Negotiation experts often warn that while a bit of surprise can be a tactical advantage, excessive unpredictability is a double-edged sword. It might create momentary leverage, but it can just as easily undermine the very trust and credibility that successful deals rely on. History and research offer a mixed verdict. For example, U.S. President Richard Nixon’s famous “madman theory” – acting erratic to spook opponents – failed to induce compliance from North Vietnam, and his real diplomatic wins came from more rational strategies. Decades later, Donald Trump echoed this mindset, arguing that “we need unpredictability” in negotiations. Indeed, a 2013 study found that negotiators who alternated between emotions (e.g. cooperative vs. angry) extracted greater concessions from counterparts compared to those who stayed predictable. These cases show why unpredictability can be tempting. However, they also highlight its risks: what works as intimidation in a one-off encounter can backfire disastrously in long-term negotiations. In this section, we delve into the hidden dangers of an overly unpredictable negotiation style – from eroded trust to failed deals – and offer guidance on finding the right balance.
Undermining Trust and Credibility
Trust is the currency of negotiation, and it thrives on predictability. In behavioral terms, trust means having confidence in how the other side will behave in the future. When a negotiator is too unpredictable – constantly changing positions, springing surprises, or backtracking on promises – it shatters this confidence. The counterpart begins to doubt everything: Which of your statements can be believed? Will you follow through this time? Such doubts quickly erode your credibility. Research in social psychology shows that across species, unpredictable stimuli trigger anxiety and “threat-related” thinking that biases decision-making. In a negotiation context, this means your erratic behavior puts the other side on edge, priming them to expect the worst. Rather than engaging openly, they become cautious and suspicious.
Negotiation experts emphasize that consistency is crucial for credibility. As an insightful LinkedIn post notes, “showing consistency in your behavior and communication demonstrates your reliability and reduces the chances of your partner feeling manipulated or deceived.” In practical terms, if you stick to your word and maintain a stable course, counterparts learn to trust that “what you see is what you get.” Conversely, if yesterday’s deal points no longer apply today, or if you oscillate between extreme demands and concessions with no explanation, your integrity comes into question. A lack of consistency signals that you might say or do anything, making it risky for the other side to rely on your assurances.
A client or partner who experiences your unpredictability – say you cancel meetings last-minute, or change contract terms on a whim – will start to doubt your word and look for exit options. Trust once lost is hard to regain; as the old saying goes, it’s “difficult to gain, easy to break, and tough to repair.”
Creating Confusion and Cognitive Overload
Being too unpredictable doesn’t just hurt feelings – it scrambles the logical side of negotiations as well. Successful deal-making often requires both parties to understand each other’s interests and find common ground. That becomes extremely difficult if one side’s behavior is erratic or confusing. Psychologically, people have limited cognitive bandwidth, and negotiations already tax our mental resources. When one party is all over the map – changing priorities, introducing surprise issues, or sending mixed messages – it creates confusion and cognitive overload for the counterpart. They must constantly recalculate and reassess: “Do I even understand what they really want? What will they do next?” This mental juggling can exhaust and frustrate even skilled negotiators.
A case in point comes from a high-stakes business deal between Starwood Hotels and a Chinese firm, Anbang, which was notorious for its opaque, capricious bidding strategy. Starwood’s team “tried but largely failed to understand Anbang’s interests and motives” because of the on-again, off-again offers and secrecy. The Chinese bidder’s unpredictable approach left Starwood constantly guessing at its true intentions. As a result, Starwood nearly got drawn into a high-risk agreement without fully understanding the deal, and the competing bidder (Marriott) had to pay a premium due to all the uncertainty introduced. In short, keeping the other side guessing often just ends up confusing them. Instead of outsmarting the opponent, excessive secrecy or sudden moves can overwhelm them with ambiguity.
Cognitive scientists note that unpredictable, high-uncertainty situations induce stress and impair rational thinking. Under such strain, negotiators may resort to snap judgments (relying on fight-or-flight instincts) or simply disengage to avoid the mental fatigue. Your counterpart might become less responsive, more error-prone, or increasingly reliant on rigid positions as a defense against your volatility. In practical terms, you’ll notice negotiations with an unpredictable partner often go in circles – time gets wasted revisiting issues because earlier understandings keep shifting. Miscommunications multiply, since each side interprets the other’s statements differently in the fog of confusion. All of this adds up to a less productive negotiation where creative problem-solving gives way to mental exhaustion and misaligned expectations.
Heightened Risk of Negotiation Failure
Given the twin hits to trust and clarity, it’s no surprise that deals are more likely to fail when one party is excessively unpredictable. If your counterpart can’t trust you and can’t even pin down what you want, the negotiation itself becomes fragile. Impasses and breakdowns loom larger under these conditions. The other side may decide it’s safer to walk away than to make a deal built on shaky ground. Even if an agreement is reached, the lack of mutual understanding can lead to implementation problems or collapse down the line.
History provides vivid examples. In the Brexit negotiations, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried to use unpredictability as leverage – hinting he might walk away without a deal, reneging on prior commitments, and generally keeping EU negotiators off balance. The result? Trust evaporated. The EU side started assuming the worst and insisted on ironclad guarantees (like legal oversight mechanisms) to protect themselves. Johnson’s so-called “Madman” strategy, intended to scare the EU into concessions, instead backfired: it pushed the EU to adopt tougher stances and contingency plans, making cooperative outcomes that had previously been attainable now out of reach. In other words, by trying to be too unpredictable, the UK triggered exactly what it hoped to avoid – a negotiation partner so wary and guarded that finding a win-win solution became nearly impossible.
Behavioral research echoes this outcome. A Harvard analysis cautions that unpredictability tends to backfire in long-term partnerships for several reasons: it irritates counterparts (who may retaliate or refuse to deal with you), it encourages them to respond in kind with their own unstable behavior, and it distracts from problem-solving. People don’t like feeling toyed with. If your negotiation style is perceived as gamesmanship, the other side may even replace you as counterpart – negotiating through someone else or escalating to higher authorities – just to get a more stable interaction. In high-value deals or diplomatic talks, being removed from the negotiation due to lack of trust is a clear failure.
Even if the negotiation doesn’t formally break down, you might “win” the battle and lose the war. An agreement extracted through intimidation or confusion can breed resentment. The counterpart might comply just long enough to find an escape hatch or seek revenge later. For instance, a vendor might agree to unfavorable terms under pressure but then deliver subpar quality or exit the partnership at the first opportunity. In international relations, a peace deal forged under duress can collapse when one side immediately starts undermining it (since they never genuinely bought in). Thus, excessive unpredictability raises the likelihood of hollow or short-lived agreements – technically a deal, but one that falls apart, harms the relationship, or fails to be implemented in good faith.
Long-Term Reputational Damage
Negotiations don’t happen in a vacuum; your reputation follows you from deal to deal. Being known as an unpredictable negotiator can close doors in the future. If word gets around that you often renegotiate last minute, break promises, or generally keep people on their toes in a bad way, other parties will be hesitant to engage with you. As a Harvard Program on Negotiation piece put it, your “reputation for unpredictability” can spread through your network and leave you “lacking desirable negotiating partners.” Just as a positive reputation (for fairness or reliability) makes others eager to deal with you, a negative reputation makes them think, “Better not do business with that loose cannon.”
Consider the business world: if a company gains a reputation for pulling bait-and-switch tactics or endlessly tweaking contract terms, suppliers and customers will seek more stable alternatives. They might still negotiate if they have to, but they’ll include a “trust tax” – maybe demanding larger up-front payments, penalties for late changes, or other protective measures that ultimately make deals less efficient and more costly for the unpredictable side. In negotiations, credibility is a form of capital, and if you burn it, others charge you a premium (or avoid you entirely). If a negotiator is too unpredictable, counterparts either stop taking their threats seriously or refuse to make concessions, knowing they might not honor their side. The broader lesson is that if you cry wolf too many times, eventually no one comes to the table.
Reputation damage isn’t limited to losing deals; it can hurt relationships within your own organization as well. Colleagues and team members involved in negotiations may lose confidence in your leadership if they see deals blowing up due to antics. This can erode internal morale and make it harder to present a united front in future negotiations. And once a reputation is established, it’s hard to shake. In high-profile arenas like politics and diplomacy, observers and counterparties will often treat you as unpredictable even when you’re not trying to be, interpreting ambiguity in the worst light because that’s what you’ve trained them to expect. Such labels can be career-defining, and not in a good way when it comes to earning trust in sensitive negotiations.
Signs of Excessive Unpredictability
How can you tell if you (or a colleague) are being too unpredictable at the bargaining table? It’s not always easy – after all, every negotiation has twists and turns. However, a few warning signs can indicate that your unpredictability is crossing into counterproductive territory:
- Constant Confusion from the Other Side: If your counterpart frequently says things like “I’m not sure where you’re going with this” or “I thought we agreed on X, why is it Y now?”, take heed. Repeated clarifications and puzzled looks are red flags that your messaging is muddled.
- Hesitation and Second-Guessing: Notice if the other party becomes reluctant to share information or commit to tentative agreements. When trust is low, negotiators often hesitate, fearing you’ll pull the rug out from under them. If simple asks are now met with “Let me get back to you” or they insist on triple-checking every detail, they may be bracing for your next swerve.
- Emotional Reactions or Frustration: An exasperated tone, visible irritation, or comments like “This is getting ridiculous” signal that your tactics have struck a nerve. If the counterpart starts showing irritation (or flat-out says they’re frustrated by the process), it means they feel jerked around by “games.” At this point, constructive dialogue is giving way to emotional burnout.
- Breaks in Communication: Another subtle sign is when the other side starts delaying or avoiding interactions. Unreturned calls or long gaps between meetings can indicate they’re disengaging – perhaps seeking alternatives or simply taking a timeout because the negotiation has become too chaotic. Similarly, if they suddenly escalate the issue to higher management or bring in lawyers unexpectedly, it could mean they’ve lost faith in the informal process with you.
- Inconsistency in Your Own Team: Internal discord can also be a clue. If your team members seem confused about our strategy, or you catch yourself frequently saying “Actually, never mind, we’re doing it differently now” in strategy sessions, you might be the source of unpredictability. Your team’s uncertainty will transmit to the other side, even if unintentionally.
If one or more of these patterns sounds familiar, it’s time to pause and reassess. An unpredictable approach might have gone from tactic to liability. The good news is that, once you recognize the issue, you can take concrete steps to course-correct and rebuild stability in the negotiation.
How to Self-Correct and Rebuild Trust
Turning around a pattern of unpredictability requires conscious effort, but it can be done. The key is to restore your counterpart’s confidence in your consistency and good faith. Here are some practical strategies for regaining trust and steering the negotiation back on track:
1. Acknowledge the Issue (Privately): First, be honest with yourself and your team. Recognize that your approach has caused confusion or distrust. It can help to briefly apologize or acknowledge the whiplash to your counterpart as well – e.g., “I know we’ve thrown a lot of last-minute changes your way. Let’s stabilize the plan moving forward.” A bit of humility can go a long way toward resetting the tone.
2. Clarify Your Core Interests and Strategy: Take a step back to identify what you really need out of the negotiation and stick to it. If you have been zig-zagging between positions, pick a direction (ideally an interest-based one) and clearly articulate it to the other side. For example: “Our main goal is to secure a two-year contract at a fair price – the rest of these terms we can be flexible on.” By outlining your true priorities, you reduce ambiguity and signal that you’re not just randomly flailing. As one Harvard negotiation guide advises, being open about your underlying motivations (while still protecting your bottom line) helps build trust and invites reciprocity.
3. Communicate Transparently Going Forward: To rebuild credibility, make your process more transparent. Avoid unnecessary secrecy about things that don’t need to be secret. This doesn’t mean spilling all your leverage, but do share your reasoning when possible. For instance, if you must change a proposal, provide context: “Our budget was cut this quarter, which is why we had to revise our offer.” When counterparts understand why you make a move, it feels less random and arbitrary. They’re less likely to interpret it as a manipulative trick and more as a real-world constraint. Transparency can transform a surprise into an understandable development, preventing the sense of betrayal that pure unpredictability would trigger.
4. Deliver on Small Promises Consistently: Repairing trust is mostly about demonstrating reliability over time. Start with small commitments and follow through religiously. This could be as simple as, “I’ll send you the revised draft by Friday” – and then do it. Each met commitment, however minor, is a brick in rebuilding your wall of credibility. Researchers note that consistent follow-through showcases integrity and gradually strengthens the perception of trustworthiness. On the flip side, now is not the time to over-promise. Only commit to what you know you can do. If unforeseen circumstances threaten a commitment, communicate proactively about the snag rather than going silent. Steady reliability in the little things will convince the other side that your big promises can be trusted too.
5. Slow Down the Pace (if needed): Unpredictability often comes from frantic, impulsive negotiating. Inject some deliberation and structure into the process. That might mean scheduling more regular check-ins, using agendas for meetings, or even putting more in writing to avoid ambiguity. Slowing down gives you time to think through moves (so you’re less likely to flip-flop) and gives the counterpart a sense of stability. It also allows you to correct misunderstandings in real time. Essentially, you’re replacing chaotic swings with a more methodical back-and-forth. This can greatly reduce cognitive overload on both sides, making the negotiation feel more manageable and rational.
6. Emphasize Collaboration Over Tricks: Finally, reframe the negotiation as a joint problem-solving exercise rather than a showdown. Explicitly invite the other side to help find a solution that works for both, instead of keeping them off balance. By doing so, you pivot from adversarial mind games to a collaborative tone. This shift restores some goodwill. It shows you value the relationship and aren’t just trying to “win” at all costs. Tangibly, you might propose working together on draft terms or transparently brainstorming options. This kind of openness is the antidote to the suspicion your unpredictability created. It aligns with what professional negotiators call “mutual gains” strategies – sharing information and building trust to create value. As the Harvard analysis concluded, any short-term gains from surprise tactics will likely be dwarfed by the long-term benefits of trust-building and joint problem-solving. By returning to a cooperative approach, you reclaim those benefits.
In applying these strategies, patience is key. Rebuilding trust won’t happen overnight, especially if the other party felt deeply burned. However, every consistent action and transparent communication will chip away at the wall of doubt. Over time, as the negotiation progresses with fewer shocks and more predictability, the relationship can heal. You’ll notice the other side becoming more open in return – a clear sign that trust is being restored.
Bottom Line: Predictability with Purpose
Striking the right balance between flexibility and consistency is the mark of an effective negotiator. Being completely rigid is a problem, but swinging to the other extreme – being wildly unpredictable – carries serious risks. As we’ve seen, excessive unpredictability can undermine trust, cloud decision-making, torpedo deals, and damage your reputation. In high-stakes sales, legal negotiations, corporate deals or diplomatic missions, a reputation as a volatile wildcard is usually a liability. Professionals in these fields benefit from a tone that is steady but adaptable: you can surprise your counterpart with creative solutions but do so in a framework of credibility and respect.
In the end, negotiation is about persuasion and cooperation, not keeping the other side in the dark. As research and real examples show, trust and transparency are essential for sustainable agreements. So, if you catch yourself thinking that being unpredictable is the ultimate trump card, remember the cautionary evidence. A well-timed surprise or bluff can indeed have impact, but make sure it’s part of a larger, principled strategy – not a constant pattern. Reliability, clarity, and good faith are what build lasting deals and relationships. By being aware of the risks of too much unpredictability, you can adjust your approach to negotiate with both strategic agility and dependable integrity, earning respect at the table and successful outcomes in the long run.