We Value Your Privacy

We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, analyze site traffic, and understand where our visitors are coming from. By clicking "Accept", you consent to our use of cookies for analytics purposes.

Privacy Policy
Preparing…
Elite Negotiator DNA™

TEAM NEGOTIATOR DNA™

Collective Negotiation Profile

Organization
Sample Organization
Cohort / Program
Commercial Leadership Cohort
Eligible Participants
21
Assessment Period
Sept 2025 – Nov 2025

ELITE NEGOTIATOR DNA™ · Confidential Team Development Report · theelitenegotiator.com

01

Executive Team Profile

A concise overview of how this cohort negotiates, based on aggregated assessment data.

Team Negotiation Signature

The data suggests this cohort combines strong expression of Principles Orientation and Relationship Orientation, suggesting a team that may anchor positions in objective criteria and invest in trust while maintaining commercial focus. The clearest development opportunity lies in Pressure Resilience, particularly where the team needs to preserve decision quality and composure as pressure rises. The team does not operate from a single negotiation pattern; several shared tendencies coexist with meaningful individual variation. One important consideration is that Pressure Resilience shows substantial variation, meaning participants may enter the same negotiation with materially different starting tendencies. Under pressure, the team shows a tendency toward stability under pressure, making pressure simulation and shared pressure-management routines particularly relevant.

Team Profile at a Glance
Collective Capabilities
Principles Orientationmean 82
Relationship Orientationmean 78
Value Creationmean 75
Development Focus
Pressure Resiliencepriority freq 42%
Negotiation Disciplinepriority freq 35%
Assertivenesspriority freq 28%
Team Pattern
Persuasive Strategist (24%)
MODERATE diversity · 5 archetypes across 21 profiles
Under Pressure
Pressure Stabilizer (33%)
6 distinct pressure patterns in the cohort
Primary Training Priority

Strengthen composure and decision quality under pressure through structured pressure simulation.

Pressure Resilience appears in 42% of individual development-priority sets.

02

Team DNA Map

Cohort averages across the reportable Elite Negotiator DNA™ dimensions, with spread indicators.

AssertPowerValueInfluenceRelatingPrinciplesDisciplineStrategicEQResilienceResults0255075100
What the Shape Suggests

The team's profile is most strongly expressed around Principles Orientation and Relationship Orientation. Pressure Resilience and Negotiation Discipline are relatively less expressed within this cohort. The shape should not be read as a performance score. Substantial variation on Pressure Resilience and Assertiveness means individual starting points differ meaningfully.

DimensionMeanSpread
Assertiveness6818 pts
Power Orientation7214 pts
Value Creation7512 pts
Influence Capability7015 pts
Relationship Orientation7813 pts
Principles Orientation8210 pts
Negotiation Discipline6516 pts
Strategic Adaptability7115 pts
Emotional Intelligence7414 pts
Pressure Resilience6319 pts
Results Orientation7613 pts

Team averages summarize the cohort and may conceal meaningful differences between participants. Spread should be considered alongside the average.

03

Team Dimension Profile

A reference view of how the reportable Elite Negotiator Index\u2122 dimensions are expressed within this cohort.

Reference View
Most expressed within this cohort
Principles OrientationMean 82 · Median 81 · 10 pts
Relationship OrientationMean 78 · Median 77 · 13 pts
Results OrientationMean 76 · Median 75 · 13 pts
Value CreationMean 75 · Median 74 · 12 pts
Mid-range within this cohort
Emotional IntelligenceMean 74 · Median 73 · 14 pts
Power OrientationMean 72 · Median 71 · 14 pts
Strategic AdaptabilityMean 71 · Median 70 · 15 pts
Influence CapabilityMean 70 · Median 69 · 15 pts
Relatively less expressed within this cohort
AssertivenessMean 68 · Median 67 · 18 pts
Negotiation DisciplineMean 65 · Median 64 · 16 pts
Pressure ResilienceMean 63 · Median 62 · 19 pts

The Elite Negotiator Index\u2122 assesses 12 dimensions. Ethical Boundary Stability receives additional privacy protection and is not surfaced as an aggregate team score.

04

Collective Strengths

Dimensions most strongly expressed within this cohort. These are within-cohort observations, not performance claims.

Principles Orientation

Mean 82

Broadly shared across the cohort

What the data shows: The cohort shows strong, consistent expression of principles orientation, suggesting a team that anchors positions in objective criteria.
Potential team advantage: The group may anchor positions in objective criteria, reducing positional bargaining.
Use deliberately: Use objective criteria consistently while distinguishing genuine principles from adaptable preferences.

Relationship Orientation

Mean 78

Strong overall with meaningful individual variation

What the data shows: The cohort shows strong expression of relationship orientation, suggesting a team that invests in trust while maintaining commercial focus.
Potential team advantage: The group may invest in trust and long-term relationships while maintaining commercial focus.
Use deliberately: Create explicit norms that protect trust while maintaining commercial clarity in every negotiation.

Value Creation

Mean 75

Broadly shared across the cohort

What the data shows: The cohort shows strong, consistent expression of value creation, suggesting a team that expands issues and converts differences into reciprocal trades.
Potential team advantage: The group may expand issues and convert differences into reciprocal trades, creating value beyond zero-sum outcomes.
Use deliberately: Build issue expansion and reciprocal trade design into the team’s standard preparation process.
05

Development Opportunities

Dimensions relatively less expressed within this cohort. These are development observations, not evaluations.

Pressure Resilience

Mean 63 · 19 pts · Priority freq 42%
What the data shows: Pressure resilience is relatively less expressed within this cohort, with meaningful variation across participants.
Development question: Does the team preserve decision quality under pressure, or does composure erode when stakes rise?
Training implication: Use high-pressure simulations to practise preserving decision quality, boundaries and strategic flexibility when stakes or time pressure rise.

Negotiation Discipline

Mean 65 · 16 pts · Priority freq 35%
What the data shows: Negotiation discipline is relatively less expressed, suggesting preparation architecture and concession planning deserve attention.
Development question: Does the team prepare a structured agenda and concession plan, or does it negotiate reactively?
Training implication: Strengthen preparation architecture, agenda control, concession planning, decision rules and disciplined implementation.

Assertiveness

Mean 68 · 18 pts · Priority freq 28%
What the data shows: Assertiveness is relatively less expressed, with substantial variation across the cohort.
Development question: Does the team state targets and boundaries early enough, or does it delay firmness until positions harden?
Training implication: Practise stating targets and boundaries early, challenging assumptions constructively, and escalating firmness deliberately rather than reactively.
06

Archetype Landscape

Distribution of primary and secondary negotiation archetypes within the cohort.

Primary Archetype Distribution
Persuasive Strategist
5 (24%)
Trusted Influencer
4 (19%)
Relationship Builder
3 (14%)
Commercial Closer
3 (14%)
Calibrated Challenger
3 (14%)
Value Creator
3 (14%)
Secondary Archetype Distribution
Trusted Influencer
4 (19%)
Relationship Builder
4 (19%)
Value Creator
4 (19%)
Persuasive Strategist
3 (14%)
Commercial Closer
3 (14%)
Calibrated Challenger
3 (14%)
Top Primary + Secondary Combinations
Persuasive Strategist + Trusted Influencer3 (14%)
Trusted Influencer + Relationship Builder2 (10%)
Persuasive Strategist + Commercial Closer2 (10%)

Most common primary pattern: Persuasive Strategist (24% of the cohort).

Archetypes describe recurring negotiation patterns. A higher frequency does not indicate that one archetype is better or more desirable.

07

Pressure DNA

How the cohort's negotiation patterns shift under pressure.

Pressure Transformation Distribution
Pressure Stabilizer7 (33%)
Pressure Amplifier4 (19%)
Pressure Erosion4 (19%)
Pressure Collapse2 (10%)
Pressure Split2 (10%)
Pressure Converger2 (10%)
Pressure adaptation: mean 62 · median 61 · spread 14

33% of this cohort shows a Pressure Stabilizer pattern, while the remainder displays several different pressure responses. A meaningful common tendency toward stability under pressure, though the remainder of the cohort displays several different responses.

Pressure category is a behavioural pattern, not a performance measure.

Training Implication

Use high-pressure simulations to preserve decision quality under stakes, and debrief on how different participants responded to the same pressure.

08

How This Team Works Together

Shared negotiation patterns, meaningful differences and the combinations that may shape how the team approaches negotiation.

Profile Diversity
MODERATE

5 distinct primary archetypes across 21 eligible profiles.

This cohort combines several shared negotiation tendencies with meaningful individual variation. Training can therefore build common disciplines while allowing different routes to effective execution.

Team Tensions

RESULTS + RELATIONSHIPS

The combination: Both strong: the cohort shows high outcome focus and high relationship investment.
Why it matters: Outcome focus and relationship investment may compete when neither is consciously prioritised.
Development question: Does the team consciously decide when outcome focus should take priority and when relationship investment should lead?
Training application: Practise deciding deliberately when outcome focus should take priority and when relationship investment should lead.

PRINCIPLES + ADAPTABILITY

The combination: Both strong: the cohort anchors in objective criteria while valuing strategic flexibility.
Why it matters: Rigidity and flexibility both have value, but only when the team consciously decides which applies.
Development question: Does the team distinguish between principles that should not move and preferences that can legitimately adapt?
Training application: Practise distinguishing between principles that should not move and preferences that can legitimately adapt.

VALUE CREATION + RESULTS

The combination: Both strong: the cohort searches for mutual gains while maintaining strong closure focus.
Why it matters: Searching for mutual gains can dilute commercial focus if the team does not decide when to close.
Development question: Does the team decide when to search for mutual gains and when to drive for closure?
Training application: Practise ensuring that searching for mutual gains does not dilute commercial focus, and vice versa.
Where the Team Differs Most

These are the areas where a single description of the team is least useful. Participants may enter the same negotiation with materially different starting tendencies.

Pressure ResilienceHigh Variation

Participants may respond differently as pressure rises, making shared pressure-management routines particularly useful.

AssertivenessHigh Variation

Participants may assert at different levels, making shared frameworks for firmness particularly useful.

09

Recommended Training Roadmap

A prioritized learning architecture derived from the cohort profile. Each priority answers a different development question.

CORE PRIORITY

Pressure Resilience

Why this matters: Pressure Resilience appears in 42% of individual development-priority sets.
What to practise: Use high-pressure simulations to practise preserving decision quality, boundaries and strategic flexibility when stakes or time pressure rise.
Successful practice looks like: Participants can maintain a structured decision process through a timed high-pressure simulation without abandoning their plan.
SIMULATION PRIORITY

Pressure Response

Why this matters: Pressure responses vary substantially across the cohort, with 33% showing a Pressure Stabilizer pattern and the remainder distributed across multiple patterns.
What to practise: Use high-pressure simulations to preserve decision quality under stakes, and debrief on how different participants responded to the same pressure.
INTEGRATION PRIORITY

RESULTS + RELATIONSHIPS

Why this matters: Both Results Orientation and Relationship Orientation are strongly expressed within the cohort.
What to practise: Practise deciding when outcome focus should lead and when relationship investment should lead, rather than defaulting to either mode.
SUPPORTING CAPABILITY

Assertiveness Variation

Why this matters: Assertiveness shows substantial variation across the cohort (spread 18 pts).
What to practise: Use shared frameworks for firmness to address different starting points and allow participants to compare strategies.
SUPPORTING CAPABILITY

Negotiation Discipline

Why this matters: Negotiation Discipline appears in 35% of individual development-priority sets.
What to practise: Strengthen preparation architecture, agenda control, concession planning, decision rules and disciplined implementation.
Successful practice looks like: Participants can present a prepared agenda and concession plan before entering a negotiation simulation.
10

From Insight to Program Design

How the cohort profile can inform the structure and emphasis of the learning experience.

What to Emphasize

Use timed high-pressure simulations and debrief specifically on whether the decision process was maintained.

What to Practise Under Pressure

Use pressure simulations that test whether stability becomes rigidity, and debrief on when composure should give way to adaptation.

Where to Differentiate the Learning

Do not assume a common pressure response; use exercises that expose different composure levels.

What to Reinforce

Reinforce the principle-versus-preference distinction in every positional discussion.

11

About This Team Profile

Methodology, scope and responsible interpretation.

Team Negotiator DNA™ summarizes the aggregated results of eligible Elite Negotiator DNA™ assessments within the selected cohort. It is designed to support professional development, facilitator preparation and training design. Team averages and distributions describe this cohort only. They should not be interpreted as population benchmarks, percentiles or evidence that one team or individual is a better negotiator than another. Individual participant results remain confidential and are not displayed in this report.

Report Basis
Eligible participants: 21
Assessment confidence inclusion: HIGH and ACCEPTABLE assessments are eligible; CAUTION included only when explicitly selected.
Engine version: 3.1
Corporate analytics version: CDA_1.0.1
Report experience version: 4.1.4
Team report version: TDR_1.1.1

This report is an aggregate development tool. It is not an employee evaluation report, a ranking tool, a psychometric norm report, a benchmark against other companies, or a predictor of commercial performance. Internal scoring formulas are not displayed.

From Insight to Capability

Team Negotiator DNA™ is designed to turn individual negotiation patterns into actionable team-development priorities — while keeping individual profiles confidential.

ELITE NEGOTIATOR DNA™
Team Negotiation Intelligence for professional development.
EugeniuFounder of The Elite Negotiator™