From training to consistent negotiation capability

In brief

This exploratory pilot with a major UK port operator tested whether one connected platform could support negotiators with different levels of experience. It found value in refreshing previously learned skills, creating repeated realistic practise, and bringing more structured preparation and coaching closer to live negotiations. The aim was not to standardise how people negotiate, but to create a more consistent capability baseline.

The cohort

‍A mixed group, including previously trained and untrained participants.

The test‍

Could one platform support different starting points across learning, practise and live application?

The value‍

A more consistent baseline for preparation, practise, reflection and judgement - without standardising people.

The question behind the pilot

Within the same organisation, some people may have received high-quality face-to-face training, others developed primarily through experience, and some had little formal development at all.

The pilot tested whether the Cawdor Companion could support those different starting points through three connected experiences: LEARN to establish or refresh core principles, LEVERAGE to practise and receive coaching, and LIVE to apply the same disciplines around real negotiations.

‍

Central idea‍

The objective was not to make people negotiate in the same way. It was to create greater consistency in how they prepare, practise, apply judgement and improve.

LEARN: refreshing knowledge and exposing a recall gap

One of the most revealing reactions from previously trained participants was not, “I have never learned this.” It was, “I don’t remember.”

For participants without previous formal training, LEARN provided a structured foundation. For those with earlier negotiation training, it served a different purpose: bringing familiar principles back into active use.

The pilot highlighted that capability gaps are not always caused by people never having been taught. Sometimes the challenge is the distance between what was once learned and what can still be readily recalled and applied when it matters.

‍

Key finding‍

Previous training does not necessarily mean that learning remains readily accessible at the point of need.

LEVERAGE: turning knowledge into application

Knowing a negotiation principle is one thing. Applying it when another party resists you is something different.

LEVERAGE gave participants a psychologically safe environment in which to prepare, make decisions, experience pushback and receive personalised coaching afterwards. As participants progressed, achieving the desired outcome became deliberately more difficult.

That increasing challenge mattered. Success depended more heavily on applying the skills introduced in LEARN - asking better questions, understanding priorities, preparing trades, managing concessions and thinking more carefully about how an agreement could be constructed.

If an approach did not work, participants could have another go. They could review the coaching, reconsider their choices and test whether a different approach produced a better result.

This created a natural motivation for repeated practise: not simply “Can I complete the exercise?” but “Can I do it better next time?” There was an element of gamification, but the purpose remained serious - apply, receive feedback, adjust and repeat.

LEARN. PRACTISE. REFLECT. REPEAT.‍

The value was not in getting the “right answer” first time. It was in creating a reason to try again with greater understanding and a better approach.

Safe practise still needed to feel real

Participants did not want an AI counterpart that simply agreed with them. They expected different levels of difficulty to produce meaningful differences in resistance, confidence and willingness to move. When an exchange felt less realistic than the commercial situation required, they noticed.

That feedback reinforced an important design principle: psychological safety should create freedom to experiment, but it should not remove commercial challenge. Practise needs to be safe enough for people to test different approaches and realistic enough for their decisions to have consequences.

LIVE: bringing structure and context to real negotiations

LIVE was also tested during the pilot, using AI-supported coaching to help participants think through real negotiation situations.

The feedback highlighted how heavily the quality of that support depended on the richness of the information provided. Where context was limited, the interaction could feel too generic and fail to reflect the full commercial situation.

That finding led directly to product refinement. Additional guidance was introduced before users entered their negotiation information and again before the AI-supported interaction. A new Commercial Context field was also added, giving users space to explain the wider background, pressures, relationships and circumstances that could materially affect the negotiation.

The lesson was broader than interface design: good AI-supported coaching depends not only on the technology, but also on helping the negotiator provide the right context. Providing that context is itself part of effective negotiation preparation.

LIVE insight‍

Better context creates richer coaching - and the act of providing that context encourages better preparation in the first place.

A connected capability model

Taken together, the pilot showed how the three parts of the Companion can support different stages of capability development:

LEARN‍

Build or refresh the principles.

LEVERAGE

Practise, receive feedback and try again.

LIVE‍

Bring the same disciplines closer to real negotiations.

The aim is not to replace human judgement. It is to make structured preparation, realistic practice, reflection and coaching easier to access when they are needed.

Standardising capability without standardising people

The pilot did not suggest that everyone should negotiate in the same way. Different personalities, relationships and situations will always require different approaches.

What can become more consistent is the quality of the thinking behind them - around objectives, the other party, power, gets and gives, risks, conditional trading, practice and review.

Capability baseline‍

The answers will differ. The discipline of asking the right questions does not need to.

‍

What the pilot demonstrated

Recall matters. Previously trained participants still benefited from concise refreshers that brought familiar principles back into use.

Different starting points can be supported together. Less-experienced negotiators can build foundations while experienced users refresh knowledge and test their judgement.

Repeated practice creates value. Increasing difficulty gave participants a reason to review performance, change their approach and have another go.

Practise must be safe and challenging. Users expected credible resistance rather than an AI counterpart that simply made agreement easy.

Context matters in AI-supported coaching. LIVE feedback directly influenced the guidance provided to users and the information the platform asks them to consider.

‍

The larger lesson

Negotiation capability does not have to depend on a single training event or delivery model.

Different people may start from very different places: some with previous formal training, some with experience alone, and others with little structured development.

The pilot demonstrated how one connected platform can support those different starting points - building knowledge where it is needed, refreshing it where it has faded, creating repeated opportunities to practise, and bringing structured thinking closer to live commercial negotiations.

For some organisations, that may complement existing face-to-face development. For others, it can provide a more accessible and scalable route to building negotiation capability in its own right.

LEARN to build and refresh knowledge.

‍LEVERAGE to practise, receive feedback and improve.

‍LIVE to bring that discipline closer to the negotiations that matter.

Not the same personality. Not the same script.

A more consistent standard of negotiation capability - from learning, through practice, to live application.

Scope: This was an exploratory pilot, not a long-term impact study. It was not designed to quantify sustained behavioural change or commercial return.

‍