It’s not that I have nothing to say

You might have noticed the gaps in my weekly articles lately. There are a few reasons, but rest assured, it's not a lack of content. Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm rarely short on words or opinions. The real challenge is finding new angles or fresh contexts to revisit familiar leadership and innovation themes. My commitment remains to write a weekly article, but I'm giving myself the freedom to publish when a topic feels truly timely or relevant. I want to sincerely thank my regular readers. Hearing from people in my network a couple of times a month—and especially the recent story of someone printing off articles to annotate them for their own leadership context—is a powerful motivator. Knowing my reflections help others make a better leadership impact is why I write.

My inspiration this week sprang from a moment of pure serendipity. A couple of weeks ago, right after teaching my class, I was in my usual post-class routine: a quick reflection on the session, a check of my emails, and keeping some time open for student questions. I happened to sit near a Professor I’d collaborated with on past community projects. After a brief greeting, I dove into my emails. A minute or two later, the Professor turned to his two students and said, "Let's ask John." He gave a quick intro and posed a fascinating question: From an organizational perspective which is harder to negotiate, internally or externally?

My answer was immediate and unequivocal: In my experience, negotiating inside the organization is far harder than dealing with external stakeholders. My certainty surprised the students, but not the Professor. We had a brief but engrossing discussion, and that conversation has been rattling around in my head ever since. First, why was my reaction so visceral and certain? Second, is this just a personal bias, or a universal reality? I want to share my reflections, but I’m equally eager to hear what you’ve experienced.

Internal Negotiating: The Hidden Minefield

For the past two decades, internal negotiation has been a daily feature of my work—from setting workloads and priorities with staff to resolving conflicts or engaging students. Most of this was within my direct control and comparatively easy. But that wasn't the negotiation I was thinking about when I gave my immediate answer. The hard internal negotiation begins the moment your work crosses departmental or role boundaries. Step outside your silo, and the negotiating becomes dramatically harder.

At the heart of this difficulty, I believe, are the radically different power dynamics and political landscapes. Inside my department, I had significant authority and control. I shaped the culture, influenced the norms, and benefited from deep, known relationships. Looking back, of course negotiation was relatively easy when I was the department head! I had the most real and perceived authority. I wonder now how my staff felt about negotiating with me—did they find it easy or difficult? I hope our environment was inclusive enough for relative ease.

(A quick side note: When I talk about negotiation, I’m not just talking about reaching an agreement. More importantly and much more difficult, I’m talking about achieving a mutual understanding of the differences.)

Returning to the topic: Venturing out of my comfort zone and into the larger, more complex, and less understood parts of the organization made successful negotiation a struggle. I'm not saying there was less success, but the process was often more frustrating, challenging, and riddled with uncertainty. I'd often start by assuming the norms of my department (raising concerns, open dialogue) were universal. They were not. Practices that were routine for me were uncommon, or even foreign, elsewhere.

Success often boiled down to finding common ground in organizational norms. Counterintuitively, negotiating with similar departments was not always easier; in fact, sometimes it was the most difficult. True ease came when dealing with certain people—individuals with strong leadership skills, a desire for mutual understanding, openness, and a core of care and compassion. I recall a successful negotiation with an associate registrar years ago over a student elective issue. While I didn't get the exact outcome I wanted, their open, boundary-clarifying approach led to a much deeper understanding of organizational and governmental limits. We both set aside positional perspectives, talked about the why, and left with a stronger relationship and understanding. That success was built on the strong individual leadership of two people.

This suggests that the success of internal negotiation is heavily contingent on individual ability. But other factors loom large. One is reputation. My reputation as a trailblazer (rebel), innovator (challenger), or advocate (antagonist) often helped or harmed my ability to start or complete a negotiation. Internally, a reputation—even one built on an extreme truth—has an oversized impact. And negative elements of a reputation tend to last longer and hit harder internally than externally. Close relationships magnify this psychological frame.

The second factor is what I call the family effect: the tendency to be hardest on, take advantage of, or take for granted the people we know best or are closest to. We’re also more likely to share negative feelings with those closest to us. Internal negotiation has to overcome biases created by this proximity. In an organization, the "closeness" can be departmental—simply working under the same organizational roof can trigger the family effect, even if individuals aren't personally close.

External Negotiating: The Power of Purpose

Reflecting on external negotiations, my overall success rate was probably similar to internal ones, but the experience felt easier and more positive. When external negotiation was difficult, I could usually pinpoint the cause: often, two or more people from different organizations were tasked to solve a problem they didn't identify, fully understand, or have the authority to resolve. These meetings, where each representative was "pawned off" to deal with an issue no one fully grasped, were doomed to fail—like spinning wheels in a snowbank, a lot of effort but no meaningful progress.

However, most of my external negotiation experiences were positive. When the negotiation was directly connected to my work and the work of the external partners, things flowed much easier. The lack of pre-existing, deep relationships wasn't a barrier because the shared purpose of the group outweighed the uncertainty of the unknown individuals. My perception of others was framed by the issue we were trying to solve. We all shared the desire to tackle the problem or seize the opportunity, despite different approaches and abilities.

Another factor is that positive reputations seem enhanced over negative ones in external environments. People working together for the first time tend to view each other in a more positive light, perhaps because everyone is trying to show their "best self" and the best of their organization. However, as external groups work together longer, they eventually follow the internal dynamic: negotiating success becomes directly linked to individual leadership skills.

The Ultimate Leadership Lesson

Successful negotiation is fundamentally linked to assertive communication—the ability to say what needs to be said, appropriately and timely, backed by relational skills of care and compassion.

But the most impactful approach is to shift the priority from outcome to understanding. Being good at securing outcomes is vital, but it often leads to purely transactional relationships. Negotiating for mutual understanding achieves good outcomes and creates a legacy component—it bridges the outcome from transaction to transformation. Mutual understanding changes perspectives, generates new meaning, and opens organizations to future opportunities.

So, if I were asked the initial question again, my answer wouldn't change, but it would be more nuanced. Both types of negotiation have unique barriers. The key is to apply the benefits of one to the other. Can you treat every internal negotiation like a new relationship? Can you leave your perceptions at the door? Can you bring the energy of a shared external purpose to an internal table? Can you deepen relationships and, most importantly, sacrifice your immediate agenda for the mutual understanding of others?