Dear Negotiation Explorer,
Welcome to issue 34 of our NegoAI series.
Last week, I showed you the 8-phase framework I used to build Deepak — the methodology behind the system. This week, we're back in Sarah's story. And there's something she hasn't told you yet.
When Sarah ran her preparation prompt in issue 8, Deepak wasn't the only agent working. Two others were running in parallel.
Kraljic — a procurement strategist agent — was analyzing the deal from a procurement lens. Contract structures, vendor benchmarks, cost models. That's Sarah's domain expertise, amplified.
Kahneman — a behavioral intelligence agent — was doing something entirely different. It wasn't analyzing the deal at all. It was analyzing the person.
The consulting firm's lead partner. The one who'd be sitting across the table at 2 PM.
Both agents fed their analysis into Deepak, who synthesized everything — along with the case materials and Sarah's Knowledge Base — into her final negotiation strategy. A fourth step, the Compiler, formatted everything into a single deliverable Sarah could reference.
But today, I want to focus on Kahneman — because what it produced changed how Sarah approached the entire negotiation.
The Idea
Every negotiator prepares for the deal. The numbers, the leverage, the BATNA, the creative options. We covered all of that in issue 8.
But how many negotiators prepare for the person?
Not their role. Not their title. Their behavioral patterns. How they process information. How they handle conflict. What builds trust with them — and what breaks it.
Most negotiators walk into the room with a strategy for the deal and a guess about the person. Sarah walked in with intelligence on both.
Kahneman is a behavioral intelligence agent. You give it a LinkedIn profile. It returns a full behavioral analysis using two established frameworks:
Insights Discovery — a color-based model of thinking and communication preferences. Four energies: Cool Blue (analytical, precise), Fiery Red (decisive, results-driven), Sunshine Yellow (enthusiastic, people-oriented), Earth Green (caring, relationship-focused). Everyone has all four; the balance between them shapes how someone communicates, decides, and responds under pressure.
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument — how someone typically handles conflict. Five modes: Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, Accommodating. Not fixed traits — tendencies that shift based on context and stakes.
The combination of the two — how someone thinks and how they handle disagreement — gives you a remarkably actionable picture of how to engage with them.
What Sarah Received
Sarah pasted the lead partner's LinkedIn profile into Kahneman. Three minutes later, she had this.
I'm going to show you the full output. It's detailed — that's the point. But if you want to skip to how Sarah used it, jump to "What Sarah Did With This" below.
Behavioral Summary
The lead partner is a high-level strategic operator who balances the rigorous, data-driven discipline of a former CFO with the visionary, relationship-oriented leadership required of a regional chair. He is likely a "Strategic Connector" who values holistic impact and long-term stewardship. While he possesses the analytical depth of an engineer and financier, his recent focus on "coach mode" leadership and diversity initiatives suggests a sophisticated ability to leverage people-oriented energies to drive organizational transformation.
Insights Discovery Profile
Color | Energy | Role |
|---|---|---|
Cool Blue | 35% | Dominant |
Fiery Red | 30% | Secondary |
Sunshine Yellow | 20% | Tertiary |
Earth Green | 15% | Lowest |
Overall Confidence: 75%
Key Characteristics:
Analytical Rigor: His background in operations research and his tenure as global CFO indicate a primary reliance on data, precision, and objective logic.
Decisive Leadership: The "Red" energy manifests in his rapid ascent to the highest levels of the firm and his focus on "driving holistic impact" and "corporate growth."
Visionary Influence: His "Yellow" energy is evident in his public-facing roles, board memberships, and his recent emphasis on "reimagining organizations" and "coach mode."
Under stress: He likely reverts to a highly critical, data-obsessed state (Blue) or becomes overly demanding of results (Red).
Conflict Mode Profile
Primary Mode: Collaborating (70% confidence)
Secondary Mode: Competing (60% confidence)
His language regarding "holistic impact" and "shared commitment" suggests a default toward finding win-win solutions that satisfy complex stakeholder interests. But as a former CFO and current chair, he is capable of shifting to Competing when firm resources or strategic integrity are at stake.
When the shift happens: If a collaborative approach does not yield "distinctive impact," he will likely shift to Competing — characterized by directive, power-oriented behavior. High-stakes financial or reputational risks trigger this shift.
Unified Profile: Blue/Red with Collaborating/Competing — The Analytical Strategist. He leads with data and logic but frames outcomes in terms of broad, strategic impact. He seeks to "expand the pie" through creative collaboration but remains relentlessly aligned with his firm's interests, making him a formidable, principled competitor if he perceives a lack of rigor or alignment.
Communication Guidance
Do:
Be rigorous — provide data-backed rationales for every proposal
Frame points in terms of long-term, holistic value — not short-term savings
Don't:
Be vague — avoid unsubstantiated claims or "fluff"
Be transactional — don't ignore the broader strategic context of the relationship
Sample Framing Language:
Context | Language |
|---|---|
Opening a conversation | "I'd like to discuss how this proposal aligns with the broader growth trends we're both seeing." |
Making a request | "Based on the data we've analyzed, we believe this adjustment is necessary to ensure the long-term stewardship of this partnership." |
Presenting an idea | "This approach reimagines our current model to drive more holistic impact for both organizations." |
Expressing disagreement | "I see the logic there, but the data on [X] suggests a different risk profile that we should address together." |
Following up | "Here is the detailed breakdown of the metrics we discussed to help inform the next chapter of our work." |
Interaction Approach
Context | Approach |
|---|---|
Meeting setup | Highly structured, clear agenda sent well in advance |
Opening | Professional, acknowledging his recent transition to a new leadership role |
Your positioning | As a "thought partner" who is as rigorous and data-driven as he is |
Decision mode | Evidence-based — he needs to see how the decision fits the firm's stewardship values |
Trust Building
Trust currency: Competence and Integrity
Trust builders: Demonstrating deep industry knowledge and a commitment to "holistic impact"
Trust breakers: Lack of preparation, inconsistent data, or prioritizing short-term gains over long-term value
Negotiation Guidance
Pre-Negotiation:
His likely style: Collaborative Strategist. He'll look for ways to align interests but maintains a very clear "CFO-mindset" regarding the bottom line.
His priorities: Holistic impact, strategic alignment, and stewardship of resources.
His pressure points: Reputational risk to the firm or a perceived lack of "distinctive talent/impact."
During Negotiation:
Effective tactics: Use integrative bargaining. Propose creative solutions that solve his growth objectives while meeting your cost targets.
If he pushes hard (Competing mode): Respond with data (Blue). Match his rigor.
If he goes quiet (Avoiding): Pivot to a discussion on shared vision (Yellow).
Avoid: High-pressure "take it or leave it" tactics — he has the stature and alternatives to walk away.
Confidence Assessment
Assessment | Confidence |
|---|---|
Color Distribution | 75% — strong alignment between CFO/engineering background and leadership role |
Color Ranking | 80% — high certainty that Blue/Red are primary drivers |
TKI Mode Profile | 65% — inferred from "stewardship" and "coach mode" language; requires verification |
Limitations
This analysis is based solely on signals extracted from a LinkedIn profile. It represents behavioral inference, not a validated psychometric assessment.
Role-persona risk: As a senior partner at a top consulting firm, his "Collaborative" and "Coach" language may be a polished professional persona rather than natural preference.
CFO carryover: His recent shift from CFO to chair may mean he's still operating with more dominant Blue/Red energy than his current outward-facing role suggests.
Questions to Explore in Person
Uncertainty | What to Watch For |
|---|---|
Yellow vs. Green | Ask about a personal initiative he champions. If Yellow: focuses on the vision and influence. If Green: focuses on individual stories and equity. |
TKI mode shift | Introduce a minor, data-backed disagreement early. If Competing: he immediately counters with superior logic. If Collaborating: he asks, "How did you arrive at that?" |
What Sarah Did With This
Read that output again. Not as an academic exercise — as someone walking into a negotiation in six hours.
Sarah already had her strategy from Deepak. The interests ranked, the BATNA mapped, the creative options developed, the scenarios planned. That was the what of the negotiation.
Kahneman gave her the how.
Three things changed in her approach:
1. She restructured her opening. Her original plan was to lead with the performance data — three years of underdelivery, the competitive bids, the AI tools analysis. Hard facts, hard early.
After reading the behavioral profile, she shifted. A Blue/Red dominant who values "stewardship" and "holistic impact" doesn't respond well to being cornered with evidence. He responds to being treated as a strategic peer. Sarah decided to open with the relationship — acknowledging the decade-long partnership, the value the firm has delivered, and her interest in finding the right structure for the next chapter. The performance data would come second, positioned as a shared problem to solve rather than an accusation.
2. She prepared different language. Instead of "Your firm has been underdelivering," she prepared: "The data suggests a different risk profile than what we originally designed this engagement for. I'd like to explore how we restructure to drive more holistic impact for both sides." That's not spin — it's speaking his language. The message is the same. The framing accounts for how he processes information.
3. She set up an early test. Kahneman flagged that his Collaborating/Competing split was the least certain inference (65% confidence). Sarah planned a deliberate move for the first fifteen minutes: a small, data-backed point of disagreement. Not adversarial — just enough to see how he responded. If he pushed back with logic, she'd know Competing was closer to the surface than the profile suggested. If he asked how she'd arrived at that conclusion, Collaborating was the real default. Either way, she'd know within minutes which playbook to run.
None of this replaced her strategy. It shaped it. The deal analysis told her what to negotiate. The behavioral profile told her how to negotiate with this specific person.
The Full Workflow
Here's what Sarah's complete preparation actually looked like — not one agent, but a system of four steps:
Input
Case Context Documents
LinkedIn Profile(s)
/ \
↓ ↓
Step 1: KRALJIC Step 2: KAHNEMAN
(Procurement (Behavioral
Strategist) Intelligence)
[Procurement KB] [Behavioral KB]
Receives: Case Receives: LinkedIn
Materials Profile
| |
↓ ↓
└──────→ ←──────────┘
Step 3: DEEPAK
(Negotiation Strategist)
[Negotiation KB]
+ Case Materials
+ Kraljic Output
+ Kahneman Output
|
↓
Step 4: COMPILER
(Output)
Each agent has its own Knowledge Base — curated expertise specific to its domain:
Kraljic's KB covers procurement strategy — contract structures, vendor evaluation, cost modeling, supply risk
Kahneman's KB covers behavioral psychology — Insights Discovery, Thomas-Kilmann, LinkedIn signal interpretation, applied guidance
Deepak's KB covers negotiation — the same knowledge base Sarah built in issue 7, encoding her negotiation philosophy, frameworks, and experience
The agents don't replace each other. They see different things. Kraljic sees the deal through procurement. Kahneman sees the person through behavioral psychology. Deepak synthesizes both through negotiation strategy, grounded in Sarah's own expertise. The Compiler formats everything into a single deliverable she can reference.
This is the same architectural principle from issue 9 — separate what the agent knows (Knowledge Base) from how it behaves (System Instructions). Applied three times, in parallel, feeding into a synthesis layer.
Try It Yourself
You don't need a dedicated agent to start exploring behavioral profiling. Here's a simplified prompt that captures the core idea:
I'm preparing for a negotiation with the person whose LinkedIn
profile is attached.
Analyze their profile and provide:
1. BEHAVIORAL SUMMARY
Based on their career trajectory, language, endorsements,
and recommendations — what are their likely behavioral
patterns?
2. COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES
How do they prefer to receive information? What language
resonates with them? What turns them off?
3. CONFLICT STYLE
When disagreement arises, do they tend to compete, collaborate,
compromise, avoid, or accommodate? What evidence supports this?
4. TRUST PROFILE
What builds trust with this person? What breaks it?
5. NEGOTIATION APPROACH
Given their behavioral patterns:
- How should I open?
- How should I frame proposals?
- What should I avoid?
- How will I know if they're shifting from collaborative
to competitive?
Important: State your confidence level for each inference.
Flag what you're uncertain about and what I should verify
in person.
A note on expectations: this simplified prompt will give you useful directional insight, but it won't match the output you saw above. Kahneman runs on roughly 3,000 lines of system instructions and a 2,000-line Knowledge Base covering behavioral psychology at practitioner depth — how to read LinkedIn signals, how to disambiguate similar behavioral profiles, how to calibrate confidence, how to translate inference into specific guidance. The simplified prompt lacks that scaffolding. You'll get a competent first pass. The dedicated agent produces expert-level analysis.
That said — even a competent first pass gives you more insight into your counterpart than most negotiators bring to the table. And if you find the simplified version useful, imagine what the full system delivers.
This Week's Exercise (20 minutes)
Pick someone you're about to negotiate with — or someone you interact with regularly whose communication style you want to understand better.
Step 1 (5 minutes): Copy their full LinkedIn profile into a document. Include the About section, experience descriptions, any recommendations or endorsements you can see.
Step 2 (5 minutes): Run the simplified prompt above.
Step 3 (10 minutes): Read the output. Ask yourself:
Does this match my intuition about this person?
What surprised me?
What would I do differently in my next interaction based on this?
If you've built the full system from previous issues — Knowledge Base, counterpart memory, deal context — try feeding the behavioral profile into your next preparation prompt. Tell the AI: "Here's the behavioral profile of my counterpart. Factor this into the strategy." Watch how the output changes.
What's Next
Over the past ten issues, you've seen the full arc. From a single prompt technique to a system — Knowledge Base, memory, context engineering, preparation workflows, behavioral profiling, multi-agent orchestration.
Sarah started where most professionals start: a blank chat window and a vague question. She's now walking into her biggest negotiation of the year with a strategy grounded in her own expertise, intelligence on her counterpart's behavioral patterns, and a system that gets smarter with every deal.
That's the foundation. What you build on it is up to you.
Next week, I'm stepping behind the curtain again — this time to show you the tool I use to build all of this. In issue 9, I shared the 8-phase framework. Next week: the environment I work in, and why I use it for almost everything — from building agents to brainstorming strategy to creating courses.
A good negotiator prepares for the deal. A great negotiator prepares for the person. The best negotiators prepare for both — and have a system that remembers what it learned.
Questions? Reply directly — I read every response.