Donald Trump presents himself as a “great dealmaker.” Negotiation scholarship paints a very different picture. Four of the most influential negotiation researchers of our time have examined Trump’s approach. Their independent assessments converge on a remarkably consistent diagnosis:
Short-term pressure is no substitute for preparation.
Power plays are no substitute for credibility.
Bluffing is no substitute for competence.
These insights are not political; they are professional. They matter to anyone who negotiates inside complex organizations, influences strategic decisions, or leads people.
Below are the four key analyses.
1. Deepak Malhotra & Jonathan Powell (2016)
„What Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About Negotiation“
Harvard Business Review, 2016
Deepak Malhotra, one of the world’s leading scholars in negotiation and conflict resolution, and Jonathan Powell, chief negotiator in the Northern Ireland peace process, analyze Trump’s approach to international negotiations.
They highlight five elements Trump systematically ignores:
- Ultimatums escalate conflict.
- A deal must be implementable, not merely impressive.
- International negotiations are not zero-sum zero-sum games.
- Counterparts must be given the opportunity to save face.
- Leadership requires the courage to tell one’s own base uncomfortable truths.
Their assessment:
Trump’s approach would be not only ineffective but disastrous in international negotiations.
2. Roy J. Lewicki (2019)
„The Impact of Trump’s Approach on Business Negotiations“
Negotiation Journal, 2019
Roy J. Lewicki is one of the key architects of the modern negotiation curriculum. His work on trust and ethics is foundational in leading business and law schools.
His analysis is uncompromising:
The impact of Trump’s negotiation style on professional business negotiations is “negligible.” Lewicki shows that Trump’s behavior systematically undermines the very elements that enable successful deals today: credibility, trust, relationship building, and long-term value creation.
He describes a style that is impulsive, unprepared, and ethically questionable — driven by threat, bluffing, and short-term dominance.
Lewicki’s conclusion is unambiguous:
Trump’s approach contradicts nearly every established principle of effective negotiation.
3. G. Richard Shell (2019)
„Transactional Man: Teaching Negotiation Strategy in the Age of Trump“
Negotiation Journal, 2019
G. Richard Shell, professor at the Wharton School and one of the world’s leading voices in negotiation pedagogy, describes Trump as the archetype of the “Transactional Man” — a negotiator driven solely by power, leverage, and short-term gain.
He identifies three defining patterns:
- Excessive competitiveness
- Trust viewed merely as a tactical risk assessment rather than a relationship asset
- Leverage at any cost, including exaggeration, threats, and bullying
Shell warns:
These strategies may work in the short term but erode the system of trust on which sustainable agreements depend.
Trump’s style, he argues, is a relic of a bygone era, not a model for the future.
4. Dean G. Pruitt (2019)
„What Have We Learned about Negotiation from Donald Trump?“
Negotiation Journal, 2019
Dean Pruitt, one of the most influential scholars of social conflict theory, examines Trump’s books and behavior.
He finds a mix of intuition, self-promotion, and aggressive power logic — but little theoretical or practical value for modern negotiation practice.
His central point:
Competitive tactics may yield short-term wins, but they generate resentment and destroy long-term cooperation.
Pruitt concludes:
Trump’s example offers more insight into the misuse of power than into effective negotiation.
Was bedeutet das für Sie als Führungskraft und Verhandler?
Across all four analyses, the consensus is striking:
- Trump’s style is not a success model for modern organizations.
- Win-lose approaches deliver short-term victories but impose long-term costs.
- Power does not replace preparation, credibility, or relational competence.
- Sustainable negotiation relies on trust, psychological stability, and long-term value creation.
The core lesson is clear:
Those who negotiate like Trump may win headlines, but they lose value, relationships, and influence.
