Imagine this: you walk into a supplier negotiation and the first demand is a 50% price cut. Most teams either laugh nervously or immediately defend their position…

Objections are not walls. They are windows.

Deadlocks are not the end of a negotiation. They are a signal. They tell you that all the easy moves are exhausted and the real issues are on the table.

Labelling works because it makes the unspoken explicit. Done well, it disarms tension and builds trust. Here’s how…

Two executives were bidding for the same regional contract. One framed their offer around cost savings. The other framed it around market expansion and risk reduction. Guess who won?

A subtle yet powerful technique, mirroring involves repeating key words or phrases from the other side. It prompts them to elaborate, often revealing more than intended. In fast-moving APAC negotiations, where silence is often underused, mirroring can create space for counterparts to disclose hidden priorities.

Anchoring is one of the most pervasive tactics in negotiation. The first number or term placed on the table often becomes the invisible benchmark against which all further discussion is measured. Even when the number is extreme, research shows it exerts a gravitational pull on the final outcome.

Many negotiators see “No” as failure. In fact, it is often the most valuable word in a negotiation. A “Yes” may be polite, reflexive, or even counterfeit, masking disinterest or disengagement. By contrast, a clear “No” reveals disagreement. It signals where priorities clash, and opens the door to uncovering the real issues.

In Asia Pacific, long-term trust is often more valuable than short-term wins. Yet many teams rely on pressure tactics that may secure a deal but damage relationships. The real art lies in persuasion, leveraging principles of reciprocity, authority, social proof, and scarcity in ways that influence without manipulation.

Most high-value negotiations involve multiple issues: price, delivery, compliance, sustainability, service levels. Yet many teams treat these as isolated points, negotiating them one by one. This approach misses opportunities for “logrolling”, trading low-priority concessions for high-priority gains.

Negotiation outcomes often falter not because of poor strategy, but because of hesitation. Mid-level managers tasked with negotiations frequently lack the confidence to push back against senior counterparts from larger multinationals.

Negotiators in global supply chains and client deals often encounter high-pressure tactics, anchoring with extreme positions, deliberate silence, or even threats. Without training, many teams default to defensive concessions, eroding both margins and confidence.

Deadlines drive action, but they also drive poor decisions. In Asia Pacific, many companies rush to close deals tied to fiscal year-end targets or procurement cycles.

One of the most common causes of failed negotiations is inadequate preparation. Too many teams step into high-stakes discussions without clearly defining their BATNA (best alternative), their ZOPA (zone of possible agreement), or their ODE (optimal, desirable, essential outcomes).

In Singapore and across Southeast Asia, negotiations are not only about the numbers, they are about relationships, trust, and cultural nuance. A global playbook that works in New York or Frankfurt can fall flat in Jakarta or Bangkok.

In Asia Pacific, negotiations too often revolve around price. Procurement leaders pride themselves on extracting discounts, but focusing narrowly on cost can erode overall value. Delivery timelines, warranties, service levels, and payment terms often carry equal, if not greater, weight.

Many teams are trained to chase agreement as quickly as possible, interpreting “Yes” as the ultimate sign of success. But in practice, not all “Yes” responses are equal. A quick “Yes” might be counterfeit, offered as an escape route, or confirmation, with no real commitment behind it.

Negotiation Series - The Illusion of “Win-Win”

Many executives encourage their teams to pursue “win-win” outcomes in every negotiation. While well-intentioned, this often leads to poorly defined wins and unnecessary concessions. In reality, what looks balanced on the surface can mask value leakage over time.