EP 175: Stefanie Schubert | Why Smart People Lose Negotiations Before They Start

Most leaders think negotiation begins when both sides sit down to talk numbers.
 By then, trust, incentives, timing, internal alignment, and first impressions have already shaped the outcome.
 That is why smart founders, executives, investors, and board members can have the right facts and still walk away with the wrong result.

In this episode of Beginner’s Mind, Stefanie Schubert explains why negotiation is not a last-minute performance at the table. It is a leadership capability that starts much earlier, in the way people prepare, build trust, frame value, listen, manage emotions, and understand what the other side truly needs.

Stefanie is a Professor of Economics at SRH University Heidelberg, a Negotiation Advisor, Keynote Speaker, and ICF-certified Executive Coach. Her work combines behavioral economics, game theory, negotiation, executive coaching, and real-world business practice, with experience in complex business environments, alliance management, and biopharma. 

This conversation moves from the practical to the profound: why intelligent people still make weak decisions, why preparation often matters more than persuasion, why pushing people creates resistance, how ballroom dancing explains negotiation better than many textbooks, and why investors, scientists, founders, and corporate leaders often speak past each other without realizing it.

We also explore John Nash, A Beautiful Mind, first offers, anchoring, emotional decision-making, AI-driven profiling, trust in virtual environments, and why rejection in fundraising is not necessarily the end of the negotiation.

As Stefanie puts it:

(01:50:33) “You bring in something. It’s not that you beg for money with the investor.”

That may be the core lesson of the episode.
Good negotiation is not domination. It is not theatre. It is not a bag of tricks. It is the discipline of understanding value, shaping the game, and entering the room with enough clarity to build something useful with another person.

Selected moments

(00:00:00) Why smart people lose negotiations early
(00:04:24) Negotiation starts before the table
(00:07:57) Why smart people still decide poorly
(00:13:25) Influence creates value not manipulation
(00:18:21) Human shortcuts quietly kill opportunities
(00:25:08) Ballroom dancing reveals negotiation resistance
(00:28:44) Active listening creates leadership leverage
(00:34:06) Authenticity beats dominance in leadership
(00:37:05) How to de-escalate emotional negotiations
(00:45:05) Game theory without mathematical intimidation
(00:52:57) A Beautiful Mind and collaboration traps
(01:00:47) First offers and anchoring pressure
(01:06:37) Internal alignment before external negotiation
(01:12:25) Why emotions can be rational
(01:17:20) Fast thinking versus sustainable judgment
(01:32:25) AI profiling can poison first impressions
(01:40:59) Trust building before formal deals
(01:45:04) Why investor rejection is not final
(01:47:24) Designing negotiations from first contact
(01:48:11) Create value before dividing value
(01:50:28) Confidence before asking for

Join Christian Soschner for expert coaching.
50% Off - With 35+ years in deep tech, startups/scaleups, and public companies, Christian offers power video sessions. Elevate strategy, execution, and leadership. Book Now.

Transcript

Why smart people lose negotiations early

Christian Soschner 0:00

Smart people lose negotiations every single day. A founder can have the science, the numbers, and the conviction and still walk away empty-handed. A board can have brilliant people in the room and still make a weak decision. This episode looks at the gap between intelligence and outcome and at what actually causes it.

Stefanie Schubert 0:22

The negotiation is not just happening at the deal table, right? It is everything that happens before And that is the core idea.

Christian Soschner 0:30

Most people treat negotiation as a meeting, a number, or a final conversation. Stephanie Schubert treats it as something much larger. Preparation, incentives, trusts, timing, internal alignment, and the way human beings treat each other long before anyone makes a formal offer. Her work combines behavioral economics, game theory, negotiation, and real-world business practice. She is professor of economics at the University of Heidelberg, a negotiation advisor, keynote speaker, and ICF certified coach. There is also a strange truth in all of this. The more senior people become, the more tempting it is to rely on logic alone. That is where many decisions start to drift. Stephanie's view is more practical. Structure matters. Influence matters just as much. And that line stayed with me. It sounds simple, but it is not simple at all. It applies in a boardroom, in a financing process, in alliance management, and even in the old John Nash movie scene where everyone thinks they want the same thing and still gets the human part completely wrong. One of Stephanie's strongest idea is that what looks effortless from the outside usually comes from very deliberate thinking on the inside. Small shifts in framing can change an outcome far more than people expect. It is not domination, it is not a bag of tricks. It is the discipline of understanding value, shaping the game, and entering the room with enough clarity to build something useful with another person. This episode today is for founders, investors, executives, politicians, and academics who make decisions that affect other people. If you care about better outcomes, stronger partnerships, and a more thoughtful way to lead, this conversation with Stephanie Schubert is worth your time. Stephanie, welcome to Beginner's Mind. Good to see you and very glad to have you here. Before we start, three things I genuinely appreciate about your work, which I found while preparing for this conversation. The first one is you manage, and this is pretty amazing, you manage to bridge rigorous academic economic thinking into real world decision-making situations. The second one is that you treat negotiation as a leadership capability and not just a theoretical exercise, especially when it comes to game theory, it's very tempting to just stay in the academic area. You really bring it into the real world. And the third one is that what I especially like is that you help focusing people on making better decisions, creating better win-win collaborations, and not just winning arguments. It's really a pleasure to have you here today.

Stefanie Schubert 3:57

So, um yeah, where do we start?

Christian Soschner 4:00

Yeah, let's start. Let's start with the first question, I would say. Um when people hear the word negotiation today, I think they often associate with the word tactics, power, winning, submission, or losing. When you hear the word negotiation today, what does it actually mean for you?

Negotiation starts before the table

Stefanie Schubert 4:23

Um, so yes, you are absolutely right. Negotiation is often understood as something you know that happens at the negotiation table. And uh so sometimes people approach me and say, Oh, can you help me? I have a negotiation tomorrow. Oh no, how can you? The negotiation is not just happening at the deal table, right? It is everything that happens before, months before when you get to know each other. So I see a negotiation as a much broader thing. Um, so why is that? Because we are in a world with interactions, right? Everything you do is um you always get decisions by others, and they affect you and the outcome you get. And so actually, when you start working together and when you start having meetings and discussing what you want to do together, this is already part of the negotiation because you build a relationship and you get to know each other and you think about the project you're going to do together. So the negotiation starts much before the day where you really meet at the table. And um, so when you uh look at this from this broader perspective, there is a lot you can do to improve your position.

Christian Soschner 5:39

That's a very good starting point. Um, I also know that when people look into this conversation, um, today they have always little time and almost no time. And when we think about the typical CEO or academics with limited time, if someone only stays for five minutes today, what would they miss by not returning for the full conversation?

Stefanie Schubert 6:05

Christian, are you telling me that some people will leave the meeting after five minutes? No, I I can't imagine people are going to do that. But what they miss if they do that is uh clearly we will take a lot of um, yeah, a lot of um, well, maybe learnings they can apply immediately and situations them they they might know from their lives as well. Hopefully uh it's helpful for them. But maybe if there are people who want to leave after five minutes, something I still can't believe is um maybe that just let's just give them a learning, okay? Um so something they can take away if they leave in a few minutes. Um so one of the most important learnings when it comes to negotiations and decisions in interactive settings, right? When you when you you work with people, is um now this is um a trick that comes for free. Start with giving something. Um so build on reciprocity. Start with giving something, and um, when you do that in a negotiation or in in decision-making problems with your teams, whatever the situation is, then very often people come back and give you something in return. And this is uh often the start of a good relationship and also this the beginning of a new, let's say, good negotiation outcome.

Christian Soschner 7:27

That's a good that's a good point. That's a good point. Um, I had uh chosen a title where I think uh where I thought, oh my god, should I really do that? Um is it not too offensive? It was about uh smart people making bad decisions. And you have worked most likely with many intelligent people. When did you first notice that poor decision making is really a problem of intelligence?

Stefanie Schubert 7:57

No, I wouldn't say it's a problem. So, first of all, I started um observing that a lot of clever people do a lot of good decisions. Okay, so decision making is not a problem per se. Um, and I realized that those people who make good decisions and are successful in negotiations, they often um have the same kind of thinking I have with my game theory background. And um so what I then learned is that nevertheless they can, so to say, benefit from using a kind of structure that gives them more clarity to what they are doing and maybe make even better decisions. So I'm not saying they are not good in decision making at all, but I'm saying that there is still room for improvement quite often because um um making good decisions requires some preparation and time, and um some people just forget about that or don't spend enough time on the preparation for that.

Christian Soschner 8:57

Why do you think is that that people don't spend enough time preparing for negotiations?

Stefanie Schubert 9:05

Oh why people don't spend enough time for preparing, you know, this is life because everyone's so busy with the daily task they have. I completely understand. But if there's something that's really important, then think about uh spending more time or maybe asking someone who has time who can help you in uh thinking the decision through.

Christian Soschner 9:29

How much what is there in a role? What's the ideal preparation time for a negotiation?

Stefanie Schubert 9:37

What's the ideal preparation time? Well, you can prepare as long as you want to. It's always a matter of how much would you like to invest um and um what is the outcome. So, because at one point you might find that getting more information, you know, for making a decision doesn't help you so much, and then you so um it it it very much depends on the negotiation problem, I would say. But of course, uh decisions and negotiations will never happen with 100% of information. So people usually make decisions when they have something like 70% of the information. But again, this requires that you have an idea of what you know and of what you don't, right? Because coming to the conclusion that I know already enough to make a good decision also implies somehow to know what you don't know.

Christian Soschner 10:31

When we look back at your early academic years, what initially drew you to economics and game theory?

Stefanie Schubert 10:41

So, my um background is indeed I'm an economist. I studied economics um at university, but I must say um I had no idea what to do after school, so it was just coincidence. So I started studying economics and um I found out that it's a pretty good thing to do because economics is all about how people make decisions, how people make decisions individually or the whole economy and how they respond to incentives. And now we're looking at this um game theory is part of this decision making, right? Game theory is actually the part where you look at strategic decisions where um we have only a few people and the decisions of others let's say impact your situation. So you have room for strategic decisions as compared to decisions that you make, but they have no, let's say, impact on others. For example, if I buy an apple, it doesn't have an impact on others, right? It's a decision I make, and this is what is uh covered by economics, uh consumer behavior. So, right, everyone knows this who studied economics or business. But game theory is a bit different, and um, I would say game theory is very good to apply in business situations because this kind of thinking, what do other people do, and how can I respond to that, and how can I base my optimal decision on that? This is something you do every day in business.

Christian Soschner 12:11

Why game theory? Why, why, why did you what what what caught your attention?

Stefanie Schubert 12:19

Um so game theory is about making optimal decisions, and it's only part of what I'm passionate about, right? Because game theory is um you uh you analyze the situation, you think about what are the motives of others, or you put yourself into the shoes of others, try to figure out what's going on with them. And then you on based on that, you develop your own optimal decision. But sometimes you find out that the situation or the outcome you get is not optimal for you. And um, so the thing is, how can you change that? How can you change the game to your advantage so that you are in a stronger position? And um, so in game theory, you think about that from a more technical point of view, but in real life, when you start thinking about how what can be changed to so that you get a better outcome, you can be so creative in changing the rules of the game to get more in the end.

Christian Soschner 13:18

How has this changed how you think about decisions and influence?

Stefanie Schubert 15:07

So um, for me, influence is something you can um you can always you can always influence people. And by the way, when I'm saying influencing, I do not mean manipul manipulating in a bad way. What I mean by influencing is that um you talk to people to create value, to get an outcome where both can benefit, right? So this is more what I mean when I say influencing, and you know, not on on not you know, on behalf of others so that you get more, but you can when you work together in uh in business, you can um actually create a situation where both can get more, but that requires that you talk about what you want to achieve and and you set the rules and variables right. And this is what I mean by influencing.

Christian Soschner 15:59

There is an interesting point that came up in my mind. Um, theory is one thing, and then I often hear people saying, Yes, yes, in theory, I mean everything works, but reality is completely different. Was there a moment in your career where you said uh theory didn't work in reality?

Stefanie Schubert 16:19

I hear this quite often from students. They say, Oh, this is just theory, it's so simple, it's very different to what we experience in real life. Well, yeah, you know, it actually it's not, okay. So, but there is a difference, of course. Theory is a simplification of the reality. If you wouldn't do that, it's how can you analyze the reality? It's so complex, it's so difficult. So you need to simplify the reality, you end up with theory, but then of course, it's not 100% what you can expect in reality because it because of the simplification process, which is so important because otherwise it's difficult to understand mechanisms and how people respond to incentives. So I wouldn't say that theory fails, I would say that um theory answers the question. The theory answers the question you have. So you have to ask the right question, apply the right theory, and see how you can apply this learning to the real world.

Christian Soschner 17:20

You work currently not only in one field, you manage to switch from one to the other. You are in academia, you work as an executive coach, and I found your profile, I think, at Bio International last year. So you also work with Biopharma Alliances, which is every single one a distinct field on their own. And switching, I think, is not very trivial to go from one context to the other. What helps you navigate these transitions?

Human shortcuts quietly kill opportunities

Stefanie Schubert 17:53

Yeah, you're right. So um the transition from academia to um to business was something that was quite challenging for me in the beginning. So I started working together with Jamien Borghart, he's now uh working for Roche, and we are preparing, by the way, our negotiation workshop for the Bio International Convention this year in San Diego. And so when we started working together, it was so difficult because I said it's bargaining, and he said, No, it's negotiation. And I said, they are opponents, and he said, No, how can you say that? They are partners. So that was a difficult start, but finally um we managed to work together. But the rest, you know, the rest is just for me, it's the same thing. So I try to take the findings from academia and try to translate them so that it's understandable and applicable to people in business. So trying to speak their language. Um, you can do this in in different fields, and it's good to have a let's say, sound understanding of how the pharma and life science biotech industry works, um, to apply it there, but nevertheless, you can basically apply it to every industry. When you try to give advice for to someone about negotiation, um, like it's it's the big consultancy um companies, right? They give you slides, they give you the solution, and they say you have to do this, you have to do that. And then the next step would be for the companies and for the people to apply this, right? And there's um this is a lot of work to do. And this last step, how do how do I apply the learnings and the advice I got for myself or for my company? This is something the coaching um abilities are quite helpful because with coaching, you can help people to develop their own way to um employ what they just learned.

Christian Soschner 19:45

That's good, that's a great thing. We talked about differences. Now let's look at it from a different angle. Do you observe when it comes to decision making, do you observe patterns that are similar in every different field?

Stefanie Schubert 20:03

Yeah, sure. We are just humans, right? So um everything we do is very often based on what we did in the past. Um, when we talk about decision making, um I frequently talk to leaders, and leaders um very often, you know, they want advice or help thinking decisions through, but they say on the other hand side, they defend themselves, right? They say it's kind of narcissistic defense. Um, what I did in the past was always great, and you know, so they they start to downplay and and exaggerate on the other hand side so that they can defend themselves and their decisions they made in the past. But if you want to improve, you have to think about other things as well and other options as well. So getting people to um to broaden their mind for other options, this is something that is challenging sometimes. We are just humans, everyone. So that's um that's the point.

Christian Soschner 21:02

Why, in your opinion, why is this so hard for humans to look at yourself and their own flaws and acknowledge them?

Stefanie Schubert 21:14

Um well, I think this is um it saves our life and it saves our time to have these shortcuts in decision making. Um, so when I think it's dark, I switch on the light and I don't have to think about it. So we all have those shortcuts and they help us a lot. So when I I go shopping, I'll only look at certain brands, right? So I don't have to look at everything and compare everything, it makes my life easier. But that means in business that sometimes you miss opportunities. And um, of course, this is the reason why it's so yeah, it's always good to talk to people, to get some influence from outside, and to have maybe a group of people making decisions instead of doing this always on your own.

Christian Soschner 21:59

That's a good point. What I found interesting, we come back uh later to this topic. What I found interesting in your vita is something unexpected. Uh, ballroom dancing. Is this uh did I get this wrong? You had uh at the university, you were a successful ballroom dancer.

Stefanie Schubert 22:18

Oh, very successful. Uh thank you for that. So, well, I did this in the past, so that's true. Um, well, it came up because I had a very nice uh presentation in Denver last year with the Association of Strategic Alliance Management. And the founder, Robert Porter Lynch, he once had a presentation and he included ballroom dancing. And uh and finally, um, I thought let's let's include this in my presentation as well. So this is just a side story, but I liked it so much. And Robert last year asked me if we can dance on stage prior to his presentation. So this was one of my highlights last year to dance with Robert. All right, but okay, so just putting away this side story. Um, why what is so interesting about ballroom dancing? It's a very small collaboration, isn't it? It's about two people who want who have um, let's say, a common goal. They want to move two body bodies across the floor, which is not so easy. So everyone listening to us now knows that this is not easy. Yeah, and it's all so two bodies, and you have the music and you want to move together. And so, why does it work and what can you learn from ballroom dancing? It's um ballroom dancing is based on certain rules, and what I find So fascinating about that is that you communicate all the time with your body. So as a woman, so the man leads, right? And the women nevertheless can lead somehow with a body. If I, for example, can see that there is no space and we have to make a turn or something, I can communicate as well, but you don't see this from the outside. So this kind of communication all the time, spending um, you know, putting all your um your yes, thinking about the partner. What do I have to do to make this work in the end? And this is a constant task. You have to do this all the time until the dance finishes. This is something that is really interesting.

Christian Soschner 24:31

How successful have you been?

Ballroom dancing reveals negotiation resistance

Stefanie Schubert 24:35

How successful? Oh, that's to me, um quite successful. Because my biggest success was to be able to dance without walking steps, if you know what I mean. So, because dancing is more than just doing the steps. Um, well, in in Germany it's called S-Klasse, and um, we participated in uh national um competitions and so, but um nevertheless, I think what I gained from this was this idea that collaboration is something good if if you communicate well and if you do the right thing. And by the way, may I add that? Because um I just said that one tip for those guys who want to leave early. So I hope you that everyone's still here, but um so the one tip I said that start by giving something, and when you look at good ballroom dancers, how they start dancing, how they start the dance is they invite each other, so they give something, they invite each other to dance together, and this is what I mean by giving, because then you can easily you know take this up and then you start dancing.

Christian Soschner 25:47

So you were not, I mean, we are in Vienna in the city of uh ballrooms, especially in January and February. So it was not just a course over the weekends to go to a ball. You dedicated a lot of time to improving the art and uh mastering it to a level that brought you to national competitions in Germany.

Stefanie Schubert 26:09

Yes, absolutely. But uh, nevertheless, um, maybe one day I will be dancing in the Hofburg or somewhere as well. I had a very nice presentation last year in Vienna in the Hofburg, but no, um I don't think I oh maybe once a competition um in Vienna, not sure, but hopefully in the future, one day.

Christian Soschner 26:31

When we look at ballroom dancing, um, you mentioned that um having manners inviting someone to a dance um is something that people learn when they train for ballroom dancing. Um, is this helpful for negotiations as well, in your opinion?

Stefanie Schubert 26:50

So um if you analyze this further, okay, I think there are a lot of details that can be helpful. So, as an example, if the man wants to move the couple and the lady backwards, you can't just push her backwards, can you? Because she will resist and move forwards and lean against you. Um, so uh translating this into um business negotiations means that if you want someone to do something, don't push him into this direction, but leave room for this other guy to find the solution by themselves. So that um you um well everyone has to develop the solution somehow from their point of view, right? So I think this is uh very interesting. So, once again, when I'm saying influencing, I don't mean that you have to push someone into an unfair direction where you gain while the other one loses. It's more that how can you gain together? How can you build something together? This is my perspective, and um, also this is what you do in ballroom dancing.

Christian Soschner 27:53

That's an interesting angle. Maybe we stay a little bit with that, um, especially when you think about dancing, men and women. As a man, you have power naturally. I mean, uh, not social power, but uh strength. And it's so easy to push a woman uh at the end of the day. So when you have these differences between skill, uh an experienced man dancing for years, and an inexperienced woman, um, in principle, it's easy. You hold her in your arms and then you just give a little push and she goes in the right direction. Why is this not a good idea?

Active listening creates leadership leverage

Stefanie Schubert 28:26

Yeah, because you get the you get the opposite of what you want. If you push someone to give it a try this evening, the friends you met, or your wife or someone, just push her, she will lean against, right? She won't do that because otherwise she would just fall. So if you want to move backwards, you have to prepare and put your weight forward in order to be able to step backwards. So it needs a kind of preparation as well. And so taking this into account when you prepare for negotiations, it means that everyone needs the time to prepare the step they are going to make.

Christian Soschner 29:03

Have you ever thought about why this does not come natural to humans? So to rather guide than push.

Stefanie Schubert 29:14

To rather guide than push. Um, maybe this is a cultural thing as well. Some cultures are um more straightforward, others are more like, well, find out by yourself. I'm just talking, I'm always saying yes, but you have to find out if I mean yes or if I don't. So this is something uh cultural as well, I would say. So um we Germans are relatively straightforward, Americans are inviting, you know. So it's difficult. But nevertheless, uh, so apart from these stereotypes, I would say it's always easier to say, I like that, I want to have that, than you know, thinking about how I can get the other person to do what I like. It's much more complicated. It requires more thinking.

Christian Soschner 29:58

Yeah, it's a lot of uh, I think, work uh going in martial arts in this direction, uh, when to push, when to pull, when to guide, when not to do that. It's it's really complicated. It's not easy. It's not easy to find the right pacing. Do you have uh from your experience from academia to negotiations in in boardrooms? Do you have uh one tip to make it easier uh to find the right pacing with the other person?

Stefanie Schubert 30:25

Um so another um tip that is really important, but sounds so simple. Why not just listen more to people? Ask questions and listen. Um so very often, meetings are so that people want to talk, they talk a lot, and then after the meeting, they think, Oh, I did very well in the meeting, good achievements. But the other side, they had no chance to uh to catch up and to bring in their arguments, and then of course you lose them. But if you want to do something together, make sure that they have chance the chance to express their needs and their um objectives as well. So ask questions and wait, observe and listen, active listening is something I know everyone says that, right? But it it in the end, it is so helpful to be successful.

Christian Soschner 31:15

That's an interesting angle when I think it through. And let's come from the contrarian Viennese perspective. We uh I call it Sudan, Yaman. Uh it's I think a Viennese tradition to always find the negative when people listen, more especially leadership roles and are quiet and not performative, don't you risk to be seen as weak pushovers that have no say in the room?

Stefanie Schubert 31:48

I'm just still thinking about your uh Yaman complaining about things before we come to the rest of your question. Um so why not let people um so if someone has the immediate need to complain, you know, to express a kind of feeling, um, why not let them do that? Because if if they are busy in their mind, I don't want that because of this, and I'm complaining about that. So they can't take the next step. But if they're able to express, you know, I don't feel comfortable with this solution or this idea because of this, then you can say you can at least accept that this feeling or this problem is there. And if you accept that, then you the the the other guy is able to do the next step. If you always say no, it's not a problem per se, and you you don't listen, then this the people will always be you know busy in their mind with this problem. Um now, uh the second part of your question was what again that people Especially especially when you think about men.

Christian Soschner 32:56

Um, I mean, men should perform. Um look at um uh actors, for example, they're paid to perform, to play a role. And when you look at leadership, uh male leadership, it's about performative. Uh you need to take the lead, you need to be strong, you need to have the last word, you need to talk. Um when they step back and start listening and asking more questions and being quiet. I can imagine that um many male leaders fear that they are seen as weak, pushovers, uh not standing their ground, and risk losing their status in the group. Isn't is is this a real fear, or is this something artificial say it's um not really important in negotiations?

Authenticity beats dominance in leadership

Stefanie Schubert 33:41

That's a good point. What do you do? You imply that people perceive people uh people perceive people as weak if they do not dominate the meeting? Is this what you're saying? I'm not so sure about that because it's much more than just you know talking all the time. Um it's about body language and other signals you give. Um, it's about a good structure, preparing the meeting, it's about a good follow-up. I don't think that just talking all the time makes you the hero of the meeting or being perceived as someone who's strong and a good leader. Is it like I I would like to hear more about that from others. So I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I think there are many ways how you can express that you know what you're doing and you you you are able to make good decisions. What do you think?

Christian Soschner 34:40

I have um I have no finished opinion on that. I think it's um a very complicated question at the end of the day to to find the right balance between stepping back and letting other people do the job of um thinking about uh Jeff Bezos. There is this famous story story about him that um he seems to be the last to speak in a meeting. And uh I read on the internet that some attribute it in this way that to say um he asks first the lowest in the rank to express their thoughts, and then the next one, the next one, the next one, and he as a leader speaks last, so to give him a chance to hear all the opinions. And then I think to other schools, especially when it comes to conflict and um where negotiations already went wrong in the past, and we start fighting as humans uh to say, no, you need to step forward, you need to take the lead in the room and make it clear that what you say counts and not the other person. I think this is um finding the right balance and finding the right pace and finding the right pattern for the right situation is, in my opinion, not an easy task in leadership.

Stefanie Schubert 35:47

Yeah, exactly. So um I totally agree. I would say it's not only about you know being dominant in a meeting, but setting the tone can be uh, you know, structuring the meeting and um asking the right question at the right time. So, in the end, maybe it's more like you have to find your authentic way to how to negotiate, how to uh deal with people, which might be more important than just being the dominant male person in the room. Um being authentic, I think, is very important because it helps you to be clear, it helps you to be a trustworthy person, it helps you to um to do not too much thinking about, you know, you just have to think about yourself and the other person or the other organization, but you don't have to do all those, you know. Am I liked or not? How do people think you know, perceive my behavior? So you can just forget about that. Try to be the person you want to be. So, as an example, if you want to be someone who people can trust, behave accordingly, right? Be transparent, be fair, and then trust is just a consequence of your behavior. So I think finding an authentic way is very important.

Christian Soschner 37:05

I I think this is for me, this is the most interesting part in negotiations and uh the application from theory into reality. Um, but I like it learned it in uh in my coaching education. This was this uh conflict scale by I think it was Glassel, uh, this nine-stage scale where the first three we are um in a nice world together, we work together, we are collaborative, everything's fine, we like each other. Um, in that situation, it's always easy to listen and to negotiate. Uh good relationship, good collaboration, and nobody offends the other. And then Glassel says you have fear, four to six, where it already starts going sidewalk where insults happen. And when you think about the reality, when someone is insulted in a meeting, uh, maybe subconsciously, maybe consciously, there is a reaction in the body. It's not that uh an insult lands without a reaction. Some retreat and uh try to flee and say, Okay, I want to get out of here. Some start to fight. And in this situation, it becomes interesting because then we are in reality it what happens between people, not only in theory. Um and the question then is when should that I ponder and I didn't find a really good answer for that, when should you let the reaction run and dominate or flee? And when should you really try to calm down and say, okay, yeah, this is not the right reaction to move forward? Did you find did you find a solution uh for for these questions? How to handle negotiations when they start going sideways, when they start going into conflict territory, open hostilities, fighting scenarios?

Stefanie Schubert 38:47

Um so we are um everyone actually has emotions and feelings and a personal side, and then then we negotiate about a deal. So there are always these two things, and you can um if you if you are a perfect person, you could maybe separate the feelings from the thing you're going to negotiate, but it's difficult, I agree. So this is not always uh possible, but um, I mean, if it's important, there are several um, let's say, um, steps you can take to de-escalate the situation. You could, for example, say, let's have a break and renegotiate later, we continue tomorrow, or we just have to clarify a point internally, and we are happy to continue this conversation tomorrow because everyone has the chance to calm down, and maybe you can just talk to this other guy and ask, so are you okay? You just listen and and um uh see, observe, and accept what this people is feeling and uh what happened there, which is quite helpful, I would say, very often. Um but um yeah, so how can you separate your own feelings and emotions from the thing you're dealing with? And that's not always easy, is it? Um yeah, you I mean you can work on yourself, everyone has weaknesses, and probably many of you know their weaknesses already. Um, knowing that is always the first step. And if you know it, you can maybe ask a coach or someone to reflect and together with you what you can do about that um to be in a better position. Because of course, you can't change the other people, but you can change yourself and um make sure that in the next negotiation you are not this person who uh ruins the deal just because of your emotions.

Christian Soschner 40:46

Um, bringing it back to where we started, ballroom dancing, I think this is really a good exercise to start uh understanding how people move and your own reactions in combination with another person, like dancing. I remember my dancing class, it can be quite frustrating when you dance with a woman and she moves in a different direction, and uh as you do, and then also the other way around. But I think this is a good starting point to start dancing and understand how people react and move and understand their own reactions.

Stefanie Schubert 41:16

Yeah, absolutely. Um there is always a reason why someone drops the weight or someone you know gives signals, don't move into this direction, or I can't go that far. So there's always a reason, and um, listening to that makes the overall performance better in the end.

Christian Soschner 41:36

Yeah, that's true. That's true. And um, as you said at the beginning, that people are people, and you also have the same dynamics than in a negotiation on a verbal level. Um, that happens also in dancing. Uh, let's move on to the next point. Uh, when I look at your vita, European women on boards. What are you doing there?

Stefanie Schubert 41:56

Um, so European Women on Board is a very nice network. I joined it a few years ago, and um now I have an active um role, so to say, in the partnering committee, and I'm leading the DAC chapter as well, the DAC chapter, Germany, Switzerland, Austria. So uh it's a network to bring more women into decision-making positions. Um, but that is not the reason why I joined this network and why I'm still with them. It's just a nice network, it's a nice uh gathering of women and also men. By the way, we love men, so everyone can join this as well. So it's not an exclusive for women. Um yeah, but it's just a nice network because um very, very open. Um you can you can share your ideas and you can talk to other people, and uh we all support each other. This is why I like European women on board so much. This is one of the networks I'm in, and I must say, um, I'm still uh I still still feel um very happy about joining Evo because they accepted me as an academic. So I still have this background, you know. A lot of people think she's just a university professor professor, so what can you do with her, the real world? And this so this is a stamp you have as an academic your whole life, but people sometimes forget that there might be, well, there must be something positive related to this academic background. And uh Ewob, they just accepted me as I am, and they um somehow I was able to leverage my skills in this network very well, so uh highly appreciated. Um, so I can only you know recommend networks and uh gathering of people where you find like-minded people and you can exchange ideas that is so helpful, and um, it's just a nice thing to do.

Christian Soschner 43:49

That's great. What is the most profound insights that you gained from participating in this network?

Stefanie Schubert 43:58

Um well, it's um so the core idea is to bring uh more women in decision-making um positions, and uh I can see that uh it's not so easy in the dark region to so if you look at the female participation in boards and non-executive board positions, could could be higher, right? We are 50% females in in Germany, for example, but not in boards and not in decision-making uh positions. So why not? So my idea would be that because we had much more males in the past, so why not have more females in the future, something like 70%? So no, just kidding. I'm happy with 50%, don't worry. But no, it's just like you know, um I can see that other people, other women, women have this these problems as well. But I don't want to be unfair, it might not be a problem because of the gender or something, it's maybe just maybe due to other reasons, um, maybe because of skill or something else.

Game theory without mathematical intimidation

Christian Soschner 45:03

Is this is this still a problem? Uh gender, gender on board level in the dark region? Is this uh still a topic that we need to talk about?

Stefanie Schubert 45:12

Um I think we need to talk about it because we are not at 50% yet. Yeah, don't take it too serious. Um all I want to say is so I I'm not fighting for women, right? I'm fighting for um try to find someone who can really help you. And that means it doesn't have to be the guy next door you have been talking to many years, you have been doing business for the past 20 years. Try to find someone who can really help you. You and um it would be coincidence if he was the guy next door, right? So um so this is what I want to say: look for talents, look for people with the skills you need and who can bring your organization forward. If it's the guy next door, it's fine, but sometimes maybe it's a woman, sometimes it's a it's a black guy. So try to embrace diversity because it can help you. If you don't embrace it, it doesn't help. And of course, the easiest way is to just ask the guy next door because he has the same, you know, preferences and the same background, so it's easy to talk to each other, but also the learnings and the um, let's say the progress you can have together is then probably smaller than when you bring in new influence from somewhere else.

Christian Soschner 46:31

Yeah, that's true. Human development is important and uh often underrated. Let's switch gears and uh step into theory, game theory, and bring it from concept into the reality. What's game theory?

Stefanie Schubert 46:47

Oh, game theory is uh the science of strategic decision making. So um I mentioned earlier that strategic stands for interactions. When someone else has to decide something and it has an impact on you. And um, looking at business, this is everywhere the case. It's not only business, it's private life as well. When you live uh at home with your family, who's going to make the coffee in the morning, right? It's an interactive decision-making problem. Um, yeah, so um game theory sounds quite mathematical. So whenever it's someone mentions game theory, people think that, oh no, it's about derivatives and it's math. It is, I can tell you. But no worries, if you try to apply it, it's much more um like you apply a structure or concept that helps you. It should help you. Everything you do, it's not about torturing people with derivatives, it's more like um it helps you to get structure and clarity on the decision you want to make.

Christian Soschner 47:50

Why is structure so important?

Stefanie Schubert 47:55

Um now you're talking to someone who loves structure. I love structure because I think um it makes life much easier. Um I wouldn't be able to decide if there are too many influencers, and you know, you have to find out how important is this, how important so, oh, way too complicated. I can decide to buy an apple or a pear or something, you know, that's easy. So I would like to break a decision down to something like this. And then I can think about so what is missing? If if if I look at reality, what is missing? Um, what can I bring into this simple decision to make it more realistic? So this is my way to approach decision making. Um, and the nice thing about it is that um the structure um gives you a kind of recipe, how to think about your decision-making problem. Um, so on the one hand side, it's easy to follow that structure, on the other hand, side, you won't miss opportunities. Nobody wants to miss opportunities.

Christian Soschner 48:57

I mean, I can imagine when leaders listen to this episode, uh, female, male. And they already run a successful company and had a career, are in their 50s or 60s or 40s. Why should I think about my decision making? It works. Uh, what reason would you give them to still look at improving how they make decisions? Why does it matter to them?

Stefanie Schubert 49:25

Why does it matter? If you are okay with what you're doing, I I don't want to force you to apply game theory, but it maybe there is a decision where you really want to do well and you really want to think about that. So why not get some insights or some reflections from the outside? Um, well, we touched on this point earlier, right? We are all humans, so we are all somehow biased. We have the shortcuts in our thinking and decision making. And sometimes it's good to think about options you would never look at, and um maybe uh strategic moves or influencing tactics you would never consider. Um, so it's helpful to have someone guide you through this. And um, well, if it doesn't work out, you don't have to, right? You can still do what you ever did in the past, but maybe there's something in for you using those um new techniques as well.

Christian Soschner 50:21

Yeah, that's a good angle. That's a good angle. Um when you think about your conversations um with your students and your clients, what's the biggest misconception they have about game theory?

Stefanie Schubert 50:36

Yeah, this is what I mentioned earlier. It's math, it's theory, it's um you can't use it in business. It's um how can people apply it? Um so this is why I don't come from game theory, but I look at the business decision-making problem or the negotiation that people would like to think through. And then I just, you know, uh I'm applying this kind of structure, and sometimes I don't even mention game theory. It's not important that they understand game theory, it's not important that they, you know, uh are able to derive the Nash equilibrium or something. No, it's important for them to improve their decision making. So going into the head of the client and really help them, this is my approach, and then it should be okay. Of course, for students, I mean for students it's not always easy. Um, because uh so um I'm teaching um at university, I have been teaching at universities where you can only study business, not economics. And sometimes those models where we simplify everything and we make a lot of assumptions, that's sometimes a bit spooky for them. I totally understand because you can have to somehow get used to this kind of thinking. But you know, knowing this, I don't um I don't want others to understand game theory, but I want others to well, let's say benefit from that.

Christian Soschner 52:05

That's good. That's a good angle. When I think about game theory, the have you seen the movie A Beautiful Mind?

Stefanie Schubert 52:12

Wave and all my students know it as well.

Christian Soschner 52:16

Yeah, really?

Stefanie Schubert 52:17

Yes.

Christian Soschner 52:17

Is it is it a big thing at the university as well?

Stefanie Schubert 52:21

Well, I tend to show this movie scene uh where John Nash is um in a bar and he faces a decision-making problem. So, can can we assume that everyone in this podcast knows a beautiful mind? It's about the life of John Nash, and John Nash actually was uh um played a crucial role in bringing uh game theory forward. This is why the most important concept is called Nash equilibrium after John Nash.

Christian Soschner 52:46

What is this equilibrium?

A Beautiful Mind and collaboration traps

Stefanie Schubert 52:49

Well, the Nash equilibrium is just a situation where nobody can uh improve uh if the incentives are as they are and if the other party made their optimal decision. So you can't um do better than that. So it's kind of stable, um let's say a stable combination of best choices. So you can only improve if something else changes, something exogenous to this monster to say, something like the payoff change, or if uh maybe the other player has another option or whatsoever. But uh if the game is as it is, with the options and everything the players have, and you make your optimal choice, you end in an equilibrium, which by the way doesn't mean it's an it's a good outcome. So this is different, right? It's just your optimal choice, you can't do better than that.

Christian Soschner 53:43

You mentioned the bar scene in Beautiful Mind. Um, I I like this scene because uh it's um it makes theory tangible and it demonstrates in the real life situation um how negotiations work and how this equilibrium can play out. I don't know if it's authentic, if this really happened in that way in real life, but uh they show it with dating. So, first I think it's uh the first part of the scene is uh four men, five women, and they all want uh to date the same women. And uh John Ash explains then while it doesn't work out well for all of them. Um, what do you think about these examples that use dating to um as an example for for the Nash equilibrium and for game theory? How do you see uh putting this this uh this negotiation strategies in such pictures from the academic point of view?

Stefanie Schubert 54:38

Um we can we could talk very long about this scene. Um so first thing I would like to mention before I answer your question is I think there's something wrong in this movie. So everyone to see the movie, look at this scene and count the men and the women. I think there's something wrong in the reasoning. But nevertheless, the core idea is that um so there is a very nice blonde woman, right? And a few guys, and everyone would like to have a date with her. So if you only think about yourself, you would just go and ask her, can I have a date with you? And if she says no, you can go to her one of her friends and ask her, and then maybe get a date with one of the friends, which is the second best, but still you have a date. But um, so this is just thinking about yourself. But um, Nash, um, or it's basically it's Russell Crowe in this movie. He he plays the role of John Nash. Um, he proposes a different uh procedure. He says, We guys, we could collaborate in the sense that we could all ask the friends of the blonde lady, because um, if we ask the blonde first, we all compete against each other and we block our way. This is what he says. But um, if we go for the her friends, we all will get a date, right? Um, so we have a higher probability of being successful, even if it's just second best. Oh, I am I'm not sure if they are second best, but watch the movie. All right, and so this is his kind of reasoning. And the core idea is that if you collaborate, the outcome for everyone, if you just put them together, okay, will be higher as compared to everyone only thinks about themselves and do what is best for them. Um, so yeah, and this is what you can do in negotiations as well. Uh, look at the outcome where both parties or all parties uh involved in this negotiation can benefit and think about how to distribute the value later.

Christian Soschner 56:39

You mentioned earlier there's something wrong with the reasoning. Now I'm curious, what's wrong with the reasoning in this scene?

Stefanie Schubert 56:45

I think um I think if I remember correctly, there are four guys and four ladies. So it's the blonde women and three girls, um, her friends and four guys. But the reasoning by John Ash, so please correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone knows about this scene, but just uh have a look. Um four guys and four ladies. But if the four guys ask the friends, so someone from them has to ask the blonde lady, right? So otherwise it it doesn't work out. So I think it's just a tiny mistake in this movie.

Christian Soschner 57:19

I have to watch it, I can't remember exactly if uh please do so.

Stefanie Schubert 57:22

Yeah, and give me a call. Everyone who does not agree, please give me a call, find me on LinkedIn, and you know, let me know.

Christian Soschner 57:29

No, no, this might quite be, but I think I uh just closed it with uh there must be five women and four men, so otherwise this doesn't make sense. But there is there's an there's another angle that I found quite interesting. One is the collaboration approach that's explained with that scene, and then um I think it's it's this scene or the next one, it's also in the bar with the blonde lady, um, where she stands alone at the bar, and John Nash approaches her. And you talked about outcomes. So at the end of the day, in this bar, I mean the outcome is clear, it's dating and uh getting to the end result of dating, which I think every adult person knows what that might be. And so John Nash walks over to her, she's standing at the bar alone, and he says to her, Look, I mean, we want the same thing at the end of the day. Why don't we spare us the time? Um and just get to business and stop all the things in between. Wouldn't that be much easier for both of us? And she looks at him and said, says, This is cute, and then slaps him in the face and runs out of um of the bar. Obviously, the negotiation didn't really go well, and it made me think because I think uh when we look at especially biopharma negotiations between investors and and and scientists and uh entrepreneurs, closing rounds, IPOs. There is always, I think, this is this a human notion that comes up with say, okay, when when the outcome is already clear that we both want the same thing, and uh we also have clarity that we are going in the right direction. Why does it still not make sense to cut the uh cut the process short and go from the first interaction right to the end result? Have you ever spent time in academia thinking about why humans need this entire process to come to the conclusion which might be sometimes already clear at the beginning?

First offers and anchoring pressure

Stefanie Schubert 59:23

Oh, Christian, why are you asking? You saw the movie, right? So you know already that it's not so easy. Um, I think humans are they everyone comes from their perspective and everything is subjective. There is no objective truth. Even if you want to collaborate and do something together, it has to be defined. It doesn't fall from heaven. And this is uh a big part of my work to think about what do we want to achieve together. This is not trivial at all. Um, so you know, this very some very examples thinking about going for lunch together and to say, okay, let's have sushi. Uh and I have in mind restaurant A, and you want to go to restaurant B. You know, it's not so easy, it's still sushi, maybe, but I might be happy with A, and you are only happy with so whatever, it's so complicated. So I think this whole process is needed. First, looking at the movie, because for John Nash, maybe only the outcome, the evening, the two hours they spend together is important. But for the lady, the two hours and the conversation before is important. So it's not the same thing. Can you see that? It's two different things. It's just two hours uh spending in the bedroom, and it's two hours in the bedroom, and more than a so I'm I can't believe I'm talking about things like that in the podcast, but okay. So, and you have to be sure that you're talking about the same thing, and how to get there is also not trivial. Um, how to implement the steps to get there, and there are so many variables and details that need to be discussed. Um, so if you I don't know, if you create a joint venture together, where's the headquarterquarter? Who has the the say, which position, how much, you know, so that there are so many details that need to be defined. Um, so and of course you have to talk talk about that. And another very nice side effect is that while doing that, you build a relationship and you build trust. And um, this is also, if you ask me, the most important factor for successful business, um, trusting each other, finding someone you can trust and work with.

Christian Soschner 1:01:42

Yeah, I was thinking about uh should we talk about this, should we bring up this scene? But I think since we talk about game theory, John Ash and Hollywood has uh put together this movie. Uh I think it's worth talking about this par scene because this is what's going on in reality at the end of the day. And I like the angle that you got to say, okay, because it it's just clear for one side what the end result is, doesn't mean that the other side sees it the same way. At the end of the day, and this clarifies the confusion quite quickly. Um, and brings it and also ties it back then to reality in negotiating. Um, what's the best starting point, in your opinion, for a negotiation when we look through the game theory lens?

Stefanie Schubert 1:02:29

So there's one question I always ask in every negotiation um workshop I give. Um, do you make the first offer or not? And this is always a question people can discuss this for hours because there are sometimes people say, when I enter negotiation, I do the first offer, I anchor because I have, you know, the control. So if you so um the background is if you make the first offer, you do some anchoring around this number, if you say 10 million, right? And then the others might negotiate around this number, but it will be close to 10 million, it won't be just one million or a trillion or something. So it will be close to this number. So the first offer always have this has this anchoring effect. Nevertheless, um, if you ask people, are you making the first offer? Some say, I always do that, others say no, and you have to be careful. And so there is no, I would say, there is no um unique approach to negotiations. There is no um recipe, always do this first, or always do that. It very much depends on, for example, the information you have. So there's nothing wrong with just entering the negotiation and asking questions. So it depends. Everyone hates this answer, I know.

Christian Soschner 1:03:51

Yeah, yeah, I was hoping for uh for a simplified concept that you can apply for all uh steps, but I have to agree, it's it's not easy, it's uh it's complicated. It's uh there is maybe some process steps, but at the end of the day, every human is different.

Stefanie Schubert 1:04:07

Every human is different, and also the situations are different. You will never ever negotiate to uh the the exact thing twice, it's always a bit different because you have other organizations, you have other molecules, and and whatsoever.

Christian Soschner 1:04:24

Yeah, I like this um I like this anecdote from I think 10 years ago, maybe I don't know 15 years, uh, where a friend of mine went to a conference and um I asked him afterwards how was it and he said useless waste of time and then I asked why why do you say it was a waste of time? I mean uh beat a lot met a lot of people there, and they said, Look, I went to this conference to close a financing deal and came home with no funding secured. So this was a mistake to go there in the first place, and uh it reminded me that the expectations are really important in negotiations and uh to understand when does the negotiation start and what happens at the conference. What advice would you give my friend when he told you this story and said, Look, I went to the conference and wanted to close the deal and I didn't close the deal there, so it uh was a waste of time. What would be your advice from your experience, academia, and uh negotiating with uh with the big companies in Germany?

Internal alignment before external negotiation

Stefanie Schubert 1:05:31

Um, so I think the problem only lies with your friend, right? It's all about expectation management. As you said, I wouldn't expect to close the deal just because you give a presentation. So how can you? So the first thing would be to lower the expectations to be happy with the outcomes. So one thing, because being positive about the future is uh something you know, having a good mood and understanding that you achieved something else instead of closing the deal and also um, let's say, motivate you for the future, because what you usually do is when you present your company is um investors get to know you and they might not close the deal. So here's the contract, you know, they didn't ever have the contract with them and sign the deal immediately, but they might contact you later, or you have the possibility to contact them later. So um thinking about the situation and thinking about other options and how this can be seen. So, did he talk to people after this presentation? Did he do that? So, um, because um, this is one way to get to know investors, to see if there are still open questions, to improve for the next presentation. So, this is one thing, but also to build a relationship, to be more known among investors and to see, maybe also to see for who it could be interesting, because not all the, you know, it's not just one industry, but the companies have different focuses on, I don't know, oncology or something. And if it fits in their strategy, then you might it might be easier to collaborate with them. And if you don't, if you didn't do your homework and you know browsed all the web pages and and looked for their strategies, you can learn after the presentation. So this is also a good opportunity.

Christian Soschner 1:07:18

What I liked um with game theory when I learned about it in universities that is um it it's simple, you have a defined outcome, and then you can put it in the into a mathematical rational model, and then you can calculate all different options. And I like the point that you gave me about uh negotiation as a leadership capability and not so much a theoretical concept. And then there is the real world. And what you said makes absolute sense that uh you have to lower the expectations. There is a process to go through in a negotiation. And very often I think uh people, myself included, make the uh make the mistake to try to play all moves right at the beginning and throw everything at the other person. How do you approach a negotiation when you have to manage it entirely from the first idea to closing the deal? What are your core steps in that process?

Stefanie Schubert 1:08:19

So what you can plan is you can plan the the time before the negotiation, you can plan the negotiation itself, and of course, you can see how the follow-ups are done and uh how everything is implemented. Um so there are different phases, and for the preparation, I mean it's it's so what can I say? Preparation means you have to know what you want, which means you need internal alignment in your company, which is already so difficult, isn't it? So everyone thinking about their own negotiations now, having this internal alignment is so difficult. Maybe everyone is clear about what they want to achieve. Um, you know, like we want a deal with company A, okay. But what does it mean? And what are you willing to give away when you have to make concessions, for example? What is important for you? What uh milestones, for example, or royalties, what is more important for you? So thinking about all the details of a deal and being aligned on how important what aspects are for you is so complicated. If you're clear about that, then the negotiation is almost done because then you have your recipe and you exactly know what you can bring in if um if the negotiation doesn't um you know doesn't continue, come to a stop, and you have to um uh continue somehow exactly know what you do have to do. But if you don't have the internal alignment, it's so difficult.

Christian Soschner 1:10:01

Why why is that important? Uh just a little bit background. I mean, uh when I talk to people that and bring up this point, then the immediate reaction is just go out into it. And we clarify it on the fly. And when a problem appears, then we talk about it. Why do you emphasize preparation as the most important part for success instead of just going out and doing it and uh finding out when you when you when you cross the bridge, uh how the bridge looks like and uh what you should do with that? Why is preparation key to success?

Why emotions can be rational

Stefanie Schubert 1:10:41

Oh, how can you know what you want if you are in the at the negotiation table and then discussing internally what is important for wow, uh this is uh this is a lot. I wouldn't um ask for so much. Um this is a lot, isn't it? Because you have to understand your own position and and then you also reveal that you are not speaking with one voice, which is maybe not a good sign, is it? So um I'm thinking about you know, um making a good impression, and um so it's not helpful having different opinions on your side of the table, I would say. And it also might take too much time when you are not clear about how important the aspects are, um you also maybe do not know the numbers behind it. And how can you compare different aspects if you don't know the numbers, the I don't know, um the revenue you get from this and that. And so you have to compare somehow. So being at the negotiation table is too late because then you don't have time to get this information you need to be able to compare the different outcomes. So of course it happens from time to time that people uh experience of oh there's something I don't know, and then you can decide if you go, oh no, you just say, okay, we continue the negotiation at another day. Um, but yeah, so I I wouldn't rely on that. It's that's a bit risky, isn't it? Just because so why should you do that? Um why do people say it's enough to clarify this at the negotiation table? Because they were lazy before the negotiation, or or maybe they didn't think it through. So what happened? So why? Why does it happen? So, this would be one of the questions I would raise in order to make sure that these guys will perform better the next time.

Christian Soschner 1:12:42

Yeah, I think it ties back to what you said at the beginning um expectation, expectation management, and uh not having a structure um to understand how a negotiation should be approached at the end of the day, just um thinking it will work by itself, but it doesn't really. So, this is uh I think uh de facto reality.

Stefanie Schubert 1:13:02

And uh maybe one more comment. So, when you think about negotiation, how to prepare, you can also think about uh influencing techniques and steps you can make. And there's something more because if you do that, um also the other side might try to influence you. And if you have time enough and have um open, open mind um to observe that they are trying to influence you, you might also benefit from having thought about um techniques, how to yeah to yeah, to um to answer those um influencing um approaches, so to say.

Christian Soschner 1:13:47

How do you bring these two worlds together? On one hand, um I always perceived game theory as uh rationalizing a decision and having a mathematical framework, um, but I missed always a little bit the the psychological part, and then you have the negotiation process, the psychological part. How do you how do you match these two worlds in your model?

Stefanie Schubert 1:14:07

Yeah, so so once again, it's the the question theory and being rational and the real life negotiations with people, emotions, and everything else, which is much more complicated. For me, it's just the same, okay? So, and I can tell you why. So, um, if you look at very simple theory, it's only about prices that influence decisions, maybe quality, so some variables, but very few to be able to, you know, theory. This is what students and everyone learned in at university. But in real life, you can incorporate other aspects as well. You can say that this outcome is more important because people feel guilty, they have certain kinds of emotions because it's important. So, um, one example I have for you is um I was involved in a negotiation with two companies, and one side didn't know how important the outcome or the collaboration was for the other side. And the other side thought it's important because they had um a case uh case um of um in their in their family, the child was ill and suffered from this disease, so it was very important for for um for the father to collaborate to make sure that something will be found to fight this disease. And the other side didn't know about this, let's say irrational emotion, isn't it? It's not what people think is rational. But if you ask me, I would say it's totally rational that he is so interested in this collaboration because it's something he desperately wants. So it is rational to behave according to your own preferences, even though it's not just price and quality, but there are other aspects as well. And so game theory does not only in simple cases are based on variables like prices and so on, but you can include all other aspects as well. And that's now that's now a bit complicated, okay, because you have to find, let's say, a value. How important is this outcome for this guy? So you have to think about that. But sometimes it's just enough to think, okay, so if we offer this and we get this uh this deal done, okay, so um can we offer less, or also how much important is this? Does this aspect change something? Do we still get a deal if we lower something or let's say um define the negotiation variables a bit differently? So you can just think about what does it change if you're not able to quantify it or something? So does it make sense? To me, it's not um a difference whether you look at rational or irrational variables. You can incorporate everything in your thinking.

Christian Soschner 1:16:56

How do you make a difference between rational and irrational variables?

Fast thinking versus sustainable judgment

Stefanie Schubert 1:17:01

Well, the rational ones are easier to quantify because it's prices and quality, and you know how what people are willing to pay for something or so, and you know the market size, so that's much easier. And all you have to do is maybe to calculate the net expected value, or you know, so that's easy because it's just math, easy math. But if you incorporate feelings, emotions, something that is considered to be more irrational, so how would you quantify it? Or when does it change the decision of the counterpart? So that's the question, and that's not so easy. How can you get more clarity on that? Ask them and talk to each other. Make sure that you go for dinner together and you drink a glass of wine and talk about whatever you want to talk about. Because at this occasion, the other guy might say, So, my son, my son suffers from this disease, so it's very important for me. And then you get more information, right? So try to engage in relationship building and use the time before the explicit in negotiation to exchange information and to become a team to collaborate on that.

Christian Soschner 1:18:14

So, to understand this right, your recommendation is to separate relationship building from the negotiation and not start the relationship building during the first negotiation.

Stefanie Schubert 1:18:23

Oh no, no, do everything together. I strongly recommend to have a class of wine together. So that's the bottom line, yeah.

Christian Soschner 1:18:31

Yeah. When you look at decision making, and uh we come from game theory, mathematical concepts over the negotiation process to the point of uh making the final decision at the end of the day. Did you ever spend some time pondering um when we go back to this uh rational and irrational variables in the decision process? Uh which part drives decisions more in your opinion? The rational or the irrational variables?

Stefanie Schubert 1:19:01

Um it uh so once again it depends. So um we humans try to attend to uh react on the emotional side first. Um maybe you know the book by Kahnemann, and he got a Nobel Prize for this as well. So thinking fast and slow. So the fast response is the system one thinking where you respond on an emotional level. So um something like I like you, you feel uh, you know, it feels nice. And then you think about the next step would be to think system two, thinking, oh, he wants something from me, right? He doesn't just say it. There's something behind that. So it's always you have this emotional reaction, and then if you have more time to think this through, you use the trained behavior and the trained concepts and uh to come to a conclusion which is more rational. And I think this is true for every interaction you have, but some people are more trained in overcoming those emotional challenges and directly get into the system to thinking. So it uh so once again it depends. But if you want to make a good decision, uh the emotional ones are not the best decisions because it gives you immediate satisfaction, but that's it. If you want to plan for more sustainable outcomes, of course, you need to get over this and use your system two thinking to get some um yeah, some better outcomes.

Christian Soschner 1:20:33

And that's basically leadership mastery at the end of the day. This is what leadership is about, in my opinion, to control your reactions at the beginning and not uh react and decide from the first reaction, but really take your time and look into it. And uh what I what I found interesting when I look at YouTube these days, there are two thinkers that uh put out a lot of content about negotiation, negotiation processes, and especially navigating human minds and emotions. It's uh Chris Voss and Chase Huge. Uh, have you ever looked into their work?

Stefanie Schubert 1:21:10

Uh there are lots of people um doing negotiations and giving recommendations. A lot of them are based in the US, by the way. Chris Foss is if um so Chris Voss is an ex-fbi hostage negotiator. And um, so he when he talks about negotiations, um, he has a very specific situation. So it's about hostages. Um, so they he doesn't have much time. Um, in order to um to save people's life, what he typically does is he um tries to partner um and um and make sure that there's a good outcome and nobody um will die or suffer from the hostage. Um so I find it interesting to, you know, because there's he uh so in in his former life, in those kind of situations, if there's not much time, you have you can do a lot on the emotional level, and that's perfectly fine because you don't have the time to think you through, right? And um, what you can learn from this guy is that um how to well to um to address emotions and how to react to those, um, which is quite interesting. Um, who was the other guy you mentioned?

Christian Soschner 1:22:32

Chase Youth, you know.

Stefanie Schubert 1:22:35

Chase Youth. Um, yeah, so um he is more on the behavioral side, if I remember this correctly, um, but also someone who talks about emotions. Um, well, actually, there's a lot of literature and uh a lot of people giving advice on negotiations. Um, what I typically do is I browse their books and in and videos and whatsoever, and I use what is helpful for myself. Very often they talk about the same things, but describing it with their own words might sound as if they are talking about different things. Very often it's not. Um, the approaches are often similar. So um, also, for example, there is a lot of literature coming from Harvard because they have a negotiation um unit at Harvard and they publish a lot and give webinars, and um, well, a few people do that.

Christian Soschner 1:23:33

When we look at negotiations today, I think before 2020, the world was more I mean before 1990, the world was more local, then we got the internet and the world became really global then. Um, but still, people, especially in B2B, usually met in the real world when they negotiated. And 2020 changed the dynamic. Now we are on Zoom. I mean, for the for our recording, it's uh it's a Zoom call, basically. So, what you can do easily is connect with people globally on social media, LinkedIn, get them on a call, and start basically the process. And we don't meet in real life for a very long time. Um, have you ever thought about the situation, how this influences negotiation dynamics?

Stefanie Schubert 1:24:23

Oh, uh everyone has to, right? Because we meet online, we don't meet in person anymore. But oh, you know, I'm so old-fashioned. I love to meet people in person. I find it much easier to negotiate when you can see each other and you can interpret the body language. It's much more difficult when you see just the face on Zoom. So how can you? Um, I I think it's more complicated. You meet each other um at a lower cost, you don't have to travel, you are um in your country, you don't have to, you know, get to the airport, come to a different culture, eat Chinese noodles, you don't like them, you know. So everything is it's easier to approach other people. So maybe you do this more often then as a consequence because it's so easy. But what is the value you get out of it? And are you really able to close good deals? So, hmm, I find it difficult. I think a lot of people still travel for important negotiations, but nevertheless, it means that all the relationship building before happens very often online. So, again, even if the real negotiation happens face to face, very often uh the pre-meetings are online. And um, well, um, for myself, I can only say I try to understand what I need to make it a success for me. So, if I cannot read someone's mind, I can think about questions how to get the information I need, how to get closer to the people somewhere in the world. That um, yeah, so I I can imagine that some people are still old fashioned and and love to travel for those meetings. What would you say?

Christian Soschner 1:26:15

Um, I think the world changed. Um thinking back before 2020, it was getting someone motivated via a LinkedIn contact to enter a negotiation. I think the chance was very slim to uh negotiation, and I would say is for me in that picture to work towards a mutual outcome, whatever it is, can be um a webinar, can be a Zoom call, can be closing a deal, can be an acquisition. But uh having something in mind to enter a collaboration that leads to something before 2020, I think LinkedIn sometimes it was really hostile. Why should I accept your invitation when I don't know you in real life? Uh was from 2013, 2014-ish around. Uh Facebook, especially in Canada, was seen as uh private space, and it was really uh felt for some people as an intrusion in in Canada to contact them uh on Facebook without a prior meeting in real life. When in when I now look at the dynamic uh in 2026, not 2025 anymore, uh 2026. Um it's pretty much the norm that uh I contacted you first on LinkedIn and we had a conversation on Zoom. We didn't meet in real life before. And now we're at a webinar, so I would say uh it was successful. Uh so we are working towards uh uh an outcome. Would that have happened 10 years ago? I'm not so sure. Um there was a different world back then, and now people just use the tools, the interactions. And um, when I think about the time in the pandemic 2020-2021, my worst fear was that we don't close any deals during the lockdowns. But reality shows and the data shows that it was completely different. People closed deals without meeting in real life, and not small deals, not buying um uh um a book from Amazon. They invested millions in companies run by people they never met before in real life. So this this changed. It's just uh it's just a different word. If it's good or bad, I don't know. I don't know.

Stefanie Schubert 1:28:29

I have I would like to have some more evidence on that. I'm not sure if I can trust you on this normal. I mean, there must be something to it. When you're saying that deals are closed with with people who do not know each other, um, does it mean they never met each other? Because there was a life before COVID, and maybe they might before COVID and we still benefit from those past meetings in person. So that could be one of the reasons. So still, I'm not I'm not sure if I can adjust this if you say that people close deals with without having seen each other. Maybe they do, but maybe it's not the majority of deals. I don't know. I can I can only um accept what you're saying. Um, I think when you approach people via platforms like LinkedIn, there's a positive side because you can approach everyone in the world, but as there's also the downside that you get a lot of messages on LinkedIn. So you have to, if you're interested in answering some of them, you have to get through them and see this is important, this is not so important. So it also increases costs somehow. So you have a bigger, um, bigger chance of meeting. Meeting someone and doing something you weren't able before, but you also have a higher cost because you have to deal with all those messages and so. Um, well, nevertheless, we can't choose, right? The world has changed. I mean, you can just accept how it is. But nevertheless, if you have the feeling that you want to meet someone in person, why not just ask or fly over to see this guy? So if it's important, right? You might do this still. So, as I said, Christian, when I'm in Vienna, I will give you a call and I will come and stop by and we will have a coffee together. So, because this is still on my to-do list to meet people in person. I think it's a kind of compliment, and um, it's just something that gives me pleasure meeting people in person. So, yeah, so why not do this if it's important?

Christian Soschner 1:30:33

Yeah, looking at looking at the data definitely makes sense and uh figuring out how these deals worked out at the end of the day. But um, looking back to the time in 2020 to 2022 with the lockdowns, um, I think it was a necessity for funds to just close deals to allocate their capital. In that reality now, with people they never met. But what I wanted to emphasize is they never met in real life before. So they just met online, and it seems that uh Zoom and social media closes a gap in building trust. This is what I find particularly interesting that the calls and evidence on social media starts helping building trust, which was, in my opinion, not there before 2020. And this trust-building process um is something that's shifting currently. How do you see that?

Stefanie Schubert 1:31:24

Yeah, I I must say I agree. Um, and finally, everyone has to answer the question for themselves if it's enough to close a deal or not. But of course, it helps. Um, well, it's interesting to see how people behave in meetings. So if you have meetings with bigger groups, some don't switch on the camera, and even if you ask them to do so, so it very much depends on the context. So um uh I have to be careful, right? But sometimes in companies everyone turns on the camera, in other companies they don't, and they do something else. Instead, even if you ask them to comment on something, they don't listen. Um yeah, so if you want to um build trust and build a relationship, of course, you have to make sure that everyone in the meeting, you know, is on the same page. So again, it's about internal alignment and how you present your company. But yeah, it might help. It might help.

AI profiling can poison first impressions

Christian Soschner 1:32:22

I mean, if you go back to the framing of this uh of this episode, it's about um achieving win-win outcomes, negotiations, and influencing people at the end of the day. And when I think now at the next layer, artificial intelligence and social media. Um, looking at politics, for example, I mean, I know politics is always a difficult thing to bring up, but um thinking back to the 90s or early 2000s, politics happened in close rooms at the close rooms at the end of the day. So it was uh politicians meeting with their trusted advisors in real life to achieve an outcome. And now it's all on social media. So I think this this trust building and influencing is completely shifting uh over the decades. And the next level is artificial intelligence, looking at the podcast by preparation process that includes also guest profiles. Um I started asking people at conferences how they approach this trust building phase. So when they before they meet a person, and also this uh 10 years ago, the first meeting was the first impression and the first contact, and the other person, like you or I, had a chance to express who we are. And when I ask now, um, how do you approach the process of meeting a person at the conference? Almost everybody says, Well, I see an interesting person in the conference system, and then I go on social media, and then I go on Google search, and then I want to have information, and then I decide whether I want to see this person. How do you see this new dynamics, artificial intelligence, social media shifting negotiations?

Stefanie Schubert 1:34:08

Well, so um uh I'm happy that you uh got the right information about myself using AI. So that this is just a side comment because I realized when I plug in my name, there's also a single with my name. And um, I also got wrong information that I did a project somewhere in Germany with another university. No, it wasn't me. So, but nevertheless, AI is improving, so I think it's getting better. So, you know. Um, but um what happens is that you have to do more. Um, so you have to gather information about people. In in the past, you just went to the meeting and asked. So you have to do more. And and I think so, um use AI to uh to the extent that it helps you. Don't um don't get lost. Um, this is something that happens quite often, I would say. When you plug in something to one of the AIs available, you know, you get the next question. You want to know this as well, that as well. So, yeah, so if you are very clear about what you want to achieve and what you want to know, it's helpful for you, but sometimes you might get lost. And also, of course, it might help for in preparing for the negotiation, not only in gathering information about people you meet.

Christian Soschner 1:35:28

Isn't that the risk at the end of the day? I like this at this angle that you bring in um that people form a perception about another person and an outcome before they even meet the person. So they start in a maybe the the run. I mean, it it feels sometimes like you know this person. Um let's stay with politics. Donald Trump, I think everybody now knows Donald Trump, he's all over social media and they have a certain picture about this person. And when they meet them, they enter the negotiation with this uh prepared picture. This can be real, it cannot be real. You brought up the example with with your personality that there are other people with your name and that they have different careers. So if I absolutely rely on LLMs and say, okay, this is my picture of you, then I start the conversation negotiation with you with a prepared picture. Um, how do you see this dynamic?

Stefanie Schubert 1:36:21

I think there's a risk associated with that. So just gathering information is perfectly fine as much as you want, as much as it is helpful for you. But if it has the effect that it um gives you a certain uh position towards this person or this organization, um, it might stand in your way. For example, if I gather information about Trump and read about what he does to the world, um I might come to the conclusion, I'm not saying I do so, by the way, just an example. I might come to the conclusion that I don't like him. So when I negotiate with him and I meet him for the first time in person, I might have this feeling I don't like him. So, which means that I might not smile, I might not be friendly, and I might influence the meeting and the negotiation into the wrong direction. Then I would say be careful and try to manage your own emotions. Get over this once again, because it only matters to you. It doesn't matter to him, it doesn't matter to the negotiation, but it matters to you only. And who cares about your feelings, to be honest? It's about the project or the deal or whatever, it's not about your feelings. So, in that sense, it can be counterproductive, but nevertheless, if you know about this and are able to manage your um, yeah, your your emotions, then why not?

Christian Soschner 1:37:53

It's an interesting point. The maybe we stay a little bit longer here. Um I mean you're right, 20 years ago when the cost of information was extremely high. So when I wanted to know who is Stephanie Schubert, I had to ask around. There was nothing, or 30 years ago, there was nothing on the internet. So this was really empty, and it was rare that someone had a social media profile. I think in 2008 HR consultant still said, never go on social media, it will ruin your career at the end of the day. But there was no information. The only way to find out something about you was asking friends, and this was a costly process. Picking up the phone, calling someone, getting information, meeting someone by chance, remembering you, and uh the larger the distance of conferences, global conferences like biointernational, the chance of having a uh an overlapping um circle was really rare, and uh, it was not really very common. The cost of information was high. Now it feels like I can fall down a rabbit hole, I can Google you, I can research you, I can uh look into your social media profiles, I can look in past presentations of you. So I get this image uh built up in my mind. And as you said, start having feelings can be good, can be negative, but it gives me the comfortable feeling of I know you, but in reality, when we meet for the first time, I don't know anything about you, and we never met some met each other. Um, how should we approach that in a negotiation? What what what is the right angle to uh gather data before the first meeting or after the first meeting?

Stefanie Schubert 1:39:36

Oh, as I'm always I I always love to be prepared, so I would always prepare as much as um I need for myself to be comfortable entering the negotiation table. So this is one thing. Um but of course it makes sense to clarify whether this information is correct or not, so be open to um to a situation where it can turns out that the information you got isn't true or doesn't it maybe it's not important for the deal or something. So if you are too sure about what you have and what you learned about this organization, you know, and it might not be helpful if you're wrong. Um, so why not being prepared? Uh so once again, it's um there is this unconscious pressure that you always need to gather information about everything. But I don't know, my brain is limited. I can't do that. So I try to get into this, try to get a feeling, try to be prepared for what I need to know. But also, you know, you meet via Zoom, LinkedIn, via I don't know, in-person, the old-fashioned way, maybe. So why not also use this time to get to know each other? So it's okay, isn't it?

Trust building before formal deals

Christian Soschner 1:40:53

Yeah, absolutely. Um, people I think should do that. Um, thinking about the old-fashioned way, this is uh another movie, uh, The Last Samurai. Um, I think was uh is a good example in the movie when uh it was. Have you seen the movie The Last Samurai? No, this was uh it's basically I think 1800 something. Tom Cruise plays um a US soldier traveling to Japan to fight against the samurai. It was the time when the samurai class was uh vanishing from Japan. So this was the were the last battles, and he was caught and uh brought to the chief of the tribe after he was caught and uh taken hostage. And Tom Cruise, the Westerner, that was really well depicted in this scene. Uh, this the this cultural difference. The westerner went into the room where the uh chief of this tribe was meditating and started bombarding him with questions, one after the other, staccato of questions, really high pressure, fast. And the samurai chief, the Japanese guy, just sat there and listened and did nothing. And then got up and said, What's your name? And Tom Cruise said his name, and uh the chief of the tribe introduced himself to Tom Cruise. And Tom Cruise continued asking question after other question, question, question, question, answer this, under this, under that. And the chief looked at him, smiled, and said, I know your name, you know my name. That's enough for today. And I like this scene because it uh exemplifies this uh closing deal fast, like John Ash. It's like uh speeding up the process and not taking time for a trust building phase. Um, what's your recommendation for a trust building phase? How serious should take people these days, this phase, and how much time should it take for that?

Stefanie Schubert 1:42:41

Uh how much time should you take for the relationship building phase? So, you know, um in the life science industry, those are typically very long projects, which means if you close a deal, you will be working together for quite a long time. Even if it's not, you know, if even if business development closes the deals and alliance management works on the project, it's still the same company. So, you know, you want to have a good relationship somehow. And um, it might not only be this one deal, but other deals might follow. You never know, because if you have a certain reputation for the as the partner of choice, this only um this only helps you in the future. So, how much time? Um, I think there is uh one thing is being active and asking for meetings and asking for activities to do together, having uh lunch and dinner and drinking a glass of wine, but also the other side might um approach you and ask you and invite you, and I think this is something that happens um very um very uh without you don't have to think much about that, do you?

Christian Soschner 1:43:58

No normally not. Uh when I look at the professional deal processes, sometimes um I think it makes sense to talk a little bit more about this uh this phase because for me it feels that um when people approach me, they come with a clear outcome expectation. Let's let's let's stay with financing, closing a financing round and say, okay, I need 10 million euros on my bank account in three weeks, go for it. Uh so three weeks there is not much time to build trust. And um this leads back to the expectation time. Is it normal? Should it be normal? Should it be uh understood? I think yes, but uh especially what they find interesting in the in the industry when it comes to financing, it often feels to me that uh in that particular part of the business model story, it doesn't seem to be understood well. How do you see how do you see uh these parts of dynamics?

Why investor rejection is not final

Stefanie Schubert 1:44:55

Yeah, so um relationship building is not just to find out if we like each other, it's about get um, let's say exchanging information as well. And maybe for one company it's important to close the deal in 2025, uh December, right? And the other company wants to close the deal in January. So those things have to be clarified, and you have to talk about that. If you don't um exchange information in this informal level, if you don't get um a feeling of what is important for others, so how can you then prepare for the negotiation? I find it difficult. Um so and finance is just part of the deal, it's just the the quantity, the the side that can be quantified, but um so um it's still part of the deal. So um of course, prepare and and get to know each other.

Christian Soschner 1:45:44

Yeah, we'll be talking about the decision, it's part of decision myths. Um especially when it comes to startups, uh startup financing, startup funding. What I find interesting is that one recurring theme is the expectation of a fast closing deal in funding rounds, which is not the reality. And there is one point that also pops up frequently where people say, Look, I reached out to this investor and we had a good meeting, and then they said it's not for us. How do they ever talk to this person again? And it comes back to trust building and relationship buildings at the end of the day. A rejection does not necessarily mean that it might be the end of the negotiation, it is part of a negotiation. Um, how do you see uh rejections in B2P processes um in negotiations?

Designing negotiations from first contact

Create value before dividing value

Stefanie Schubert 1:46:45

Um so, yes, I would I would agree that uh um a rejection is not necessarily the end of the story because maybe the products changed or maybe the timeline changed, and that might change the decision of the investor. And also, maybe you improve your um, let's say um your well, how can I say that, how you transport the story of your product so that it's more easily understood by the investor. This is another point. So looking at startups, or as scientists at bio, you know, they are very convinced of their innovations and what they have, the great molecule, and they go so much into detail, academic details about um efficacy and things like that. And but nevertheless, the investor is someone who wants to invest to uh make some money, right? So this is his interest. So um the you there are two different peoples talking to each other, and if the scientist or the startup is not able to speak the language of the investor, it's more difficult. But this is a process, just because you invent something new, you create an app or a great molecule, it doesn't mean that you have these abilities to talk to an investor in his language, right? But so why not just uh keep on improving that? And then maybe the rejection turns into a yes, maybe you know, and you can uh start an informal negotiation before you close the deal formally.

Christian Soschner 1:48:21

Can we at the end of our conversation? Can we play this through? Um let's assume I'm working with you, and I would ask you to support my company in a negotiation process. We start early. Uh I contact you before I even aligned with the stakeholders in the company and say, look, I mean my company needs uh let's say hundred million, hundred million dollars on the bank account um in a year, and I want you to be part of my team and guide me through the negotiation process so that uh next year, January 2027, we have 100 million dollars on the bank account. How would you approach this situation? So when people think about working with you, how would you go for it?

Confidence before asking for capital

Stefanie Schubert 1:49:06

Well, if you start really early in the negotiation process, it means you have to find a good potential partner. This is the first step, and see um what the strategy of potential partners are, if it aligns with what you have on the table, and then see how to approach them, and how to if you are able to speak the right language and set up some ideas for the negotiations. So being clear about what you want to achieve, how important those different uh aspects are, how important is it to have cash, royalties, how to set up a contract. Um uh for me, it's I think it's always helpful to guide the people towards a value creation and thinking about how you can create value together with a partner. So, what do you bring and what does the partner bring, and what is the most you can get out of that? So this is one step, but what next step would be how to distribute the value, um, the value. Um, I know it's not done like this in reality, but my opinion is that if two companies work together, yeah, they both uh contribute equally to the success of the project. So basically, they could benefit 50 on a 50-50 basis. So I know this is not done in reality. So um, because companies think about this differently, they say big pharma invests a lot and they bring in more resources, so they get 80%, and the biotech only gets 20%. So um you can think about this in a different way and say they all contribute to the value, and now we take into account all the resources you know, they the different companies bring in, and what is left will be shared 50-50. This is just a reframing of the problem. But if you do it like that, you can see that um both companies are equally important and both contribute, they let's say um they co-create the value together, and that gives you a different mindset and um motivates you to be successful. But when uh when thinking about planning of the negotiation, so you can um separate the value creation process from the distribution process if you if if big pharma lets you, you know, um it's difficult, but you can um you have you can have meetings where you discuss the value you want to generate together and how you're going to do that in one meeting, and then the negotiation how to distribute value in the next meeting. And then, yes, just going through all the steps, and this Very individual and very tailored because what companies bring in and what you can achieve is always very, very individual. Yeah, and then preparing step by step and um yeah, make a good deal in the end.

Christian Soschner 1:51:58

Yeah, good point, especially the preparation. I think this is something that needs uh a lot more emphasis before going out on the market to really understand what you want at the end of the day, defining success.

Stefanie Schubert 1:52:10

Defining success and also being confident about yourself. So because you bring in something, it's not that you beg for money with the investor or you ask the farmer, please can you buy myself? You bring in some value for them as well. So you can be confident and it should be a good deal for both of you.

Christian Soschner 1:52:31

And describing that is not easy, in my opinion. It sounds easy. I mean, with this hundred million example, I want the farmer partner, and the farmer partner should transfer 100 million on my bank account because at the end of the day, we need it for the next two years, full stop. Um, but is the value then really described and what success is and how a collaboration looks like?

Stefanie Schubert 1:52:53

Yeah, so why not yeah, why not define what is success for you? So, does it, for example, help the big pharma company in um yeah, in um in their strategy? As I said earlier, if the strategy is to have to fill the pipeline in oncology, for example, and you have exactly that, so it helps them a lot. So think about the why, why it helps them, and and yeah, so um that's a bit of work as well.

Christian Soschner 1:53:23

Stephanie, great, great conversation. I love the way you think, and we took uh a lot of steps from boyroom dancing over game theory, John Ash, uh Hollywood, cinema. Um, is there any any topic that we should talk about in the podcast before we wrap it up?

Stefanie Schubert 1:53:43

Um so we uh are we still uh do we still have no just we can still talk for hours. I have the feeling that um we could cover a lot more.

Christian Soschner 1:53:56

So we talked about it's a bank holiday in Austria, so I have nothing. After what we can talk until 6 p.m.

Stefanie Schubert 1:54:03

No, I'm just kidding, totally understand. So we have been talking for two hours now about very different things, how to influence people, um, about emotions, about um rational aspects. So I would say if there's anyone who would like to know more, just contact us and and we have to then maybe think about a follow-up for this podcast. But no one, I I think um I'm happy with your questions and what we talked about. Thank you so much.

Christian Soschner 1:54:34

Me too, me too, me too. Thank you for being on the show. Then my final question to you: how can people reach out to you? What's the best way to get in contact with you?

Stefanie Schubert 1:54:43

Um, maybe just uh write via LinkedIn. So I'm one of the guys who reads the LinkedIn messages actually. So please feel free to reach out. Um, and then we can see if we can do something together. Thank you so much, Christian.

Christian Soschner 1:54:58

Super, thank you, Stephanie, for being on the show. Let's stay in touch and uh catch up soon.

Stefanie Schubert 1:55:03

Thank you so much. Wish you a wonderful rest of the day.

Christian Soschner 1:55:06

Thank you. Have a great day. Bye-bye.

Stefanie Schubert 1:55:08

Bye.

Christian Soschner 1:55:10

And that was Stephanie Schubert on negotiation, game theory, trust, and why bad outcomes start long before the formal meeting begins. What stayed with me most is that clarity, listening, and preparation beat force far more often than people think. If you got something useful from this conversation, follow the show, leave a like, and share it with someone who would value it. And come back for the next episode of Beginner's Mind.