Dealing with difficult people—including those who may not always be honest—can pose a serious challenge in negotiation. Yet negotiating opportunities often arise from precisely these complicated situations: a family member with a history of unreliability who now promises to do better, a business competitor proposing a joint venture, or a tough boss with whom you hope to build a more constructive working relationship
Learning how to navigate these encounters skillfully can open the door to agreements—and relationships—that might otherwise seem out of reach.
But how should you deal with potential negotiating partners whom you don’t entirely trust, or who have a reputation for dishonesty? Should you engage with them at all?
The United States confronted this dilemma in its efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The outcome of those negotiations offers useful precautions for anyone attempting to make progress with a difficult or unreliable counterpart.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
A Very Brief Negotiated Agreement
In light of President Trump’s 2018 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore, it’s instructive to revisit earlier negotiations between the United States and North Korea.
Beginning in 2011, U.S. officials engaged in months of talks with North Korea’s secretive and erratic leadership. The negotiations began during the final months of Kim Jong-il’s rule and continued after his death under the new regime of his son, Kim Jong-un—a leader who would soon demonstrate a willingness to test the limits of diplomatic agreements.
On February 29, 2012, the two countries announced that they had reached an agreement. North Korea pledged to freeze its enriched-uranium weapons program and halt long-range missile activities. In return, the United States agreed to provide large quantities of food aid to the impoverished nation.
The deal proved short-lived.
Just 17 days later, North Korea announced plans to launch a satellite using a long-range missile. The United States responded that such a launch would violate a United Nations Security Council resolution prohibiting North Korea from missile or rocket launches. U.S. negotiators also emphasized that they had explicitly warned Pyongyang during talks that a satellite launch would be a deal breaker, according to The New York Times.
Some analysts suggested that hard-liners within North Korea had derailed the agreement to commemorate the centennial of the nation’s founder, Kim Il-sung. As The New York Times reporter Choe Sang-Hun noted, exploiting loopholes in agreements to gain leverage—or even to collapse a deal outright—has been a recurring North Korean negotiating tactic.
On March 26, 2012, President Barack Obama addressed world leaders at the Global Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. He warned North Korea that continuing on its current path would bring “more of the same, more broken dreams, more isolation,” according to NPR’s Mike Shuster.
Behind the scenes, Obama also urged Chinese president Hu Jintao to use Beijing’s influence to discourage Pyongyang from proceeding with the launch.
Those efforts failed. On April 13, 2012, North Korea launched its rocket. It exploded shortly after liftoff and fell into the Yellow Sea—formally ending the agreement.
Dishonest Negotiators: Deal or No Deal?
In hindsight, it’s fair to ask whether the United States erred by negotiating with North Korea at all, given the country’s long-standing reputation for provocation and unreliability.
Yet the decision to negotiate was not without logic. Following Kim Jong-il’s death in December 2011, it was genuinely unclear whether Kim Jong-un would maintain his father’s isolationist policies or pursue a more cooperative course.
Daniel Sneider of Stanford University’s Asia-Pacific Research Center told NPR that the negotiations served a useful purpose: they tested whether the new leadership was prepared to change direction. By violating the agreement so quickly, North Korea sent a clear signal that it was not.
From a negotiation perspective, the talks illustrate an important lesson. Engaging with a dishonest or untrustworthy counterpart does not always mean expecting success. Sometimes, negotiation is a diagnostic tool—one that reveals intentions, constraints, and red lines that would otherwise remain hidden.
The key is to negotiate carefully, with realistic expectations, built-in safeguards, and a clear understanding of what information you hope to gain—even if agreement ultimately proves impossible.
How do you handle difficult people and dishonest negotiators?
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Adapted from “When They Fail the Trust Test,” first published in the June 2012 issue of Negotiation.
