psychologist who proposes that our brains that can be characterised as the Human, the Chimp and the Computer. He suggests that “For supporters, the intense highs and lows of a match are driven directly by the inner Chimp. When a team loses or a referee makes a bad call, the Chimp often takes control, leading to frustration, anger, or irrational panic. By understanding the model, fans can learn to acknowledge these emotions, manage them, and rationally accept outcomes.” This certainly makes sense to me, and I suspect will also to many of my readers. However, why you may well ask is this relevant in our professional world?
 
I propose that these partisan principles and behaviour also occur in our working lives and can operate to our detriment and to that of our colleagues and clients. When by way of example we work for a law practice, other firms and their lawyers we encounter in deals or disputes may well come to be considered like the opposing team, the enemy, not to be trusted and to be beaten at all costs. The overriding principle becomes that we are competitors on the transaction concerned and more generally for attracting new clients and work. In fact, our common professional principles and practice are very much what bind us together and should enable us to rise above this more petty partisan behaviour. This does not mean failing to serve our clients in the best way we can. Quite the contrary. In tough situations in IT contract negotiations (or even litigation) when both sides seem to be irretrievably locked in conflict, I have found that taking my professional counterpart aside in another room or to a nearby coffee bar can result in a much more constructive and ultimately rewarding conversation. Problems and related behaviour that seemed intractable become capable of solution when looked at calmly and more rationally. These side bars can also encourage creative and innovative ways forward that were masked by the emotional atmosphere in the real or virtual room. They do work best as a one-to-one professional conversation with no “showboating” in front of clients or even sometimes colleagues.
 
AI proposes that “Professionalism in negotiations shifts the focus from a stressful battle of wills into a collaborative, value-creating process. It establishes a foundation of trust, prevents costly emotional impasses, protects long-term partnerships, and enhances your overall credibility at the bargaining table.” See this Harvard Law School blog Relationships in Negotiation: The Advantages of Rapport Building whose theme is that “Strong working relationships in negotiation help establish the trust needed to share information and craft mutually beneficial deals”. We can do this “By establishing a strong sense of personal rapport”. This prevents the tendency in my context here to “let your chimp loose on the pitch” and “to become irritated or upset by each other’s statements and behavior. Negotiators who have established rapport are less likely to resort to threats and ultimatums than those who have not.” A common profession encourages its practitioners to stand above petty behaviour and seek a mutually beneficial outcome.
 
In my field of technology law, I have always encouraged colleagues whether in private practice or in-house to participate in professional organisations such as the Society for Computers & Law in the UK or ITechLaw more globally. These provide opportunities in a “safe” environment outside of the cut and thrust of contract negotiations or litigation to meet professional colleagues in other firms or companies and to learn from and with them. Collectively it may then also be possible to improve say the contracting process for complex technology outsourcing agreements, which is always fraught with challenges. Such contact outside your practice enables informed debate and discussion on new and important topics such as the impact of AI on professionals. Younger professionals can then also learn from peers outside their own organisation. If you should subsequently encounter such “external” colleagues in say an outsourcing contract negotiation this existing common ground helps to establish an effective working relationship which ultimately serves clients better.
 
Absent such ability to rise above the cut and thrust of the negotiations (or the football game) and see things in perspective matters often seem to escalate until like opposing sports fans in a stadium there is no possible middle ground. It’s so easy to react in kind to emotional behaviour such as getting angry or upset making any meeting of minds or finding common ground virtually impossible. 
 
I like this Cranfield School of Management article Negotiation Strategy Series: 2 Building trust and managing emotions which explores strategies which “can transform potentially contentious exchanges into productive partnerships”. It proposes strategies for managing emotions such as:
 

• Label emotions. Acknowledging emotions – both yours and your counterpart's – creates space for more rational discussion.  

 

• Avoid overreaction. Strategic negotiators sometimes deliberately provoke emotional responses to gain concessions.

 

• Assess angry displays. Not all displays of emotion are genuine. Learning to distinguish between calculated anger and genuine frustration helps you respond appropriately.

 
And then sets out strategies for building trust including:
 

• Establish process transparency. Beginning negotiations with clarity about process creates psychological safety and sets expectations for all parties.

 

• Reciprocal information sharing. Opening up about priorities and constraints encourages similar disclosures from your counterpart, creating fertile ground for value creation.

 
Ultimately it suggests “Effective negotiation balances tactical skill with emotional intelligence and trust-building”.
 
Stephen Covey the educator and author once remarked “When the trust is high, communication is easy, instant and effective”.
 
While the business coach Peter Kozodoy proposed "Being open, honest and vulnerable about who you really are will inspire a lot of people".
 
And going back in time, the Greek tragedian Euripides sagely observed “Who cannot open an honest mind No friend will he be of mine.”
 

​“Serendipitous” describes an event or discovery that happens by chance but results in a beneficial outcome. I had a minor, and I mean really minor, problem in the context of daily challenges, over the last couple of weeks. I was using a small plastic bottle of Evian water which fitted into a pocket in the door of my car. It ran out in the recent heatwave. I tried for several days to buy a single replacement but could only find packs of six which I was too mean to buy. This was becoming annoying. Then I started thinking laterally and realised I was looking at the problem completely the wrong way. What I needed was a reusable stainless steel insulated water bottle, available on Amazon - and in a colour almost matching my car. These things matter! It arrived in a day and fits neatly in the pocket which was clearly designed for this very purpose. I have permanently resolved my problem and am also helping the environment by using a sustainable solution. Indeed, there have been a surprising number of important inventions throughout history which happened more by chance than careful development. See this article Serendipitous Inventions which cites as examples Velcro, matches, Coca-Cola, the microwave oven and Post-it Notes. Another such beneficial event is Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of penicillin.
 
My point is that in our professional lives we should always be on the lookout for these incidental improvements in our work and its associated processes which may not be immediately obvious. We can I suggest be consciously more receptive to such events. See this article from Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge Innovation at work: the power of serendipity which observes “rather than being merely an event that happens to an individual or organisation, serendipity requires ‘sagacity’ – it builds on the notion that positive discoveries are facilitated by controllable elements such as an open mind.” The authors propose that “Organisations can encourage behaviour leading to serendipity” avoiding the “functional fixedness” that may result from the “The process of professionalisation”. Their research found “serendipity triggers” such as
 

• curiosity
• alertness 
• positive emotions 
• humility (lack of dogmatism) 
• improvisation

 
They cite the example of the animation studio Pixar whose main buildings “were designed to maximise inadvertent encounters” with “a single big space with a big atrium [which] led to people bumping into each other”. As we all spend so much time working from home such opportunities for chance encounters and incidental creativity are more challenging. However why not finish say a Teams meeting 5 minutes early and open the floor to a quick and open discussion on any lessons learned?
 
Crossing the Atlantic the Harvard Business Review has some quick tips see Unlock Innovation Through Serendipity including:
 

• Encourage openness to surprises

 

• Foster cross-disciplinary interactions

 
The last rings particularly true to me as when as a lawyer who has crossed the boundary from private practice to the in-house world. In a law firm you are mainly working on a day-to-day basis with other lawyers. In industry I was exposed every day to so many more cross team interactions with colleagues in different disciplines from commercial and procurement, technical architects, and salespeople through to senior management. Once I stopped thinking (rather arrogantly) that as a legal adviser I had to be the only source of the truth, these interactions often made me reconsider my approach and practice as a professional. For example, I once watched a senior manager step into a convoluted project crisis he knew little about at a pre meet in a café at Swindon railway station. Not ideal for the complex negotiation to follow.  However, he simplified everything by asking us to create a timeline of events which ultimately not only gave him an effective understanding, but enabled us to unravel the intertwined issues and ultimately resolve them.
 
This is even more true in our world of continuing technology advance which I have witnessed as an IT lawyer over many years. AI observes (if that is the right word) “In the AI age, serendipity—the accidental discovery of valuable ideas while pursuing something else—is your most valuable human differentiator. While algorithms prioritize hyper-personalization and efficiency, true professional innovation requires cultivating a "prepared mind" that connects unrelated dots across your industry.”  But there are inherent dangers. See this article In Support of Serendipity from the INSEAD Business School which observes that “AI-driven recommendation algorithms… may ultimately constrain our self-determination.” Therefore, we should introduce serendipity “developing AI systems that are more flexible and less tied to past preferences”. It summarises a more detailed academic paper from the University of Chicago How Artificial Intelligence Constrains the Human Experience. This suggests that whilst “powering breakthroughs” “AI systems can also have the opposite effect: reducing and constraining the range of experiences that are available to consumers”. It observes that “One of the joys of life is serendipity, making fortunate discoveries by accident. …. However, recommendation algorithms often limit our experience of serendipity”.
 
I think to take advantage of serendipity in our working, and private lives we need not only to adopt an open and receptive mindset, but also to have a sense of humour even of the seemingly absurd. AI suggests “Humour and serendipity are two sides of the same psychological coin: both require a playful mindset that embraces the unexpected and recognizes the hidden connections in everyday life.” Why, well because they sort of go hand in hand:
 
Cognitive Flexibility: Both humour and serendipity thrive on your ability to hold two conflicting or distinct ideas at once and suddenly see how they connect.
 
The "Precipice of a Smile": Walking through life with a state of receptiveness—expecting to be delighted rather than disappointed—puts you in a position to notice accidental comedy and fortunate coincidences.
 
Building Trust: Laughing with someone over an unexpected coincidence releases oxytocin, forging rapid emotional bonds.
 
More generally on the concept of serendipity Loius Pasteur observed that “In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind.
 
While Isaac Asimov suggested “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’, but ‘That’s funny …’”.
 
Ultimately “Most discoveries even today are a combination of serendipity and of searching.” The Indian physician and biologist Siddhartha Mukherjee.
 

​I travelled by plane to France last week to set up our apartment for the season. I again upgraded to business class to benefit from the advantages I explained in my blog Reducing Hassle at Work. These include fast track check in at Heathrow which if you have bags avoids an hour’s queue. However, this time I was the beneficiary of a cacophony of unsolicited and largely unhelpful online noise related to my travel generated no doubt by some AI engine. 

​




​Here are some examples.

• The business class check in was closed for refurbishment 
• The flight departed from the satellite gates at Terminal 5 which adds 20 minutes to the transit time. 
• My travel to the airport would be affected by the closure of the London Piccadilly tube line. Not particularly relevant as I was travelling by taxi from Surrey! 
• Constant updates on the day of flying from something called Microsoft Live Activities about my and other flights I had no interest in at all.
• The new biometric immigration system for non-EU citizens would mean 3-hour queues at immigration in Nice, and leaving would take so long I might miss my flight.
• European airlines would run out of aviation fuel in a matter of days because of the crisis in the Straits of Hormuz.  

 
AI and the current way news is pushed at us and exaggerated in this way is both helpful and annoying. Like the weather warnings of storms in Surrey or wherever you live which pop up on your phone but rarely materialise in any severe form. As a result of the predicted hassle at Heathrow, I moved my taxi earlier. I need not have bothered. The work on the check in was Monday to Thursday only - which to be fair the notification did say in the small print – but it did not draw this to my attention even though it seemed “to know” I was travelling on a Sunday. The flight also did not depart from the satellite terminal - in fact this particular flight rarely does. I reserved and paid for a seat at the front of the plane and at Nice Airport was third off and almost ran to passport control - where there was no queue whatsoever! Once I presented my passport the right way round it was quicker than the old system. Leaving was also reasonably fast. The planes there and back also seemed to have enough fuel as they made the journey both ways. 
 
AI and its associated information and newsfeeds can easily result in this sort of overload. It reminds me a bit of an over eager junior professional rushing to please a client or speed up a transaction. The result is often too much information including incomplete or irrelevant work. Decisions then get taken precipitously which are later regretted or are at the very least counterproductive. I have been using AI like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot and its underlying search engine Bing for some time and just started trying Claude. I find these very useful in my personal and professional life, but they need careful direction and management rather like the younger professional learning the ropes - if he or she can find a job which has not been replaced by an AI engine in order to do this!  
 
So how can we as professionals filter all this (sometimes helpful and at times annoying or downright wrong) electronic data and information which is constantly being pushed at us? It is after all as demanding and complex in our working as in our personal lives if not more so. I certainly find this running my consultancy practice and letting out our French property. It seems to me we need an electronic amanuensis (I have long wanted to use this word!) performing the tasks that secretaries and PA’s used to do managing our calendar and daily contacts and organising our busy daily lives. It used to be as important to know and get on with your boss’s secretary as the man or woman themself!
 
I know that there are lots of discrete ways we can use AI to help us in our work such as:
 
1. Intelligent scheduling and time-blocking
 
2. Streamlined communication and meeting management
 
3. Automated project and task management
 
4. Research and document synthesizing
 
5. Task automation.
 
However, I propose we need to go beyond this and use a thief to catch a thief as it were and have our own personal dedicated AI assistant we can talk to which filters all the unwanted noise and provides only the information and assistance we want and need that is relevant to our particular professional lives. To some extent this capability exists and is reasonably helpful. I tried asking ChatGPT: “I need to go for Nice on a business trip with the least hassle possible travelling out on a Sunday morning and returning on a Saturday a week later. Please provide me with the options and when I agree organise everything for me”. It did come up with a sensible range of proposals for travel and car hire, though it was a bit on the expensive side. What it could not yet do is book anything for me. It also would need to know more about my personal circumstances to be truly helpful. And it would not block out the unwanted AI chatter.
 
This 2024 article A complete guide on AI-powered personal assistants with examples explains the key features such as Natural Language Understanding observing that “Bill Gates has commented that soon, everyone will have their very own personal assistant through Artificial Intelligence (AI). He believes that as Information Technology develops and improves, we’ll move away from having separate apps for specific functions, and we’ll be able to vocalise to our devices what to do.” It identifies leading AI powered personal assistants and explores use cases and concludes that “the acceleration of AI personal assistants, including AI assistant devices, is reshaping our professional and personal lives, offering transformative benefits”. 
 
Coming more up to date see this useful April 2026 article AI Personal Assistant: We Tested The 10 Best Apps (Free & Paid). Although written by one of the providers Saner it is reasonably informative and objective. It proposes that there are “Two Types of AI Personal Assistants 

• Work-focused assistants are built to integrate directly with your tools - like calendars, emails, notes, and docs. They offer a workspace where you can actually get things done, not just talk about them.

 

• Chat-focused assistants, like ChatGPT or Gemini, are mostly built around a chat interface. You have to manually upload files or paste notes to give them context, which makes them less seamless for everyday workflows.”

 
It then carries out a comprehensive review proposing that “The best AI Personal Assistants are: Saner.AI, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, OpenClaw, Pi, Motion, Akiflow, and Reclaim.” and concludes:

• Need help organising thoughts, remembering tasks, and planning your day? Try Saner.AI - it’s made for people juggling messy info from everywhere.
• Need help writing, thinking, or summarising? ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini are powerful conversational partners.
• Just want a low-pressure space to think out loud or talk it through? Pi gives you that calming space.

 
It still however seems to me we have quite a long way to go to replace that efficient, friendly and effective PA – who if you asked nicely might even get you a coffee!
 
In this context generally I like this Forbes article 12 Quotes About AI—And How It Makes Us Better which include:
 
“AI won’t replace humans, but humans who use AI will replace those who don’t”—Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI.
 
“AI is about amplifying human potential, not replacing it”— Fe-Fei Li, professor, Stanford University.
 
“AI is not a robotic apocalypse; it’s a tool for a better future”— Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of DeepMind.
 
As a parting thought there were very good reasons why The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, created so presciently by Douglas Adams many years ago and containing a plethora of information about travelling around the entirety of the known universe, had the words “DON’T PANIC” inscribed “in large friendly letters on its cover”.

Last weekend I played, and lost, a tennis match. It was only a club handicap tournament so hardly Wimbledon and the other pair were better, so we deserved to be defeated. Nevertheless, losing any game in sport still rankles a bit. However, it made me think of the parallels with professional life. For example, a significant part of my work as a lawyer is acting for clients in-house or in private practice during the process of bidding as a potential supplier for an IT outsourcing service contract. These can be very intense periods in our work preparing for the process, submitting several offers, participating in extensive negotiations, refining the draft contract and creating and delivering a final tender. This can go on for 6 to 18 months and during this time subsume a large part of our working lives. We typically become, or certainly should, as lawyers and commercial or procurement advisers, critical members of the bid team often working long hours in client offices or at customer premises. Close working relationships are established with others at your client and indeed the customer. Statistically however, whoever our client may be and no matter how experienced and competent the team no business can win all of the bids it competes for. So, when you get that dreaded letter saying you have not been down selected for whatever reason it is to say the least an anti-climax and a failure and all the hard work appears at first sight to be wasted.
 
However, I suggest this is the wrong way to look at it. In sport at any level if you lose you try to work out why and strive to play better next time. In business valuable lessons can be learned from a failed bid to enhance the chances of future success. Instead of despair we should rather find ways to learn from losing. Key relationships in your organisation created during the process can be fostered and improved for next time. Analysis of the process including seeking honest and open feedback from the would-be customer improve the chances of success on the next bid. For example, sometimes you lose because your bid price is too high, sometimes because your technical solution is not considered viable, but also perhaps because the customer decides not to take any risk and stay with an incumbent supplier. Each can be considered in the context of continuous improvement.
 
AI suggests that “Key lessons include securing detailed, honest feedback, analysing competitor pricing and strategy, and ensuring the submission focused on solving the client's problems rather than just listing company features.” This last is really important. I have seen clients convinced their “standard” solution was what a customer wanted, when in reality it was far from meeting expectations. See this short but to the point blog  Win-Loss Analysis: How to Learn from Every Tender Outcome which observes “Understanding the outcome of a tender—whether a win or a loss—can be one of the most powerful tools in your bidding strategy. Yet, many organisations move on too quickly, failing to extract the valuable insights that come with a structured post-bid analysis.” It proposes a post bid audit including an internal debrief and seeking client feedback.
 
While this more detailed Harvard Business Review article How to Learn from a Failed Negotiation suggests we should avoid protecting egos and reputations, blaming others, (does that resonate!) and instead “step back, take ownership, and invest time and energy in understanding what went wrong so they can do better in the future.” It cites a book on the topic Getting Back to the Table and proposes you should first understand the reasons for failure which could include:
 

• Failure by design – expecting to fail.

 

• Not reaching agreement when it was possible.

 
It then proposes Five Steps to Improvement such as:
 

• conduct a deep dive and analyse what happened and why

 

• pinpoint and fix your weaknesses that contributed to the failure

 

• come back to the table with confidence.

 
See also this Forbes article How To Reflect, Learn And Win After Losing A Contract which sagely observes that “Losing contracts is part of doing business. And, unfortunately, most organizations lose more contracts than they win.” It proposes three steps to improve performance and answer the question “Where did we go wrong?”
 
1 Politely request a debrief from the client to see what you could have done differently, or better, to win the contract.
 
2. Rereview your proposal through the eyes of the client.
 
3. Schedule a postmortem meeting with your team. 
 
I think we often forget that it is very much in our would-be customer’s interest to provide effective and meaningful feedback as this enhances the chance of improving competition in the market for future bids. I would recommend perhaps using somebody in your business not involved with the bid as this removes any lingering emotions and enhances the opportunity for full and frank feedback. 
 
I would also add that winning is not necessarily a recipe for success. I recall some successful bids where our clients won but then really struggled to deliver, especially in IT projects intended to transform existing services. Believe me there is more pressure on a team that fails to deliver what transpires to be an onerous contract than one which loses a bid. There are lessons to be learned here like listening to doubts about the viability of the solution expressed during the final contract governance process, but ignored in the excitement of the bid process and the momentum built up in favour of submitting without any qualifications.
 
As we rightly applaud winning, we should also celebrate the successful conclusion of a bid process, even if not down selected. It is obviously not the desired outcome, but the experience and lessons learned are valuable and should be recognised and applauded. When I managed my son’s youth football team some years ago, we went a whole season without winning BUT the team learnt, got fitter and better – and next season we started winning. It is as the saying goes as much about the journey as reaching your destination.
 
Nick Saban, the US college football coach said, “Never waste a failure.”
 
While Bill Gates observed “Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.”
 
And returning to tennis and a great quote from Venus Williams, one of the most successful tennis players of all time. “Losses have propelled me to even bigger places, so I understand the importance of losing. You can never get complacent because a loss is always around the corner. It’s in any game that you’re in – a business game or whatever – you can’t get complacent.”

With huge apologies to ailurophobes - I had not heard of this word either, but it means people who do not like cats - I want to draw another analogy this week with our kitten’s behaviour. When he prepares for some death defying climb up a tree, he sort of crouches down and wriggles before launching himself at the trunk. I assume he is assessing the challenge, which bearing in mind the potential consequences, is a very good thing. In our professional world taking the time to look before we leap and considering the consequences of a decision or action before making it is a critical and often sometimes underrated skill. The expression derives from Aesop’s Fables where the fox tells the goat to "look before you leap" after the goat jumps into a well without assessing the situation. This can in our professional world be in the context of an interchange with a colleague, manager or subordinate, providing advice to clients or participating in a transaction such as a contract negotiation. And the opportunity to act precipitously is greatly enhanced by the many means of communication at our disposal. Even in a face to face encounter it can be easy to underestimate the consequences of an offhand comment, especially to a subordinate. However, the online world with its different channels of communication (many of which encourage rapid responses) and the plethora of data available on any subject pressurises us to make precipitous decisions without taking the time to properly consider the consequences.
 
AI suggests that “Making decisions too quickly as a professional—often termed "shooting from the hip" or "premature closure"— can lead to costly mistakes, with research showing that 92% of regretted decisions are made in under 24 hours.” The dangers are:
 

• Financial risk

 

• Excluding more innovative decisions

 

• Strategic failure

 

• Ignoring key facts.

 
See this Forbes article How To Make Decisions Quickly which proposes that the key to making good decisions whether as an individual or an organisation “involves avoiding many subtle dangerous judgment errors.” These can be caused by cognitive biases or mental blind spots which can be avoided or at least mitigated by asking some key questions including:
 

• What important information did I not yet fully consider? A common danger involves looking only for evidence that supports your preferred option, so make sure to look twice as hard for evidence that goes against your preferred option.

 

• What would a trusted and objective adviser suggest I do? Have mentors, coaches, consultants, and other experts to whom you can turn to help you make a good decision.

 

• How have I addressed all the ways it could fail? This question transitions from the stage of deciding which option to choose into implementing this choice to achieve your goals.

 
Rather like our cat’s physical preparation for a jump the skill here is I suggest focussing on how to make business decisions effectively and in a timely manner – especially when as a professional and a manager you are asked to make hundreds of decisions every day. See this Harvard Business School article How to Enhance Your Decision-Making Skills as a Leader which observes that “According to a 2023 Oracle study, 85 percent of business leaders report suffering from “decision distress”—regretting, feeling guilty about, or questioning a decision they made in the past year.” Common pitfalls include:
 

• Defaulting to consensus
• Not offering alternatives to your proposed solution
• Mistaking opinions for facts
• Losing sight of purpose
• Truncating debate

 
Solutions include:
 
Involve Your Team – don’t think you must make every decision yourself
 
Leverage Data – consider data beyond financial statistics such as key performance indicators
 
Learn from other Leaders – I was always impressed by a chief executive of one company I acted for who despite his evident seniority spoke openly about the benefits of his relationship with a mentor. 
 
For me the key is to categorise decisions and sift out those which are business or transaction critical from run of the mill day to day choices. I hope that if our cat is contemplating climbing a fifty-foot fir tree he is more cautious than a ten-foot sapling – although I am not so sure he is! With the crucial decisions find more time - the adage of sleep on it is a perfect example here. Winston Churchill was reputed to dictate angry letters, then wait for the following day when he often revised or did not send them. Good decisions are a balance of speed and quality. Here are some pertinent AI proposals on this process.
 
Categorize Decision Stakes: For low-risk, reversible decisions, move fast (95% of business choices). For high-risk, irreversible decisions, move slow.
 
Apply the "72-Hour Rule": Research indicates that major decisions (especially emotional ones) benefit from a 48–72 hour waiting period, increasing quality by 43%.
 
Use the 10-10-10 Rule: Evaluate the decision based on its impact in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years.
 
Ask "Wait" Questions: Before committing, ask: Is this reversible? Would waiting change my mind?
 
Create "Speed Bumps": Establish mandatory checklists or gather input from others to combat cognitive biases. 
 
The military mantra "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" attributed to the U.S. Navy SEALs, is highly applicable here. Deliberate, controlled actions (slow) prevent errors (smooth), ultimately leading to faster, more efficient completion of tasks while rushing causes mistakes, which slows down overall progress.
 
As Marshall Wyatt Earp advised: “Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry.”
 
While Sophocles proposed “Quick decisions are unsafe decisions.”
 
And for an apt concluding comment from the novelist Samuel Butler: "Look before you leap, for as you sow, so are you likely to reap."
​

​I have been training our 6-month-old Siberian kitten. I had no idea you could train a cat, but it is amazing what you can do with patience – and treats! For example, he lives indoors but has learnt to wear a harness so he can go outside in the garden on an extending lead. He loves climbing trees, a characteristic of his breed, but coming down can be rather haphazard and sometimes involve a bit of a leap of faith. Hence the photo which my son created with some help from ChatGPT, which I must say is excellent at “creatively” editing photos. This week I used this image in a presentation I was privileged to make in London to the LILAC lawyers which is a supportive community designed for in-house legal advisers working in the life sciences sector. It was created by the law firm VWV and various in-house lawyers and encourages a community with common interests. I can really relate to this with my long time involvement with the SCLwhich “works to promote ideals of best practice, thought leadership, and the fostering of a global tech law community”. My topic was the relationship between in-house counsel and private practice lawyers and how this can be improved. It consisted of a talk followed by leading an interactive discussion. The session went well and I received positive feedback. 
 
However, on the train home I kept thinking how I had missed a couple of cues for questions I asked around various slides. I had notes in PowerPoint but was moving around the room and could not see these. Anway they were in very small print which I discovered PowerPoint won’t let you enlarge. Then I realised I was falling into a typical trap common to professionals. Instead of dwelling on the negatives, I should have been thinking more about, and learned from, why the session went so well. Then I came up with the following positive lessons I can take forward to future sessions, which may also help other presenters.
 
1 Practice. Rehearsed and improved presentation (even though my only audience was the cat!)
 
2 Subject Matter. Ideas already formed and set out in an article - International In-House Counsel Magazine Herding Cats – Engaging External Counsel.
 
3 Research. Read up on LILAC and VWV and researched attendee profiles. 
 
4 Plan for the Day. Organisers clearly conveyed needs for a structured interactive session which I followed.
 
5 Early Bird. Arrived early and made last minute changes in Starbucks to make the start (which is when you engage or lose your audience) more impactful.
 
6 Technology. Set up laptop with IT function before the session – backup slides sent by email.
 
I am not by the way writing this to extol my virtues or otherwise as a presenter, but rather to make the point about the benefits as professional practitioners of learning from the positives as opposed to dwelling on the negatives. AI suggests “Learning from positives rather than negatives involves consciously shifting focus toward strengths, successes, and desired outcomes, rather than dwelling on mistakes or failures. This approach, often rooted in Positive Psychology, leverages the brain's ability to rewire itself through deliberate focus.”  See this blog about Positive v Negative Thinking which discusses how  being positive affects how our brain works – “when we think positively, we feel good about situations, life and ourselves, this in turn allows our bodies to release hormones like dopamine, serotonin and endorphins.”
 
I also like this blog Why a Positive Attitude Is Your Secret Weapon at Work which comments “Research shows that people with a positive mental outlook enjoy better physical health, improved mental wellbeing, and tend to live longer . The University of Pennsylvania tracked 350,000 people over 22 years and found that top performers kept their focus on goals and ways to achieve them.” It makes the good point that if you are positive then challenges are seen as opportunities and also “creates a ripple effect that changes entire organizations”. A number of “micro-actions” to achieve this are set out including:
 

• Avoid gossip and workplace negativity. Gossip creates toxic environments, reduces employee engagement, and breeds conflict.

 

• Set small, achievable goals. Large projects become manageable when broken into smaller chunks that give you regular wins.

 

• Celebrate others' wins. Team collaboration and creativity thrive when you recognize your colleagues' achievements

 
This all seems to be rooted in the concept of “positive psychology`’ which once again AI suggests is “the scientific study and application of strengths, positive emotions, and resilience to help employees flourish.” See this article from the Harvard Medical School which observes  “The history of positive psychology reveals that though ancient philosophers promoted different pathways to happiness, they believed it begins with knowing your true self, and acting in accordance with your virtues.” and “A more modern definition of positive psychology disavows the fleeting pleasures of materialism and "winning," to focus on the act of cultivating satisfaction and contentment.” 
 
I think this challenge is particularly relevant to my own profession as a lawyer where we are sometimes known as professional paid pessimists! We have to be seen to be in control and very serious minded to do our jobs. When reviewing and negotiating say an IT outsourcing contract we focus on looking for risks and what can go wrong, instead of how we can formulate an agreement to foster and encourage a successful delivery of the required service. I firmly believe that lawyers and other professionals can make this more advanced contribution and not just cross the i’s and dot the t’s. We should be positive and “learn to fly” not staying down in the weeds. 
 
And more generally outside of the workplace here is a fascinating YouTube video on an 85-year Harvard Study of Adult Development which found that positive relationships are the most important factor in maintaining long-term physical and mental health, often surpassing IQ, wealth, or social class in predicting life satisfaction. 

 
Abraham Lincoln advised “Let no feeling of discouragement prey upon you, and in the end you are sure to succeed.”
 
While Theodore Roosevelt said “Believe you can and you’re halfway there.”
 

And Barack Obama put it very simply: “Yes We Can”.

One of my sons sometimes leaves his car on our driveway when he is on holiday. I park it out of the way in a side passage under a strawberry tree - yes there are such things. As a result, it gets covered in leaves and twigs - and worse still bird mess which I attempt to clean off. Finally realising this was a zero-sum game I invested in a £27 car cover to protect the vehicle which was delivered by Amazon on Monday. Without really thinking about it in this way, I had transformed my car caring experience into one of prevention rather than cure. By complete coincidence I attended a fascinating Harvard Business Review talk this week presented by the American management adviser and author Joe Pine on The Transformation Economy: Guiding Customers to Achieve Their Aspirations. This builds on and develops his previous book The Experience Economy in which he advocated that “businesses must form unique connections in order to secure their customers' affections--and ensure their own economic vitality”. He now proposes that “A fundamental economic shift is emerging. Goods, services--even memorable experiences--are no longer enough to attract and keep your customers. Customers are clamoring to change, eager to reach their aspirations and to become better versions of themselves.” He argues that “To truly compete in today's marketplace, enterprises must create transformative experiences that guide customers to achieve their aspirations, whether that's improving well-being, increasing prosperity, developing knowledge, or finding purpose.”
 
As I listened, I realised that these economic or behavioural principles can apply not just, for example, to manufacturing business or the educational sector, but are capable of extending to the professional services we provide as lawyers, commercial advisers or even doctors. When clients or patients come to see us for professional advice the whole experience and the results impact them, not just the intrinsic quality of the advice or other service we provide. For visits to a law firm the experience from the receptionist to the meeting room suite is all a part of the impression we make and the impact on our clients. See this article from the law firm CMS Navigating Legal Excellence: Insights in Legal Operations & Project Managementwhich observes “…excellence in legal work is no longer enough. Clients demand a holistic experience that combines legal expertise with business acumen and efficient service delivery.” It suggests that “Modern legal service delivery encompasses the entire client experience, from initial engagement to matter resolution” and advocates a shift from “lawyer-centric services” to “client-centric services”. 
 
While this LexisNexis piece Client experience: the new battleground for law firms proposes that the client experience is “a critical differentiator” for the legal industry. It says that “This shift reflects a broader understanding that client satisfaction and efficient service delivery are more valuable than merely clocking hours. This evolution mirrors the changes in contract law, where the focus is increasingly on outcomes rather than processes.” 
 
And this trend is I know from my own experience happening with in-house legal functions as much as law firms. When internal “clients” think they can look up the relevant law using AI and businesses are increasingly seeking business and strategic advice from their lawyers, change is inevitable.  There is a lot of detailed and erudite information out there on this topic such as this A&O Shearman article Future of the in-house legal function: Why is now the time for transformational change? which commences with “The traditional operating model of the in-house legal function is coming under increasing scrutiny.” And rather pessimistically observes “Law firms and legal departments alike lack the expertise to enable them to analyse, at the necessary level of detail, the work they do and, within each work area, the tasks they perform, and to re-engineer their processes in the way necessary to become the legal function of the future.”
 
But I am far more optimistic. We just need to think more about and enhance our clients service experience – on a person-to-person basis. And make it transformational. This is not new. Dale Carnegie in his seminal book How to Win Friends and Influence People, first published in 1936, understood the importance in business of interpersonal relationships. His approach emphasised a genuine interest in others and active listening. He commented “You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.” His core idea is that it is possible to change other people's behaviour by changing one's behaviour towards them. In the context of a legal practice this would mean understanding a client’s real goals and not just their legal problem. I suggest we need to think more about what our clients want from us and what drives them. Then we can seek to provide a transformational service for them not just prioritise billable hours and profits. Great experiences will lead inevitably to more business.
 
And for me AI and other legal technology is not a threat to us providing transformational experiences to our clients, but rather an opportunity to do so more effectively. I like this apt quote I found in material from the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright aimed at recruitment for its graduate scheme. “As legal technology becomes more sophisticated, we are increasingly able to solve legal problems for our clients that we haven’t been able to in the past. We have moved away from manual processes to tech-enabled solutions that provide our clients with better project visibility and data-driven insights that inform their decision-making”.
 
Transformational services are more than just technical excellence and providing a good experience when clients visit our offices. As AI suggests: “Legal services can be a transformative experience for clients by shifting from a purely transactional, "document-processing" model to a client-centered, empathetic, and technologically empowered partnership. When legal services focus on accessibility, transparency, and holistic support, they move beyond solving a singular problem to empowering clients, reducing anxiety, and building trust.”  See this article The Digital Revolution in Uk Legal Practice: Comprehensive Transformation Strategies For 2025 which in the context of digital transformation comments.  
 
“Today’s legal clients demand transparency, accessibility, and real-time communication capabilities that traditional service models cannot provide. Consequently, successful firms redesign their service delivery models around digital-first client experiences.
 
Progressive firms implement comprehensive client portals that provide case updates, document sharing, billing transparency, and direct communication channels. These platforms create competitive advantages while improving operational efficiency through reduced administrative overhead.”
 
Furthermore, client experience transformation extends beyond technology implementation to encompass cultural change within legal practices. Staff training programmes must emphasise digital customer service skills alongside technical competencies.” 
 
As the American lawyer Brian Liu observed "The future of legal practice belongs to those who remember that behind every document is someone's dream, and that's worth protecting and nurturing with both technological efficiency and human care."
 
And we should take advantage of new technology like AI not fear it. As Socrates said "The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new."
 
 
For an apt concluding observation from Joe Pine. “The reason for existence is human flourishing. Businesses should help this.”
​​

A couple of years ago I posted a blog Executive Presence in Meetings. Today I want to discuss a related topic. I facilitated two intensive training sessions last year where I and some colleagues were taking on the potentially challenging task of teaching contract issues to project and delivery executives over a day. I was concerned about how to engage the audience effectively but also entertainingly because I am convinced we learn more from an event we enjoy. The converse is also true. The first and obvious step was to divide the room up into 4 different tables. Pretty basic but it encourages interaction. But then I took more of a risk and allocated the tables into the four Hogwarts houses from the Harry Potter books. I asked how many people had read the books - surprisingly a significant minority had not. Then I gave each table the chance to choose its house and gave them a small banner with their house insignia.
 
So what you may ask. Well without even approaching potentially dry and (to some) boring legal and contractual topics I had established a rapport with the audience and gained their attention. At least most shut their work laptops down!  I also had the room divided up into teams for the interactive exercises we had planned. Then I introduced my piece de resistance - a plastic but quite realistic brown Harry Potter wand I had purchased on Amazon for a few pounds. It flashes and makes a sound when I press a button. Every time the room seemed to be going off piste, I simply marched into the middle of the tables and waved the wand. The effect was, well magical; everybody shut up and paid attention to me. Looking back on it, I took a bit of a chance, but succeeded in creating a way to entertain and to be in control of the training session when I needed to be.
 
This ability to command a room is equally applicable in negotiations. I recall as a junior lawyer having great difficulty agreeing a contract provision with a more senior lawyer who had an Eastern European name I struggled to pronounce. My boss who was working on a much larger matter turned up to help. He marched in with another assistant in tow, sat down, pronounced the lawyers name completely wrong, ignored his attempts to speak and told him to stop messing about and agree a way forward. Then he stormed out saying he was too busy to spend any more time on this agreement as he had far more important matters to attend to. The crestfallen and rather shaken lawyer was much more conciliatory and soon agreed a reasonable compromise. I am not advocating being rude, but it was clear my boss at the time had far more ability to command the room, and it was effective. 
 
AI suggests “Commanding a room requires exuding calm confidence through purposeful, open body language, steady eye contact, and deliberate, slower speech.” Well maybe, but if you are not careful you will come across as an automaton – like those speakers who won’t ever leave the sanctity of the lectern, and indeed hang onto it as if it was a life raft.  This Yale University post Command the Room: Strategies for Engaging Presentations is more on point saying “Mastering the art of presentation isn’t just about delivering information; it’s about making an unforgettable impact”. In addition to sensible practical advice like knowing your audience it suggests having a Compelling Narrative – “Storytelling is not just a tool for entertainers; it’s a powerful weapon in the arsenal of effective communicators”. It advocates: 
 

• effective use of visuals and slides – High-quality images can evoke emotions and add context to your content, while graphs and charts can help illustrate data trends and comparisons. 

 

• embracing technology - Incorporate dynamic transitions, animations, and multimedia elements to add visual interest and keep your audience’s attention.

 
This advice is highly relevant to the challenging task of commanding online rooms when it is so much harder to interact with your audience and even tell if they are listening. There is a lot of rather banal advice about how to face the screen, adjusting your camera correctly, which matters but is not very innovative. I found some much more to the point and imaginative tips and advice in this article Virtual Presentation Tips: How To Command Attention Through A Screen which comments “Most virtual presentation advice focuses on technology — lighting, microphones, backgrounds. That’s like telling someone to buy a better suit before fixing their terrible content. The real problem is attention economics.” It says “Research from Stanford shows that video calls drain mental energy 15% faster than in-person meetings. Your audience is literally exhausted before you start.” This means you have to completely rebuild your approach. It then provides some sound advice including:
 

• The 10 Minute Rule. In person, you might hold attention for 20-30 minutes before needing an interaction. Virtually, that window shrinks to 10 minutes — maximum.

 

• Camera Presence. The 3 Things That Actually Matter - You don’t need to stare at the camera constantly (that’s actually creepy). Use camera eye contact strategically.

 

• The Screen Real Estate Problem. When you share your screen, your slides appear in a fraction of your audience’s display. They’re also viewing on everything from 27-inch monitors to phone screens.

 
It concludes the biggest mistake with virtual presentations is “Treating them like in-person presentations. The attention dynamics are completely different. You need shorter segments, more interaction, higher energy, and simpler visuals. Adapt your entire approach, don’t just turn on your webcam.”
 
Before anyone coined the expression “death by PowerPoint” for those awful over detailed slides which kill your presentation before you even open your mouth, there was another overused presentation aid – overhead projectors. Everyone came with their set of overhead slides in their briefcase and spoke religiously to them. In his excellent book about transforming IBM Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance  Louis Gerstner, Jr. tells how he challenged the company's reliance on, and abuse of, slide presentations (overhead transparencies or "foils") saying they were being used as a substitute for thought, clarity, and genuine communication. And yet – I once saw an inspirational talk by Edward de Bono, who originated the term lateral thinking, at the Institution of Electrical Engineers in London. My heart fell as he sat down next to an overhead projector and took out some acetates. But they were blank. He then proceeded to illustrate his talk very effectively by drawing cartoons and caricatures on the slides!
 
As the American scholar and author Maya Angelou once observed "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel".
​

​I have been reading a book recommended by my Tai Chi teacher called The Chimp Paradox by Professor Steve Peters who amongst other qualifications is a sports psychologist. His essential theme is that our minds have several different characteristics that operate at the same time and drive our behaviour. He refers to the “Psychological Mind” proposing that there are three parts of our brains that can be characterised as the Human, the Chimp and the Computer. The Chimp is a basic emotional part which represents instincts such as survival in the jungle. The Human is you, the rational and logical person. Your Computer is a storage area for information. “The Chimp is an emotional machine that will hijack you, if you allow it to. It is not good or bad: it is a Chimp. It can be your best friend or your worst enemy. This is The Chimp Paradox.” The Chimp aspect is why we sometimes react instinctively and not necessarily in a good way towards others, our colleagues and friends.  “By far, the biggest challenge for the individual Human is to live with an animal within that is determined to live by the laws of the jungle and to use extremely powerful drives and instincts to fulfil its own agenda.”
 
If you want to test this approach, try applying it the next time you are driving. Watch how you react when somebody cuts you up or pulls out in front of you at a junction making you break sharply. What I find is that before I consciously react my “chimp” does this for me. I am hooting the horn and waving 2 fingers at the culprit who has “invaded” my space without much conscious thought. None of this (except perhaps reacting by breaking) achieves anything except satisfying my chimp. I try now to anticipate how I will react and “manage” my chimp brain by pre-programming it to understand as a human that such situations are sadly fairly normal on our roads and it is not a personal affront. It does work but it is not easy.
 
This for me is something I wish I had known more about before in professional legal activities like negotiating contracts and more generally in the interactions of day-to-day professional life. It explains an awful lot about our behaviour patterns and the things which drive us, some of which we cannot necessarily control though we can understand and manage. I recall negotiations where the lawyers on the other side were unnecessarily obstructive or aggressive to the point where they damaged not just the relationship with our side, but also the interests of their own clients. The chances of a contract being agreed which led to the successful delivery of information technology services were not in any way enhanced by this behaviour which led inevitably to an antagonistic atmosphere which it was very easy to emulate. I thought at the time this was just how they were trained to behave, what their law firm or client expected, or sheer bloody mindedness. Now I suspect their “chimp” emotional side was out of the control of their rational “human” and simply behaving badly. Why – maybe they felt threatened or out of their depth and went into some kind of survival or attack mode.
 
The theme of the Chimp Paradox is understanding and managing these instinctive emotional reactions. You cannot ignore your Chimp as it is a very powerful aspect of your mental construct and responsible for basic survival instincts. But you can manage and control its input and turn this into a positive trait. As Professor Peters advises “Think of ways to appropriately deal with negative emotions rather than engaging with them.” Using his mental model “Ask the question “Do I want these feelings”.  Then exercise the chimp (if necessary) then box it in.” See this BBC interview with the professor How to manage your inner chimp which explains his model succinctly with some advice on how to manage your chimp including interestingly smiling to show the chimp who is boss – “There are some simple habits we can develop which actively help us to control our emotions and keep the chimp in check. One of these is smiling. We know that “our facial expressions are intricately linked to our mood state,” says Steve. If we’re happy we grin.”
 
AI suggests that “Hidden emotions in negotiations are unexpressed feelings—such as fear, anxiety, anger, pride, or a desire to be liked—that subconsciously influence decisions and behavior, often diverging from the logical, rational, "cold" negotiation stereotype.” Other sources develop this theme. See this short but to the point Harvard Law School blog Emotional Triggers: How Emotions Affect Your Negotiating Ability which observes that “What’s become increasingly clear, however, is that incidental emotions—feelings unrelated to the negotiation—can also significantly influence bargaining behavior and outcomes.” Its practical takeaway is “Emotional triggers don’t stay outside the conference room door. They follow us in—often unnoticed—and quietly shape our choices. By learning to recognize and label incidental emotions in ourselves and others, negotiators can reduce their disruptive effects and keep discussions focused on substance rather than mood.”
 
See also this article How to Stay Calm & Control Emotions in Negotiation which observes that “Negotiation is as much an emotional experience as it is a rational one. High stakes, pressure, and opposing interests can trigger stress and strong emotions that undermine clear decision-making. Learning how to stay emotionally composed during difficult negotiations allows professionals to maintain perspective, read subtle signals from others, and turn emotions into a strategic advantage rather than a liability.” Echoing the “chimp” theme it says “Negotiation can trigger powerful psychological responses because it touches on survival instincts, fairness, and status. Stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline prepare the body for fight or flight, which can make it harder to think clearly.”
 
Understanding this also enables us to use emotions as a tool in a negotiation – by knowing what is happening in the minds of the other side and not over-reacting, but rather finding ways to turn it to your advantage. At the very least this can avoid engaging in mutually destructive behaviour in response which can wreck the atmosphere and possibly the negotiation in its entirety.
 
As Buddha observed “The mind is everything. What you think you become.”
 
While the US sports agent Mark McCormack once said “Anger can be an effective negotiating tool, but only as a calculated act, never as a reaction.” 
 
Ultimately, we are much more in our professional lives than just instinctive creatures. “Chimps like to survive; humans like to have a purpose.”  A last word from Professor Steve Peters.