Negotiation | Consultant & Professor with 30+ years of global experience | Negotiation by Design | Negotiation Institutional Capacity Building | #NegotiationByDesign | Dutiful Advocate to my Clients |

Need to strengthen your negotiation strategy and drive more profitable deals?

As a global negotiation consultant and professor, I help organizations build an Institutional Negotiation Capacity—transforming negotiation into a strategic advantage.

I’ve spent three decades honing my craft—originally sparked by a chance encounter in a negotiation workshop led by Roger Fisher. 

That serendipitous moment ignited my passion for negotiation, and since then I’ve guided executives, entrepreneurs, and leaders at world-renowned institutions like the Kellogg School of Management, McGill University, and Columbia University’s ICCCR.

At Negotiation by Design®, we go beyond surface-level tactics. We embed negotiation into your organizational DNA, cultivating a shared language, continuous learning, and long-term strategic advantage. 

Fluent in Spanish, English, and French, and backed by degrees from Columbia University, DePauw University, and an EMBA from Kellogg, I bring a nuanced global perspective to every client engagement.

My personal life—parenting Mateo and Anabel, exploring trails on my mountain bike, and cooking up a storm—has taught me that the best lessons often arise from unexpected moments. These experiences remind me that true negotiation mastery combines skill, humility, and a human touch.

Together, let’s transform how your organization negotiates—unlocking better deals, stronger relationships, and sustainable results.

Ready to unlock your team’s full potential? 

Click “Connect” or “Message” me now, and let’s explore how I can support you.

Or book a meeting at  https://calendly.com/negotiationbydesign

Pablo Restrepo

Most people think negotiation is arguing.

It isn’t a showdown. It’s a puzzle you solve together.

But solving that puzzle well requires a different mindset and a few key principles.

1. Interests (both sides):
Positions are what people say they want. Interests are why they want it.
Miss the “why,” and you’ll fight about the wrong thing.

2. Joint problem-solving:
Less “me vs you.” 
More “us vs the problem.”
Share enough to solve it. Verify enough to trust it.

3. The whole package:
If you only talk about price, you trap yourself.
Better deals come from trading across time, risk, scope, quality, guarantees, and payment. Then price.

4. Grow it, then split it:
First: find trades that make both sides better off.
Then: divide what’s left. Don’t start with a tug-of-war.

5. Clear process, unclear outcome:
You can control the steps (prep, questions, sequence).
You can’t control their answers.
A good process keeps you strong when things get messy.

6. Plan B = calm:
No Plan B? Every “no” feels like danger.
With a good Plan B, you can say yes or walk, without drama.

7. Skill, not personality:
Good negotiators aren’t “born.”
They practice with role-plays, get feedback, and improve. Like a sport.

If negotiation feels stressful, it’s usually because you’re doing the NOT side.

Save this and tell me: Which one do you see people mess up the most?

PS: Happy New Year!!!

Ever negotiated with someone who smiled while taking everything from you?

It's a brutal game. Some people don't bargain.
They harvest control and call it a “deal.”

After 30 years in high-stakes negotiations, I've learned one thing:
The key is to spot the pattern, understand the motive, and counter the tactics.

A helpful lens: the dark triad, not a diagnosis, just observable behaviors that often line up with these traits.

1️⃣ The ice-cold taker (psychopath)
How to spot them: 
They rush decisions, treat concessions as weakness, ignore relationship talk, zero curiosity about your constraints.

What drives them?
One-off value capture + control.

How to counter:
	• Put offers + commitments in writing (reduce pressure theater).
	• Make claims verifiable: “What evidence supports that?”
	• Use contingencies: “If X is true → Y. If not → Z.”

2️⃣ The puppet master (Machiavellian)
How to spot them: 
Heavy flattery, vague promises, shifting stories, side conversations, selective transparency.

What drives them?
Information asymmetry and narrative control.

How to counter:
	• Share info in slices (never vent, never overshare).
	• Send a 5-bullet recap after every call. “Here’s what we agreed / open items / next steps”.
	• Ask precision questions: “Who decides?” “By when?” “What would prove it?”
	
3️⃣ The peacock with a knife (narcissist)
How to spot them: 
Dominates airtime, needs the “win,” dismisses input, performs confidently, takes credit fast.

What drives them?
Status protection + ego wins.

How to counter:
	• Offer a face-saving path: “Here’s the headline you can sell internally.”
	• Set process rules: agenda, criteria, decision rights.
	• If needed: Change the table (bring the real decision-maker, change the sequence, or add alternatives).

One more thing: sometimes "cold" isn't pathology, it's pressure.
So diagnose before you label.

What’s your earliest “tell” that it’s about control, not value?

Most deals don't die on price.

They fail because something fundamental is broken:

Process, Psychology, Authority, or Uncertainty.

The real issues aren't about pushing harder at the end. They're built into the deal long before that moment.

When negotiations slow down, the instinct is to apply pressure.

But that usually backfires.

Pressure creates reluctant signatures, messy implementations, and quick re-trades.

I see this all the time in complex negotiations.

Deals rarely fall apart over value.

They fail because of poor design , no shared process, the wrong decision makers in the room, fights over forecasts instead of mechanisms, authority issues surfacing too late.

Closing isn't about closing; it's about designing.

It's about agreeing on how decisions will be made, using time as a structure, not a weapon.

It's about trading concessions, not giving them away.

And helping the other side say yes, without losing face internally.

If a deal can't be implemented on Monday morning, it's not ready to sign.

And if it's worse than your best alternative, walking away isn't just an option , it's a power move.

Always be designing, never just pressuring.

Because the real close begins long before the final signature.

11 Closing Moves

If you’re getting louder, you’re getting weaker. 

Volume is a power substitute. 
Calm is a power signal.

We’ve all seen it: the meeting heats up, someone raises their voice… and suddenly the real conversation dies.

Here’s the dirty secret: the louder you get, the less influence you have.

Research and practice across negotiation and leadership keep pointing to the same pattern:
	
• Listening isn’t passive. It’s a power move. 
The calmer you get, the more information you collect, and information is leverage.
	
• Emotions hijack deals. 
Once you trigger threat mode, people stop solving problems and start protecting their ego.

• Anger rarely scales. 
What intimidates subordinates usually fails with equals (or anyone who has options).

• Your voice is part of your argument. 
Tone and pace shape credibility as much as the words do.

• Listening multiplies influence. 
When people feel heard, they share more, soften faster, and resist less.

• Connection beats debate. 
If you build understanding before pushing your position, you reduce polarization and unlock movement.

• Negotiation is collaboration under tension, not theatrics. 
If you need volume to “win,” you’re negotiating your insecurity, not the deal.

Next time you feel your volume rising, try this instead:

Lower your voice. 
Ask one precise question. 
Mirror their last 6 words.

That’s how you take control without “winning” the room.

What’s your go-to move when the other person gets loud?

Most executives stop negotiating too early.

One simple shift changes the whole game.

The moment a deal feels workable, pressure takes over.
People rush to close.
The conversation collapses into price.

That is where value quietly dies.

Here are six practical negotiation moves senior leaders can use to prevent "satisficing" and capture more value.

1️⃣ Force the negotiation to become multi-issue
Value comes from differences in priorities. Single-issue negotiations eliminate that advantage.
Before exchanging concessions, explicitly list 6 to 10 variables you could adjust. Price is just one.
Then rank what matters most and least on your side and ask them to do the same.

2️⃣ Ask questions that reveal ranking, not positions
“What do you want?” gives you positions.
“What matters most and least?” gives you design inputs.
Ask which outcomes are essential, which are flexible, and what would feel like a win internally.

3️⃣ Trade, do not concede
A concession is unilateral. A trade is conditional.
Never move on a priority issue without movement on theirs.
Use clear if-then language to link issues and protect value.

4️⃣ Propose MESOs (Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers)
Present three different packages you would accept.
This reveals preferences quickly and prevents the other side from anchoring you into one narrow lane.

5️⃣ Separate value creation from value claiming
When these are mixed, people become defensive and stop sharing information.
First, brainstorm packages without commitment.
Only then, tighten numbers and select the best structure.

6️⃣ Run a “Why did they say yes?” debrief before signing
Ask what they gained that cost you little, and what you gave that cost you a lot.
Then do one final micro-round to surface missed variables or easy improvements.

The goal is not to find a deal that works.
It is to find the best available deal.

Where do you most often stop too early in negotiation?

6 Moves to stop leaving value on the table

Negotiation isn’t born. It’s built.

Most “natural negotiators” are rare… and unreliable.

The best ones look boring: they run a process.
That's what makes outcomes repeatable.

I teach teams a simple 5-skill system. It's how you control the game, not hope it works out.

Here's how it works:

• Set-up
Design the table before you talk about price.
Who influences the yes? 
Sequence conversations: influencers → signer.

• Create value
Add issues before you trade.
Price is one knob. 
Timing, scope, service levels, risk sharing, governance, those are five more.

• Claim value
Write your BATNA in one sentence. 
Set a clear target. 
Decide what you won’t concede.
Anchor after you’ve defined the zone.

• Persuasion
Frame in their language: “less risk”, “faster launch”, “cleaner rollout.”
Offer 2–3 packages you value equally.

• Defensive
Prepare for hardball without becoming hardball.
Verify claims. 
Pause on red flags. 
Step out if trust breaks.

There is a common mistake I see often: “win-win” without claiming.
To avoid it, create options → protect your share with targets + BATNA.

Ask yourself: which skill costs you most right now: set-up, create, claim, persuade, or defend?

Stop hoping it works out. Build your negotiation process. It's the only way to win consistently.

La “mitad y mitad” suena justa… pero destruye valor.

Antes de negociar posiciones, tómate 2 minutos para mapear intereses y haz estas 3 preguntas:

1-¿Para qué necesitas esto? (uso)

2-¿Qué pasaría si no lo tienes? (dolor / urgencia)

3-¿Qué parte te importa más y cuál te da igual? (trade-offs)

Muchas veces el “conflicto” no era por la naranja.

Era por no haber preguntado.

Differentiation Expert | Sales Keynote Speaker | Bestselling Author | Helping organizations achieve profitable growth through value-based selling | #BeDifferent

¿Cómo repartir una naranja entre dos personas? 

Esta es la respuesta que nos da Pablo Restrepo experto en negociación, con el ejemplo de dos hermanas…

Dos hermanas discuten por la última naranja. La solución “justa”: partirla por la mitad.

Pero ahí está el error. Esa decisión se enfoca en el resultado, no en el proceso.

Cuando se entienden los intereses, todo cambia.

Una hermana quería jugo. La otra necesitaba la cáscara para hacer una torta.

¿La mejor solución? Una se lleva toda la pulpa. La otra, toda la cáscara.

Los buenos negociadores no reparten el valor. Primero entienden qué lo crea.

#ValueSelling #VentadeValor Negotiation by Design

This is what losing a negotiation at home looks like.

Not because negotiating with kids is “easy.”
Because they’re the purest negotiators on earth:

They don’t care about your title.
They don’t fear your authority.
They don’t politely hide what they want.

They go straight for emotion, leverage, and logic; in that order.

After 30+ years of teaching negotiation, the biggest upgrades to my skillset didn’t come from boardrooms.

They came from my kitchen.

Here’s what my children taught me that works with anyone:
	
1️⃣ If they feel unheard, logic is useless

You can have the best argument in the world…
and still lose.

So I start with:
“Help me understand what matters most to you.”

Not soft. Strategic.
	
2️⃣ Positions are noise. Interests are signal

Kids say: “I want to go.”
Adults say: “We need this clause.”

Same thing. Same mistake.
The real question is always:
“What problem are you trying to solve?”
	
3️⃣ Boundaries beat lectures

Long explanations invite debate.

Clear boundaries create clarity:
“I’m open to this, under these conditions.”
	
4️⃣ Timing is leverage

When emotions are high, you don’t need better words.
You need a better moment.

Pause. Reset. Return.
	
5️⃣ Fairness is subjective, so negotiate the definition

Kids don’t want “equal.”
They want “fair.”

Executives do the same. They just use spreadsheets.

So I ask:
“What would fair look like to you, specifically?”
	
6️⃣ You don’t need to win the moment; you need to win the relationship

With kids, you learn fast:

If you “win” by force, you lose trust.
And trust is the currency of every future deal.

That’s the lesson most negotiators learn too late.

Because the hardest counterpart isn’t a CEO.
It’s someone who knows you… and isn’t impressed by you.

Have your kids ever out-negotiated you?
What did they do that you secretly respected?

Most companies don’t have a negotiation capability.

They've only got a workshop.

And they confuse the two.

General negotiation training is like buying a gym membership.
You feel motivated.
You feel disciplined.

Until the first real deadline hits.

Then the org’s default “negotiation system” takes over:
	•	Discount to close
	•	Concede to preserve “relationship”
	•	Escalate late
	•	Improvise terms
	•	Win the meeting… lose the margin

Here’s the sober truth:

General training creates vocabulary.
Domain-specific training creates performance.

Because capability isn’t what people know.
It’s what the organization can reliably produce, deal after deal, without hero negotiators.

Why general training fails (by itself):

1. Transfer breaks under pressure
People don’t apply principles.
They run habits triggered by familiar situations.

2. Pressure reveals defaults
You don’t rise to theory.
You fall into what you’ve rehearsed.

3. Capability lives in a system
And a real system needs:
	•	A credible champion (peer-respected)
	•	A common language across functions
	•	A shared way of working to prepare, run the process, and learn fast through after-action reviews

“Don’t concede without trading” means nothing until you define:
What is a trade in your domain?

If you stop at general training, you didn’t build capability.
You hosted an event.

Quick poll: Where does your org leak the most value?
Sales / Procurement / Partnerships / Disputes

Share your answer below.
Let's see where the real gaps are.

When negotiation turns into a courtroom, value shrinks

The ego enjoys winning... then pays later

Stop the ego spiral that turns negotiation into fights. Lead with needs to create better deals, smoother rollout, and fewer grudges. Use rules or leverage only as guardrails.

Rights- and power-based negotiation can “win” today… and still drain value, trust, and follow-through. Signing is easy. Living with it is hard.

Next time you're tempted to escalate into a rights or power duel, try this:

• Catch the ego flinch.
When you feel challenged, your brain wants status: prove I’m right or show I’m strong.

• Name the game you’re playing.
“Are we solving needs, debating fairness, or flexing leverage?”

• Pull it back to interests, fast.
“What are you trying to protect or achieve with that?”

• Turn emotion into priorities.
“Pick your top two concerns. Which one matters most?”

• Use ‘fair’ like a ruler, not a sword.
“What standard would you trust to judge this?”

• Use power like a seatbelt.
“If we can’t fix X by Friday, we’ll take option B. I’d rather solve it. What would make X workable?”

• Design three deals, not two threats.
Build two packages that trade priorities, then use standards to check fairness at the end.

Watch out for these traps:
• Arguing “fair” vs “fair.”
Fix: Agree on standards first, then design terms.

• Threatening to feel in control.
Fix: State consequences calmly + leave a door open to interests.

When a supplier says “policy,” you counter with “policy,” and suddenly you’re in a courtroom.
Instead, ask: “What are you trying to protect with that policy?” 
Build two packages, then use the policy as a final fairness check.

Lead with interests to create options.
Add rights to legitimize.
Add power only to set boundaries when good-faith problem-solving fails.

The real trade-off:
Are you protecting authority today, or the relationship that will make this deal work tomorrow?

PS: Save this before your next negotiation.

undefined undefined

Sales negotiation is not about being persuasive.

It’s about using the right sales negotiation techniques at the right moment.

Most deals are lost before the price is even discussed.

Why?

Because negotiators:
– React instead of re-anchoring
– Argue value instead of framing constraints
– Explain too much when silence would work better

Sales negotiation techniques that work:

1️⃣ Control the anchor
The first number shapes the entire conversation.
If you can’t go first, re-anchor with context, not just a counter-number.

2️⃣ Frame constraints, not criticism
Don’t tell them their offer is bad.
Explain why it doesn’t work for you.
Criticism creates resistance. Constraints invite problem-solving.

3️⃣ Talk about losses, not gains
Buyers don’t move faster for upside.
They move faster to avoid regret, delay, and missed opportunities.

4️⃣ Split concessions. Bundle requests.
Small concessions feel lighter.
One clear ask feels more reasonable than five small ones.

5️⃣ Stop over-explaining strong offers
If your value is clear, say less.
Extra justifications weaken your position.

The best sales negotiators don’t push harder.

They frame smarter.

Question for you:
Which of these sales negotiation techniques do you see most often done wrong?

Let me know in the comments.

Clean anger: negotiation without scorch marks

Aristotle’s checklist beats your impulse

A 20-second reset to turn anger into diagnostic data, set boundaries, and protect trust while improving terms

Experiments show anger can win short-term concessions, yet it can trigger retaliation and damage trust.

When anger spikes in a negotiation, you don’t lose just calm, you lose information.
Misaimed anger turns a solvable problem into a face-saving contest.
A hot reply lengthens cycle time, invites legal risk, and leaks margin.

Here's what to try instead:

• Label it (silently): “I’m angry.”

• Translate it: “I’m reading this as disrespect/unfairness/loss of control/broken trust.”
	
• Calibrate fast: right person, right degree, right time, right purpose, right way.

• State boundary with impact: “If we change terms now, trust drops, and we slow down.”
	
• Re-anchor to standards: “Let’s tie this to market benchmarks / policy / precedent.”
	
• If needed, pause: “Let’s reconvene tomorrow with X reviewed.”

Watch out for these mistakes:

- Venting just to feel strong. Instead, move from accusation to impact and the next step.
- Suppressing anger and punishing later. Say: "That didn't land well. What did you mean?"

For example:

A supplier slips in a new fee on page 12. Instead of arguing price, you say: "That change damages trust. If it stays, we pause and revisit scope."

The room cools instantly. It's the same at home, name the sting, then negotiate the standard.

Clean anger isn't about suppressing emotion. It's about setting boundaries with credibility, so negotiations don't turn into slow sabotage.

What line helps you keep anger clean while protecting the deal?

PS: Save this tip for next time your buttons get pushed.

Qué gusto leer esto, Nicolas.

Me entusiasma muchísimo el aporte que traes a Negotiation by Design: una mezcla rara y valiosa de método, criterio, y experiencia real en contextos complejos, multiculturales y de alta presión. Se nota que tu manera de negociar no viene de la teoría, viene de años de construir confianza, mapear actores, leer el contexto con curiosidad y llegar preparado para crear valor, no para “ganar” a punta de regateo.

Y me encanta la historia completa: la semilla en 2004, el recorrido por el mundo y el regreso con propósito para poner esa experiencia al servicio de otros. Eso dice mucho de ti.

Ojalá este inicio sea el principio de una relación larga, sólida y muy fructífera. Hay mucho por construir juntos y muchos clientes que se van a beneficiar de lo que estás trayendo a la mesa.

 ¡Vamos con todo, y por más almuerzos celebrando proyectos exitosos! 🍊

De reconexiones, caminos de la vida y propósito.

A Pablo Restrepo  lo conocí a inicios de mi carrera profesional. Era el año 2004 y Colombia negociaba el Tratado de Libre Comercio con Estados Unidos, mejor conocido como el TLC. Yo trabajaba en la Dirección de Inversión Extranjera del Ministerio de Comercio y asistía a las reuniones de preparación del TLC.  Pablo y su empresa Tandem, asesoraban al gobierno colombiano para construir y ejecutar la mejor estrategia de negociación. 

Desde ese momento, algo resonó en mi con el tema de negociación. Me gustaba la idea de ver los asuntos de manera amplia y no bajo el tradicional esquema adversarial y de regateo, tan propio de nuestra cultura latina. Además, había organización y método, lo cual ayudaba para aumentar la visibilidad, identificar fortalezas y debilidades, y llegar a las negociaciones con un plan previamente acordado. No simplemente a jugar una partida de póker en la mesa del más poderoso. Ahí… una semilla se sembró. 

Después, decidí que mi camino profesional debía cambiar, buscar nuevos horizontes y explorar el mundo. Durante 12 años, tuve la fortuna de vivir en Ecuador, Malasia, Mexico, Rusia y Estados Unidos. Muchas cosas evolucionaron en ese tiempo, la familia creció, los equipos de trabajo y las responsabilidades aumentaron y, aunque los retos profesionales eran diferentes, siempre construí con base en la confianza, el respeto y la preparación, como elementos universales para enfrentar los retos con resultados exitosos. 

Si bien, en el papel, mi responsabilidad eran los asuntos legales y corporativos, en el fondo mi interés e influencia trascendían más allá. Aprendiendo a leer los contextos con curiosidad, escanear y conectar actores con empatía, y dibujar mapas de relaciones para buscar soluciones a asuntos complejos.  Entonces, recurrentemente pensaba… ¿No es eso, acaso, lo que hace un buen negociador? ¿No es eso lo que me ha permitido transitar satisfactoriamente negociaciones comerciales, resolución de un conflictos o crisis inesperadas?

Por eso, después de muchos años de vida corporativa alrededor del mundo y tras un proceso de transición enriquecedor al regresar a mi país, lo busqué y le dije… Pablo: en Colombia y en el resto del mundo, aún hay muchas cosas por hacer, muchos caminos por explorar y clientes que necesitan entender el poder de la negociación en su justa dimensión; porque solo así, se puede comprender todo el valor que se puede crear y las relaciones de confianza que se pueden afianzar, dejando atrás los egos y generando valor. 

Fast forward… 22 años después, acá estamos, disfrutando una buena comida dominicana, juntando método con experiencia, y alineando esfuerzos para empoderar a organizaciones e individuos para alcanzar su mayor potencial en negociación.    

Negotiation by Design 🍊 … off we go!

Your counterpart said yes.

Their coalition can still say no.

Most deals aren't just between two people.
There's always a crowd behind the scenes.
They can approve, delay, sabotage, or kill the deal quietly.
Even when it looks like a win.

That's why the real game isn't convincing the other side.
It's managing their entire coalition, and your own.

Enter the stakeholder chessboard.
A simple way to stop guessing.

Plot every key person on two questions.
- Do they trust us?
- Do they want and agree with this?

From there, every stakeholder becomes one of five characters, and each requires a different move:

𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀: 
Trust you and want the deal.
Private support is useless if it stays private.
Turn it into visible advocacy.
Give them a role.

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱:
Are uncommitted and easy to “capture.”
Engage them early.
Use a clear story.
Ask for small commitments.

𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀:
Trust you, but disagree.
That’s valuable resistance.
Convert it through tradeoffs.
Co-design the path forward.

𝗕𝗲𝗱𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀:
Want the outcome but don’t trust you.
The fix isn’t more selling.
It’s de-risking.
Use guardrails, pilots, and fast proof.

𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀:
Don’t trust you and don’t want the deal.
Contain them with the process.
Create visibility.
Force constructive dialogue.

But the hidden lever is sequence.
Approach the wrong people first, and you lose momentum.
The story gets written without you.

The order matters:
1. Allies first, to create public support and leverage.
2. Undecided next, capture them before they drift.
3. Opponents then, after you have social proof.
4. Bedfellows, once direction is aligned, to make “yes” safe.
5: Adversaries last, only when you're strong, not desperation.

Signed does not mean done.
The real question is this:
Who is shaping your deal after the meeting ends?

Stakeholder Mapping in Negotiation

The biggest risk in your deal isn’t price.

It's the invisible veto you don't see coming.

Every "1:1" deal hides a crowd behind the scenes.
In multilateral negotiations, this crowd becomes the real battlefield.

More parties mean more vetoes, more politics, more ways for the deal to die before it ever lives.

Most so-called bilateral negotiations are actually two coalitions facing each other.

If you don't map stakeholders on both sides, you're negotiating blind.

Here's the brutal truth: you can close the deal with your counterpart and still get killed internally.
Signed is just the start.
Implementation is where deals go to die, on both sides.

That's why I use the Stakeholder Chessboard.

It's a simple model built on two questions:

1. Trust: Do they believe us?
2. Agreement: Do they want this?

Plot everyone, on your side and theirs.

Stop guessing.

From there, every stakeholder is one of five characters:

• Allies: high trust, high agreement.
Turn them into advocates, give them roles, arm them with talking points.

• Undecided: not committed.
Engage immediately, simplify options, and ask for small wins.

• Opponents: high trust, low agreement.
Treat resistance as gold. Co-design solutions. Trade protections for support.

• Bedfellows: low trust, high agreement.
Stop selling. De-risk with guardrails, pilots, and clear commitments.

• Adversaries: low trust, low agreement.
Contain and expose blockers. Use clear processes and forced constructive dialogue.

Question: Which character is blocking your deal right now?
Allies, Undecided, Opponents, Bedfellows, or Adversaries?
Identify them.
Stop guessing.
Start winning.

taplio