Tony Shepherd LL.M.(SYD),A.S.D.A.,A.T.C.L.


It's everywhere - the key to success in business is to exceed your clients' expectations, be more client-centric, client intimate, anticipate their needs, suspend your agenda, drill down, show more empathy. Have I left any out? Undoubtedly.

Problem is, and here's a big disruption - far too many people that I advise as a negotiation and relationship management specialist have forgotten how to protect their own revenue, profitability, people and risk profile. They have become so "client immersed", that they have fallen victim to what I call the modern client Stockholm Syndrome.

The original Stockholm Syndrome, identified in 1973, and now officially recognised in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a psychological response where a captive begins to identify closely with his or her captors, as well as with their agenda and demands ( In 1973 four Stockholm bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault for 6 days. They began to develop a bizarre connection with their abductors advising police (and the Swedish Prime Minister, no less) that while they fully trusted their abductors, they did not trust police who were negotiating to free them.

See the client connection? How many sales and business development specialists, professionals, key account managers and even very senior executives are driven to do everything possible to make the client "happy"? They rationalise discounting, offering clients inducements or more advantageous arrangements, waive agreed terms, accept variations that result in loss or risk to the service provider, and worst of all, pressure their own colleagues (who have to work unprofitably around the clock) to do whatever it takes to keep big clients "happy" - unpaid work, out of scope work, unfairly expedited or prioritised work, organising disorganised clients, etc.

News flash! They've fallen victim to the client Stockholm Syndrome and, quite frankly, forgotten who they work for. I was advised of a situation where a Sales/BD person in seeking to renew a client contract withheld key client demands from their own finance and legal teams to then pressure them into accepting a less advantageous contract extension (more favourable to the client) to ostensibly -

  1. Beat the competition to the deal; &
  2. Retain a key client (albeit on more risky, less profitable terms), arguing they were working hard to preserve a great relationship, while their colleagues were potentially "blockers".

But there is hope. I spend my days helping people understand a critical distinction - clients must always be "happy" with the services we provide, but they just need to "agree" to the terms on which those services are provided, not be "happy". Don't confuse the two.

If there is any deficiency in our service offerings, we need to fix this immediately and at our cost. If we promise to deliver something, we must deliver it. True client focus is to deeply understand the client's needs, then formulate a differentiated offering and perform to satisfy those needs on an agreed basis (pricing, deliverables, etc).

But ... as long as we have performed as promised, we are then entitled to pursue and protect our terms, even if the client is "unhappy", or just wants everything their way.

A quick example. A small, specialised training company had agreed to provide tailored training services to a large multinational. Dates had been blocked in, cancellation terms previously agreed, resources set aside. While there was a 20 day cancellation term in place, 2 days before the training the multinational announced that given other (subjective) priorities had just surfaced, the training could not be conducted, and indeed, all training had been indefinitely put on hold.

When the client contact within the training company politely raised the potential cancellation fee (and sensibly suggested some alternatives), the client indignantly pointed out that they would expect their providers to be far more attuned to their "needs" and that it was a very poor "service proposition" to propose cancellation fees to a client of this calibre (even though they had actually agreed to this!)

What would you do? Is it a poor service proposition to respectfully pursue the cancellation? If it is, why have an agreement in the first place?

I would suggest the service provider has performed from a service perspective (being ready, willing and able to perform). This is not a service's a previously agreed term! Is it poor client "service" to respectfully assert a term that gives the parties certainty and clarity and is critical to agreement being entered into the first place? If it is, then the client Stockholm Syndrome is more pervasive than we think.

Author description - Tony Shepherd is an Australian lawyer, communication & negotiation specialist who works globally advising & training teams to profitably manage commercial relationships. His contact no is 61 412 004 011 or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Article first published on LinkedIn on 30th April 2017 -



Tony Shepherd LL.M.(SYD),A.S.D.A.,A.T.C.L.


It must be hard being a corporate finance person, especially in global corporations, having to sit through the CEO's passionate proclamation of corporate values - integrity, collaboration, transparency, etc then basically be held to account on one pervasive KPI - get all the money we're owed in as quickly as possible, and delay paying money out.

For those who might not be aware, this arbitrage alone brings in millions of dollars each year for global corporations. Woah betide the legions of small suppliers, consultants, contractors and others who have provided product or services to these behemoths, who are then stoically confronted by nominated payment terms, often expressed as EOM (end of month) plus 45, 60 or even 90 days.

It gets worse. Nominated and actual payment terms often have very little in common. Numerous suppliers and providers find that submitted invoices are often sat on, unilaterally held until the month after submission before being put in the system, frequently lost between the division to whom product or services are provided and the finance group (requiring resubmission) or, most devious of all, have a small inaccuracy in the invoice (usually a mistaken entity or misspelling in the client notation) which is noticed by the corporate debtor, but not shared with the creditor until considerable time has passed. When followed up, the "mistake" is identified, and resubmission of the invoice is required, whereupon, the timeframe starts over.

The point of this note is that I decided instead of complaining or waiting for governments to catch up and legislate in these matters (which is happening), to invoke positive karma and wherever possible, reach out to corporate finance people of clients and connections on LinkedIn to seek to connect. I've also advised others to do the same.

My thinking was that if we try to personalise the process and build a relationship, we begin to break down these walls.

Anecdotally, the result has surprised me and others. On numerous occasions the finance invitee of a client or related entity will review the profile, and simply decline the invitation. Now, that's obviously their prerogative, but where someone often has numerous shared connections and if they look at a profile they will usually see reference to clients (their employer) within networks, why wouldn't they accept?

I really hope it's not because they see themselves as gatekeepers who would be compromised fraternising with someone on the other end of an invoice? Or worse still, playing to stereotypes of people in finance being indifferent to matters of human interplay and connection?  Given the values corporations are espousing, surely we've moved beyond this?

Thoughts - especially those from our corporate finance colleagues? 

Author description - Tony Shepherd is an Australian lawyer, communication & negotiation specialist who works globally advising & training teams to profitably manage commercial relationships. His contact no is 61 412 004 011 or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


First published in LinkedIn on 19th June 2017 -




Tony Shepherd LL.M.(SYD),A.S.D.A.,A.T.C.L.


"Of course I do - everybody does!". Well, if that's the case, why are so many countless hours lost while we as meeting participants have our time wasted by people "presenting" under the guise of trawling through and randomly commenting upon data projected documents, reports, financial statements, spreadsheets and the like?

Having spent a lifetime as a communication advisor and meeting participants from the boardrooms of Switzerland and USA, to business pitches and tenders in China and India to employee town halls everywhere else, I've narrowed it down to one primary conceptual problem.

The majority of people who have to present ideas, findings, directions, competence, strategies and recommendations face to face groups seem to think that - "If I have a written document as a base, especially if it also includes graphics, PowerPoint or other visual representations - such as a report, submissions, financial statements, corporate results, technical paper, tender, etc - I also have a ready made presentation, because all I have to do is data project this document to the group and then "present" or comment upon the key issues the document raises".

The problem is obvious. A document can, and indeed, should be a detailed logical and sequential record and analysis of a given set of facts providing background, analysis, key issue identification, scenarios, options, recommendations and the like. Most importantly, it has to have sufficient detail and independence so that it can stand alone, be read and make sense to the lone and often distant reader. The question is, if you have such a document, do you also automatically have a presentation ready for delivery to a group of people in a meeting or web conference?

The answer - of course not. A face to face presentation is delivered to "value add" to more detailed documentary sources. What's the value add if the presenter merely replicates the document, reading it back to the audience or just randomly comments upon bits of information contained therein? A presentation is an entirely different animal.

The value addition of the presentation is that the presenter sees the audience as consumers, whom they can serve and benefit by rising above more detailed documentary sources and outlining a brief and efficient road map to save the audience time by:-

  • Highlighting the key issues and related themes or messages raised;
  • Providing an overview of the situation and possible solutions which will provide a context and framework for subsequent and more detailed review, discussion and decision making. How often are we frustrated by audience members drilling down after Slide 2 before the presentation landscape and key themes have been made clear?; and
  • Allowing the presenter to story tell, personalise and focus the decision making framework. A quick example - I recently sat through a long, national sales meeting of a manufacturer with a state by state analysis of sales, results, expenses, strategy, etc. Chart after chart was projected. The group were basically asleep. In addition, all this information had already been provided before the meeting to the team, yet the Sales Manager and the CFO droned on.

What subsequently emerged was that there was one current hot issue - the recent emergence of an international competitor with a single generic product line in one state of operation, potentially moving into other states. Surely a far more vibrant and productive meeting/exchange could have been had by assuming the regular reports had been reviewed and getting straight to presentation of the new competitor challenge, the implications and the response?

Mark Twain once wrote in correspondence, "I've written you this long letter because I didn't have time to write you a short one...". An amazing insight... and even more applicable to modern business presentation!

The truth is it actually takes more time to review a detailed document and then extract and distill a value adding presentation - providing a framework, themes and personalisation which then lay the basis for a more interactive and productive group discussion. More commonly, most presenters are time poor and lazy, so it's easier to data project the document in whole or part and then:-

  • Speak to text and visuals that are often illegible ("I know you can't read this but....");
  • The audience speed reads ahead and tunes out the presenter;
  • The presenter annoys and detains the audience by assuming their documentary visuals will prompt what they want to say, but, of course, they don't. They start randomly commenting on bits of information displayed, as opposed to having a pre-prepared clear, succinct message framework; and
  • Most tragically, go way over time, inconsiderately detaining their audience who could have been spending their time productively elsewhere.

And let's be honest, while all of us can be guilty of the above presentation sins, my experience is that the worst offenders are often the most senior managers and executives. Why? Because they fail to see their audiences as consumers, rather than captives. It is the leader's obligation to pre-prepare and distill key messages that assist their team members and deliver them efficiently, as opposed to droning on and detaining them with packaged, sanitised displays.

I recently saw a senior hospitality industry executive present in some detail to hotel workers (room maintenance, cleaners, food & beverage, porters, etc) about EBITDA targets - without appropriate translation!

So, what frameworks do effective business presenters operate within? While not definitive, what I see and recommend is:-

  • While a detailed document is generally a necessary and appropriate part of the communication process, the presentation of key issues, themes and messages is a separate exercise requiring consideration, rehearsal and extraction;
  • These overview presentations should (ideally) not exceed 15 minutes. Roughly the length of a TED talk. The group discussion following them can then go as long as the group is engaged and participative. In this way the presenter evolves into a facilitator, as opposed to remaining a teacher with a class of students;
  • This style of presentation, because they are shorter, should not be punctuated with premature analysis and debate - "I know we'll need to work through these matters, so just let me literally take 10 minutes up front to highlight the key issues we'll need to discuss and decide...". As opposed to "I've got a fair bit to cover in this presentation, so just stop me at any time if you have questions or comments....";
  • A good presenter should (indicatively) avoid using more than five visual images or slides which can be extracted from the document, but should be as diagrammatic/pictorial as possible. Also, divergent sentences, paragraphs and slabs of writing which might be necessary in the document should be taken out of the presentation visuals. The good news is you're often not designing a completely different visual aid, just taking out words, which are redundant because they have you as the presenter anyway; and
  • Because modern audiences are more often consumers to be benefited, not students to be taught, good presenters share and settle the communication process with the audience - "Given I want to be as efficient as possible, I'm going to try and pull out the key issues for us. Of course, if we need to expand upon or drill down into key areas, let me know and we can do that as a group once I've hopefully framed this for us..."

Keep these thoughts in mind the next time someone says - "Can you email me your presentation on...?". My bet is they're asking for a document, capable of standing alone and being read independently. As I said at the outset, people do get confused!

Tony Shepherd is an Australian lawyer, management and communication advisor who has spent over 20 years working globally as a corporate communication coach, advisor and trainer. His contact no is 61 412 004 011 or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


First published in LinkedIn on 10 September 2016 -




Tony Shepherd LL.M.(SYD),A.S.D.A.,A.T.C.L.


Always go to the source. Whether first use of the phrase is attributed to retailer Marshall Field who owned the "Chicago" department store (subsequently renamed Macy's) in the late 1800's, or legendary hotelier Cesar Ritz who proclaimed in 1908 "Le client n'a jamais tort" (the customer is never wrong), one thing is clear - both men attempted to frame a behavioural norm for customer interactions. Their idea was that when dealing face to face with customers, the customer should always be treated with courtesy, respect and patience. It was all about behaviour - high level communication skills, even when customers conducted themselves poorly.

As successful businessmen who both knew how to turn a serious profit, I think they would be horrified to learn how their maxim has come to be literally interpreted and transformed from a shield to a sword. These days it is all too often taken to mean customers can simply ignore or disregard reasonable commercial terms, demand concessions simply because they are impatient or "unhappy", rudely challenge service providers, make other customers uncomfortable, not bother to inform themselves ("I don't read that detail crap"), threaten to unjustly publicise their "experience" and generally, behave like tantrumming 2-year olds.

While these issues present in all industries and professions, I was recently following a LinkedIn conversation in relation to the hospitality industry, so let's use this as an example. Is a customer "always right" to demand -

  • A 9.00am check in, when they have arrived unexpectedly early and unannounced, when the hotel's terms clearly communicate check in time is 2pm (given that staying guests don't have to vacate rooms until 12pm, the rooms have to be cleaned, etc)? or
  • Having pre-paid a month in advance to secure a 50% room discount, simply ring the night before, want to cancel the booking, rebook in a month's time on a different week night and insist upon the 50% discounted room rate applying? or
  • Send a steak back 3 times, declaring "this is not medium rare", insisting it be further cooked to the point that a professional chef points out that the steak is now cooked medium to well done, only to have the customer reply - "Well, that's what I call medium rare"?

Please note the critical word above - DEMAND. I have no issue at all with the customer arriving early or the customer seeking to change a booking respectfully requesting and pursuing these outcomes. My issue is with the expectation that customers have a psuedo-contractual, even statutory right to demand these things because "I am the customer" and worse still, not to get them is then appropriately characterised and publicised as "appalling service".

So, while this topic justifies a book, a few quick guidelines. I would suggest the customer is " always right" and entitled to -

  • Be treated at all times with courtesy, respect and patience, even if the customer's own behaviour and communication skills are lacking;
  • Product and services that match and conform to advertised standards and legitimate customer expectations. If this standard is not met, the customer has every right to seek rectification, refund or alternatives that the customer may suggest and pursue; and
  • Avoid being blindsided by unexpected and disadvantageous terms or contractual minutiae that materially alter the bargain. A simple test - "Would I have proceeded with this transaction had I known this?"

A can of worms, I know, but we must also look to apply a more rational, objective test here - what would the reasonable, informed and articulate customer expect? Otherwise our medium-rare steak customer can subjectively reshape the culinary landscape - "Well, I'm the customer and I say a medium-rare steak is fully brown throughout with burnt, crispy edges. That's the way my mother always did it and she called it medium-rare".

By extension - the customer is "not right" where -

  • They conduct themselves rudely - aggressively and personally attacking or threatening a service provider or make other customers uncomfortable. The service provider in these circumstances is perfectly entitled to respectfully request a break, or that the conversation be conducted more civilly; or
  • They willfully ignore or fail to take notice of reasonable terms and requirements, that have been clearly communicated and/or are readily available. For example, our 9am check in guest is not "right" to say - "It's 9am and you're saying I will have to wait up to 5 hours to get into a room at your hotel? That is absolutely abysmal service, and this is my worst hotel experience ever. You wait until I get onto TripAdvisor"; or
  • Their subjective expectations do not reflect those of the reasonable, informed & articulate customer. What if a hotel guest orders room service and is given an indication that the meal will be delivered in "about 20 minutes"? The meal is then delivered in 24 minutes and the customer rings downstairs, angrily refusing to pay, saying there is no way he is rewarding "pathetic service". Should this guest be given a free meal?

So, in a way, history itself is a form of Chinese whispers. While Monsieurs Field and Ritz ethically endorsed and, indeed, required of their teams to treat customers with respect, I tend to think they would be horrified to learn that their mantra has been literally invoked by customers, and worse still, modern customer service gurus, to advocate sacrificing reasonableness, mutuality and profitability.

A parting thought - as is all too often the case, the problem is made worse by the senior management of service organisations who, on hearing of an escalated complaint (even a totally unreasonable or unsubstantiated one) simply direct staff to - "Make this thing go away". What do the child psychologists say about tantrumming 2-year olds?  Behaviour will always continue if it's rewarded. 

Author description - Tony Shepherd is an Australian lawyer, communication & negotiation specialist who works globally advising & training teams to profitably manage commercial relationships. His contact no is 61 412 004 011 or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


First published in LinkedIn on 19th January 2017 -



The continuation of a relationship is all too often used by negotiators as a threat to secure more advantageous concessions, rather than as a true basis for shared profitability.


Tony Shepherd LL.M.(SYD),A.S.D.A.,A.T.C.L.


In the context of negotiating outcomes and agreements, when is the relationship between negotiating parties not a relationship? The answer seems to be when one party uses the threat that they will withdraw from the relationship if additional concessions or accommodations are not granted.

Negotiating terms on which products or services are to be provided to multinational corporations or indeed, governments, is becoming a major challenge. As these large bodies understand and flex their leverage and purchasing power, they often seek to pressure providers and depart from accepted doctrines of mutuality. The use of procurement teams has made the problem worse for they often pursue a mandate of securing cost concessions without fully comprehending the subject matter of the negotiations.


The Negotiator’s Dilemma

Services Inc. won a 2 year contract to provide technology services to MegaCorp, a multinational corporation. A term of the agreement was that throughout the contract, Services Inc. would conduct 2 day intensive training sessions for MegaCorp staff, as required, at an agreed cost of $5,000 per session. Sensibly, Services Inc. won inclusion of a cancellation clause in the original contract whereby if MegaCorp booked a session but cancelled within 7 days, the full $5,000 would be payable.

All went well with the agreement, including the conduct of several training sessions, until eight weeks out from the expiration of the initial contract period (and Services Inc. hoped the agreement would be extended) when MegaCorp booked then cancelled a training session one day out from the nominated presentation date. On learning of the purported cancellation Services Inc. did everything possible to offer MegaCorp a range of collaborative alternatives to avoid cancellation – Could other people within MegaCorp attend? Would a switch of venue help? MegaCorp simply said “No, due to events within MegaCorp which weren’t foreseen at the time of booking it doesn’t suit us to have our people attend. Sorry”. Services Inc. gingerly raised the previously agreed cancellation fee.

MegaCorp’s response was interesting. They indicated that given the possible continuation of the deal for a new term, if Services Inc. truly valued the “relationship”, they should waive the fee. MegaCorp went on to point out they were not guaranteeing renewal because they were committed to retender, but waiving the fee would put Services Inc. “in a very positive light”. They also indicated they were in all respects more than happy with Service Inc.’s performance to date. Unanimous wisdom within Services Inc. was to drop the fee.

Services Inc. retendered and lost the renewal to a generic, lower cost competitor. Did they do the right thing in waiving the fee?


Two Kinds of Interests – Substance and Relationship

In their seminal work “Getting to Yes” Fisher and Ury neatly identified two kinds of interests negotiators must balance – the substantive terms of the deal (eg fees, security, intellectual property protection) and relationship issues flowing from the interaction of the negotiators (eg that the parties treat each other respectfully, be accessible, etc.)

The modern conundrum exemplified by the above example is that many negotiators, especially large corporations, intentionally or unconsciously confuse these two kinds of interests. As soon as they are presented with a substantive term that does not suit them, they pressure the other party to concede or vary the term as a sign of their “commitment to the relationship” especially where they perceive the other party wants to continue to provide their product or services to the corporation.

What is ironic in all this is the lack of reciprocity these parties offer. Surely relationship is a two way thing. Where was MegaCorp’s wise and ethical voice saying, "Look, we unilaterally and without notice cancelled the session and we agreed to pay if this happened. In recognition of our agreement and relationship with Services Inc, we should pay the fee.” One can only wonder.

What is advocated is to encourage negotiators like Services Inc. to bear in mind and practise an objective relationship test. The subjective “happiness” of the other party is unworkable as a relationship test, especially where substantive and relationship interests are confused. MegaCorp’s confused logic seems to be that because they would prefer not to pay a cancellation fee (even though they agreed to it) and Services Inc. is not readily prepared to waive it, Services Inc. is not committed to the relationship and is inappropriately inflexible.


Setting Objective Relationship Benchmarks

To orient the modern negotiator in working towards and achieving true objectivity in managing relationship interests, three benchmarks are suggested:-

1.     Avoid Personal, Judgemental or Violating Behaviours

A negotiator should always communicate their best substantive outcomes or terms to the other party in a way that is not PERSONAL (attacking the individual), JUDGEMENTAL (confronting them with your assessment of their position) or VIOLATING (any behaviour that would threaten the other party). Services Inc. should have delivered the substantive outcome clearly to MegaCorp, “While we’re happy to be flexible on the training session arrangements, a fee of $5,000 is ultimately payable if the date is totally vacated as we originally agreed.”

MegaCorp probably won’t be happy with this, but their subjective happiness is not the test. The test is that Services Inc. has respectfully communicated and pursued their substantive outcome. Another way of expressing this is that a statement of fact eg the triggering of the cancellation payment, is not in and of itself personal, judgemental or violating. It only rises to an inappropriate level when the negotiator through language or conduct embellishes an otherwise legitimate outcome. A negotiator cannot be measured against the other party’s happiness with the outcomes offered, but they can be measured against their specific behaviours in communicating these outcomes.         

A quick example on a personal level is the employee who genuinely believes she is deserving of higher remuneration. Does she risk the “relationship” with her manager by asking for a raise and indicating if not granted, she will need to consider her options, including employment elsewhere? Many people spontaneously think “Of course it risks the relationship because the manager would be unhappy or uncomfortable hearing this.” Some would go so far as to frame this request as a form of blackmail.

Respectfully, the manager’s subjective happiness and/or comfort are not the test. As long as the employee has communicated her substantive outcomes (eg. Salary and benefit expectations) in a way that is not personal, judgemental or violating, she passes our objective relationship test. Let’s hold her responsible for her behaviours (which she controls) not the reaction of the other party, which she does not control.

2.     Avoid “Internalising”

Internalising is the psychological process of negotiating within and against ourselves to the point where lower outcomes are communicated to the other party. It is a simple social rationalisation aimed at falsely reducing perceived conflict – “If I ask for less, the other party will be happier and that improves the relationship.” David Messick, Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, uses the term “social heuristic” to describe a similar phenomenon – a psychological reflex to facilitate quick decision making with reduced conflict.

On our objective test, relationship interests are not enhanced by inappropriately lowering our substantive interests. Services Inc. internalised by waiving the cancellation fee without seeking something in return. The vain hope was to deliver good news to MegaCorp to secure potential future advantage.

Another possible example of internalising would be if Services Inc. had, on being challenged on the cancellation fee, agreed straight away to only charge its fixed costs for the training (eg. room hire of $1,000). This might be an option if Services Inc. ultimately trades with MegaCorp, but it would be a mistake to immediately discount the $5,000 fee provided for in the original agreement. Negotiators should always deliver their best substantive outcomes rather than some lower, internalised outcome which simply launches the negotiation process off a lower base.

3.     Trade Concessions, Avoid Unilateral Concessions to Preserve Relationships

A common principle of bargaining is to always seek something in return for a proffered concession. It is based on the premise that that which is received for free, is generally ascribed little value. This benchmark is particularly important in the context of balancing substantive and relationship interests where it is even easier to falsely justify a concession to “improve the relationship”.

Services Inc. fell into this trap. They unilaterally waived the $5,000 fee and secured nothing in return. Indeed, they even lost the renewal in the tender process. A wiser course of action would have been to make waiver of the $5,000 conditional on renewal of the agreement. A rebate arrangement could have been offered whereby if they won the renewal, they would rebate the cancellation fee. Alternatively, if the renewal was awarded to a competitor they would reserve the right to payment of the fee as per the original agreement.

A similar strategy would assist our employee seeking a raise. Perhaps her manager will respond - “Look, I appreciate you raising these expectations with me, but let’s leave it until the next formal performance review in 4 months’ time and we’ll see what we can do then.” To simply agree to this straight away would not advance her substantive interests. A trade-off may be to agree to this delay if at least one of her substantive outcomes is met - “I’d be prepared to wait if I can get my company car up-graded now. On that basis I’d be happy to discuss my other expectations at my scheduled review.”

Skilful negotiators appreciate the inherent reciprocity of relationships. Just as much as relationships require flexibility, understanding and collaboration, they are also the frameworks within which our substantive needs and outcomes must be communicated, negotiated and secured.

Tony Shepherd is an Australian Management Consultant and a leading Negotiation Specialist working and advising internationally. His contact is: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..