You do not have to like someone to negotiate well with them. But if you believe everything they say, you may be careless; if you believe nothing they say, you may never reach an agreement.
Trust in negotiation is often treated as a personality trait. Some people are described as naturally trustworthy, others as hard-nosed. In reality, trust is also something built—or damaged—through behaviour: clear explanations, consistency, reliable follow-through and a willingness to correct misunderstandings.
Consider the US-China trade discussions in London in June 2025. Officials announced a framework intended to put a fragile trade truce back on track, including issues involving export restrictions on rare earths and other goods. The announcement offered a basis for further progress, but reporting at the time also made clear that longstanding differences had not been resolved. A framework was a step, not proof that all future disputes had vanished.
That distinction is useful well beyond international politics. An agreement is not the same as trust, and a friendly meeting is not the same as a reliable relationship. Trust grows when promises are specific enough to test and when people do what they said they would do.
Imagine hiring a contractor who says, “Don’t worry, it’ll be finished soon.” The reassurance feels pleasant, but it gives you little to work with. A clear schedule, written scope, payment milestones and an agreed process for handling delays may feel less warm, yet they create a more dependable relationship. Structure can support trust rather than undermine it.
The same applies when you are the person being asked to trust. You can be respectful without abandoning checks. You can share information without revealing everything. You can look for a workable agreement while keeping a clear record of what was promised.
Here is the tension: excessive suspicion can become self-fulfilling. If you treat every question as a trap and every request as an attempt to exploit you, the other party may respond defensively. But optimism without verification can leave you exposed. The goal is neither blind faith nor permanent hostility. It is proportionate trust supported by evidence.
A useful test is to ask what would make the agreement credible to both sides. Is there a clear timetable? Can progress be checked? Are responsibilities understood? What happens if circumstances change? These questions need not sound accusatory. They can demonstrate that you want the agreement to work.
In *Marta Skarbek’s This is Negotiation*, trust and communication are part of the wider task of managing conflict and reaching workable outcomes. The lesson is not that everyone can be trusted. It is that trust should be built deliberately, not assumed or demanded.
Would you rather negotiate with someone who is warm and reassuring but vague, or someone who is less charming but precise and dependable? What would make you change your mind?
Read more about the book: https://www.amazon.com/Marta-Skarbeks-This-Negotiation-negotiator/dp/B0D7VXFV7S
#Negotiation, #Trust, #BusinessRelationships, #Communication, #Leadership, #Diplomacy, #Integrity, #ConflictResolution, #Professionalism, #MartaSkarbek
Want more like this?
Get an occasional email when there’s something new worth reading. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
By subscribing you agree to receive occasional emails about new releases. Unsubscribe anytime by replying to any email.
