Integrity in Negotiation
Integrity in Negotiation: Why Trust and Perception Matter as Much as Principle
After a recent podcast interview, a listener reached out with a thoughtful challenge. She said one of my analogies, comparing integrity to a bridge’s soundness, perhaps including the paint condition, made her “wiggle in her seat.”
Her concern was simple but important: appearances can be deceiving, and shiny surfaces can cover real cracks. For her, integrity has always meant absolutes, incorruptibility, soundness, completeness, shaped by her faith, her profession, and experiences with people who broke trust.
She wasn’t wrong. In many domains, like law, accounting, or faith, there are strong attempts to define integrity in absolute terms. These fields establish standards to hold people accountable and give society a baseline of trust.
But even there, integrity isn’t truly fixed. Two people in the same profession, or the same faith, can still interpret and live it differently. One may see strict rule-following as integrity; another may see adaptability or compassion as the higher standard.
And that’s the nuance I wanted to get across. In negotiation, integrity isn’t only about what you believe is true inside yourself. It’s also about how integrity is perceived across the table. And that’s the nuance I wanted to get across. In negotiation, integrity isn’t only about what you believe is true inside yourself. It’s also about how integrity is perceived across the table, a key distinction when choosing negotiation over bargaining.
When we take the time to uncover someone else’s perception of integrity, we unlock a new level of negotiating power. With their view on the table alongside our own, the range of outcomes rooted in dignity in negotiation, and the trust it creates, expands dramatically.
When Integrity Fractures in Negotiation
The first known fracture came at the very beginning. From the executive’s perspective, the CEO promised equity he didn’t actually have authority to grant. That gap between what was offered and what was real planted an early seed of doubt, even if it wasn’t fatal at the time.
Months passed. At first, delays seemed normal, but by the one-year mark, the executive noticed a deeper fracture: promises were piling up without action. Despite reassurances, “It’s in the minutes,” or “I’m confident it will be ratified”, the message landed as trust me, not the facts — a hollow ‘yes’ without execution.
By the time 18 months had gone by, despite having delivered major results that helped put the company on a turnaround path, the executive’s trust was at an all-time low. In their next conversation, they named the issue directly. They suggested a modest step, like a title change that reflected work already being done without changing compensation, but made it clear they were open to other alternatives. Something tangible to offset the perceived empty commitments.
The CEO’s response, however, reinforced the pattern: “Let’s talk again in three months. I can’t just give out title changes or everyone would want one. It’s something we could likely do after more review.” To the executive, this was more of the same, promises deferred, symbolic reassurances in place of substantive action, and no acknowledgment of the original overreach.
Two days later, the executive resigned.
In conversations afterward, they reflected that the equity itself was never the core issue. They would have accepted other forms of compensation or even further delay had the process been transparent. What they couldn’t reconcile was the perception that trust was being eroded at every step. For them, the integrity of the relationship had fractured beyond repair.
Symbols vs. Substance
This wasn’t just about equity. It was about trust.
The CEO promised something he didn’t have the authority to deliver. Later, he leaned on symbolic gestures, vague memorandums, verbal assurances, “it’s in the minutes”, as proof of good faith. But because the foundation was false, those gestures felt hollow. The executive’s perception of integrity was for the CEO to own the mistake, reset expectations, and rebuild trust.
That’s why the executive asked for something different: a material but modest step, entirely within the CEO’s power. A title change or other act would have been a real signal of respect and trustworthiness.
Instead, the CEO reached again for symbolism and promises of “later.” That was the moment the executive felt the pattern wasn’t going to change.
Integrity in Negotiation: The Three Facets
This story highlights why integrity in negotiation is more complex than “do I have it or not?”
In my experience, integrity shows up in three connected ways:
My integrity with myself, Am I honoring my values and commitments? Do I keep my word to myself?
My perception of the other party’s integrity, Do I believe they’ll follow through, even under pressure? Are they a bridge I would cross?
Their perception of my integrity, Do they believe I’ll follow through? Do my actions match their expectations of trustworthiness?
The kicker is these three aren’t always aligned.
In this case:
The executive kept their own integrity intact. They delivered results, honored commitments, gave grace, and held their boundaries.
Their perception of the CEO’s integrity collapsed. Too many promises without follow-through.
The CEO’s perception of the executive’s integrity? Likely different. Based on his reaction, he may have felt betrayed. In his story, he might have been the hero fighting for board approval, while the executive was the villain for walking away before he could “win.”
That’s the paradox of integrity in negotiation: each side can walk away convinced of their own integrity, while doubting the other’s.
As my wife often reminds me: “Everyone is the hero of their own story and never the villain.”
Why This Matters
Integrity isn’t just a personal virtue. It’s the foundation of trust between people.
A bridge can be structurally sound, but if the paint is peeling, some will still refuse to cross. In the same way, even when you believe your integrity is intact, if others perceive cracks, they may walk away.
In your negotiations, how often have you paused to ask not just, “Am I being true to myself?” but also, “How is my integrity landing with them?”
Without integrity, negotiation collapses into manipulation. With integrity, even delays and setbacks can be endured, because trust gives both sides reason to hold on.
And that’s why perception matters as much as principle. Because at the end of the day, people don’t follow deals. They follow bridges they believe will hold.
Ready to Train Your Negotiation Muscle?
Most leaders wing it in the moments that matter most and walk away with doubt, regret, or missed outcomes. The Cyr Method's free Negations Skill assessment asks 16 simple questions to help you get clarity. You’ll get a tailored report with quick wins to improve how you negotiate and a deeper understanding of your mindset, emotional grounding, and conversation control.
See how you stack up. Find out what might be holding you back.
Explore how to reach win-win outcomes with:
