Impulses

I repeatedly observe that negotiations escalate unnecessarily early. Both sides try to push through their position as quickly as possible, building pressure and arguing increasingly harshly. The problem is that those who focus solely on their own position often overlook the fact that the real opportunities only emerge as the negotiation progresses.

Decisive turning points often occur when a window of opportunity suddenly opens – because priorities shift, new information becomes available, or new solutions emerge. In negotiation, this is known as the "window of opportunity." Those who are prepared and recognize this moment often gain a decisive advantage.

However, a second principle is at least as important to me.

Address critical issues early

Many negotiations drag on unnecessarily because peripheral issues are discussed while the actual conflict of objectives remains unaddressed. Often, all parties involved know what the real issue is – yet no one speaks openly about it. This leads to misunderstandings, frustration, and frequently, rounds of negotiations that could have been avoided with honest communication.

I've therefore learned to address critical issues as early as possible – openly, respectfully, and with a focus on solutions. This doesn't mean seeking out conflict. On the contrary: making the actual conflict of objectives visible creates the conditions for resolving it together. My experience shows that this approach not only leads to greater transparency, faster decisions, and more sustainable agreements, but also often builds trust – because both sides know what they're really talking about.

Another thought has occupied me repeatedly over the past few years.

The best negotiators are good listeners

Many people assume that good negotiators are particularly quick-witted or always have to have the last word. I don't believe that. The best negotiators I've had the pleasure of meeting are characterized by something else. They listen attentively. They ask the right questions. And they first try to understand the other side's actual interests, constraints, and goals.

Because positions and interests are not the same thing.

One position might be: "We cannot accept this price." However, this could be driven by a variety of underlying interests – such as budget constraints, time pressure, internal processes, or strategic goals. Simply reacting to positions means negotiating only on the surface. Understanding the underlying interests often leads to solutions that were previously invisible.

That, for me, is one of the biggest differences between good and very good negotiators.

In over 25 years of project work in strategic procurement, I have repeatedly experienced this: Successful procurement negotiations are rarely decided by volume or maximum pressure. They arise from careful preparation, active listening, and a genuine understanding of the other side's interests.

Perhaps this is the most important parallel between judo and negotiation.

It's not about defeating the other person. It's about reading the situation correctly, recognizing opportunities, and seizing the right moment.

For me, this is far more than just another trade barrier.

It marks the end of a strategy that many European companies relied on for decades. For a long time, the roles were clearly defined: Europe brought technologies and manufacturing expertise to China. Those who wanted to produce there had to share their know-how. China used this knowledge, consistently developed it further, and today is among the innovation leaders in areas such as battery technology, electromobility, and artificial intelligence.

And it is precisely now that the direction of knowledge transfer is changing.
Access to this technological know-how is becoming more difficult. This affects not only individual companies, but also the competitiveness of entire industries.

Therefore, I am observing a trend in many procurement projects that is increasingly worrying me.
Purchasing decisions are still often defined primarily by prices, savings, and terms. This remains important – but it's no longer enough.

The crucial question today is no longer:
„"Where can we buy our groceries more cheaply?"“

Rather:
„"How do we secure long-term access to technology, innovation and know-how?"“

In my view, this fundamentally changes the role of purchasing.
Purchasing is evolving from a classic cost function to a strategic future function. He is increasingly playing a key role in deciding which technologies will be available to a company in the long term, how resilient the supply chain is, and how independently a company can position itself in critical areas.

This also changes the requirements for supplier evaluation.
In addition to price, quality and delivery capability, new criteria are gaining importance:

• What technological expertise does a supplier possess?
• How innovative is he?
• What dependencies arise?
• Which strategic partnerships make sense?
• What knowledge should we consciously build up ourselves within the company?

I am convinced that successful purchasing organizations will have to think much more broadly in the future.
Topics such as resilient procurement strategies, targeted know-how development and long-term technology partnerships are becoming central components of a modern purchasing strategy.

Perhaps that is precisely where the greatest change lies.