Mistrust in negotiation

How past experiences, small signals and quiet assumptions shape what happens at the table.

The deal was fine. The trust wasn’t.

I was in a negotiation not long ago where, on paper, everything looked perfectly reasonable. The offer made sense, the people involved were experienced, and the discussion itself was structured, polite and — at least on the surface — professional.

And yet something felt off.

The other side communicated in a very controlled way. Their answers were precise, but somehow too precise, almost as if they had been prepared in advance. Every question was answered, but not quite in a way that moved the conversation forward. Information came in small portions and always felt carefully managed.

At one point I caught myself thinking that something was being held back.

I had no proof of that at all, but the thought was there — and once it is there, it subtly changes how you listen, how you ask questions, and how you interpret what follows.

Source: Chat GPT

Mistrust rarely starts at the table

In many negotiations, mistrust does not suddenly appear halfway through the discussion. More often, it enters the room with the participants themselves.

Previous relationships play a significant role here. If a supplier has delivered late in the past, if a partner has not quite done what they said they would do, or if a project has drifted, those experiences tend to stay in the background, even when the current situation is entirely different.

Perceived performance has a similar effect. People remember that something did not work particularly well before, and this memory quietly shapes expectations in the present.

Reputation adds another layer. Remarks such as “you know what they’re like” or “no wonder he’s like that, he works for …” are often based on very little concrete information, yet they still influence how behaviour is interpreted.

Alongside this, there are the more informal shortcuts we all take. Phrases such as “like father, like son” or “just like his mother” may be said half-jokingly, but they still carry assumptions. On a broader level, cultural stereotypes work in much the same way. A comment like “the British are friendly to your face, and then something else happens when you turn your back” may sound familiar — and, speaking as one, I’m never entirely sure whether to defend that or quietly accept it — but it already frames how behaviour will be read.

None of these mechanisms are particularly sophisticated, yet they are more than enough to shape expectations before a single word has been exchanged.

We don’t need much

What is striking is how little it takes for mistrust to take hold.

I remember working with a large mail-order company and publisher where something simply did not click. Meetings were delayed, people kept you waiting, and there was a noticeable sense of performance in the way interactions were handled, as if the emphasis was on demonstrating how busy and important everything was.

Nothing dramatic happened, and there was no single incident that would clearly justify concern.

However, it created a certain distance, and with that distance came interpretation. It became difficult not to wonder whether the other side was taking the situation seriously, whether they were genuinely interested in working together, or whether they were simply managing their own position.

There was no clear evidence for any of this, but the impression was enough to influence how the conversations developed.

Source: Chat GPT

Not just “them”

It would be convenient to assume that mistrust is something created by the other side. In reality, most of us have given others reasons not to trust us at some point. We may have held something back, presented a situation in a slightly more favourable way, or avoided saying something directly. I certainly have.

In most cases, this does not happen with bad intent. It is often a response to pressure, a way of protecting a position, or an attempt to avoid unnecessary conflict.

From the outside, however, these nuances are rarely visible. What remains is the impression, and that impression can easily become a reason not to trust.

What mistrust does

Once mistrust is present, even at a relatively low level, the nature of the negotiation begins to change. The process becomes slower, as more questions are asked, answers are examined more carefully, and decisions take longer to reach. Flexibility tends to decrease, and proposals that would otherwise be considered reasonable are approached with greater caution.

At the same time, the focus of attention shifts. Instead of concentrating on the substance of the discussion, both sides begin to observe each other more closely, which further reinforces the dynamic.

Source: Chat GPT

Building — and rebuilding — trust

If mistrust develops gradually, trust usually has to be rebuilt in the same way: through consistent behaviour over time rather than through a single decisive action.

In practice, this often comes down to a number of very concrete habits:

• Do what you say you will do — exactly, and on time. Reliability is often the starting point. It sounds basic, but it is noticeable precisely because it is not always the norm.

• Be clear when you don’t know something. There is a temptation to always have an answer, but credibility often increases when you are willing to say, “I don’t know” or “I need to check that.” When UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was questioned in Parliament on 20 April 2026, he admitted in one instance that he did not have the relevant information available. That may not seem remarkable, but it signals that the answer given is genuine rather than constructed.

• Explain how you arrived at your position. When people can follow your reasoning, they are more likely to accept your conclusions, even if they do not fully agree with them.

• Address what is already visible. If there is caution or tension in the room, acknowledging it carefully can reduce it. Ignoring it rarely helps.

• Start with smaller agreements. Agreeing on definitions, process or next steps creates momentum without forcing commitment too early.

• Be consistent in how you communicate. If your tone and behaviour vary between emails, calls and meetings, it creates uncertainty. Consistency makes you more predictable — and therefore more trustworthy.

• Admit mistakes early. Addressing issues before they are discovered or escalated tends to strengthen credibility rather than weaken it.

• Avoid overpromising. It may keep things moving in the short term, but unmet expectations are one of the fastest ways to damage trust.

• Show that you understand the other side. You do not have to agree, but demonstrating that you understand their perspective can significantly change the tone of a conversation.

• Allow trust to develop over time. It grows through consistent, predictable behaviour, not through pressure or one-off gestures.

  
  

Taken together, these are not dramatic interventions. They are small, repeatable behaviours — and that is precisely why they work.