What business has taught me about people

The biggest misconception I used to carry into managing people was simple: that if I was factual, fair and hardworking enough, reality would sort itself out. It won't. People don't just respond to facts. They react to threats, loyalty, shame, power, unspoken agreements and what they think is at stake. And this is where the outcome is often decided not just on the outcome, but on the authority, the relationship, and the direction of the entire collaboration.

Maybe even just for myself: what I have learned in 25+ years in business and managing a team of 42 men about people, decision making, negotiation, cannot be summed up in a few motivational sentences. It's more like a set of corrections. Some were expensive, some were unpleasant, and some came later than I would have liked. But that's what makes them applicable.

People don't act on what they say, they act on what they protect

For a long time, I thought that in a conflict it was enough to uncover the truth, name the problem and move towards a solution. But most people in a tense situation don't protect the truth. They're protecting their position, their self-image, their sense of security or their influence. That doesn't mean they're deliberately lying. It means that their perception is filtered by their defenses.

In practice, it looks inconspicuous. Someone's off topic. Someone starts leaning on a detail that is not relevant. Someone gets nervous and suddenly “doesn't know”. And somebody gets too rigid because they feel that if they back down on the wording, they lose value. If you don't recognize this, it's easy to start fixing the content when the real problem lies in the relational dynamics.

This is where it is useful to separate reality from interpretation. What actually happened, what was said, what was done by whom, and what is just an interpretation, an assumption or a defensive story. If this is not done, the conversation quickly shifts into a fog. And in the fog, whoever is louder, faster or more mentally resilient usually wins. Not the one with the more accurate judgment.

This is as true on the team as it is at home. If you want to understand people, you have to stop relying on the literal content and start noticing what's underneath. In some situations, it's no longer about a difference of opinion, but about defending against shame, challenge or loss of place.

Decision-making under pressure does not test intelligence, but support

Many capable people don't behave inaccurately because they don't know. They behave inaccurately because they lose the support of their own judgment in a moment of pressure. They begin to adopt someone else's pace, someone else's framework, or someone else's interpretation of the situation. This is more common than it seems, and it doesn't just apply to less experienced people.

Over the years, I have learned that the quality of a decision is not determined by the amount of information. It is also the ability to endure tension without immediate relief. Not to disagree with something just to be calm. Not to back down just because the other side seems more confident. And conversely, not to push for a decision just because I can't stand the uncertainty.

Some bad decisions come from impulsivity. Others come from overreaching responsibility. One feels that one has to carry everything, solve everything, understand everything, and still do it quickly. Then he decides not out of clarity, but out of inner overpressure. From the outside, it may look like power. But in reality, the old formula is already running.

That's why I consider one of the most important skills to know when I am still making the decision and when my defense is already making the decision. Sometimes you need to be in control. Sometimes it needs to be beyond reasonable. Sometimes the resistance to conflict. Sometimes an old loyalty to a relationship that no longer fits reality. Those who don't know these mechanisms will repeatedly think they are solving a new situation, even if they are just re-enacting a familiar scenario. This is discussed in more detail in the text How to recognise your behaviour patterns.

Negotiation is not a battle of arguments

One of the most valuable corrections for me was this: negotiation is not primarily about who has the better argument. It's about who understands the field better. That is, interests, concerns, pressures, hierarchies, unspoken limits, and what the other side can't afford to admit out loud.

If you can't see that, you can be factually correct and still fail. Conversely, a person with mediocre reasoning will sometimes get away with it simply because they've better guessed what the other side's sensitive spot is. That's not cynicism. That's the reality of human behavior.

I also learned that trying too hard to be polite at all costs can be a form of backpedaling in a negotiation. If the other side is pushing the envelope, distorting the facts, or working with coercion, mere fairness is not enough. It is necessary to calmly bring the conversation back to reality, not to let someone else's interpretation get in the way, and not to defend oneself where no defence is appropriate. This is what the text refers to When someone distorts the facts: how to speak calmly.

That doesn't mean being tough all the time. It means to discriminate. Sometimes the room for agreement is wide. Other times it isn't. Sometimes the other side needs data. Other times, they need to preserve dignity. And sometimes you can't negotiate anything until you name the communication itself.

Team management is not a popularity test

Leading a larger team of men taught me one uncomfortable but liberating thing: fairness and popularity are not the same thing. And those who confuse the two begin to swerve at key moments. Either he's too late, or he backs down where he should be holding the line.

People don't need permanent helpfulness from a leader. They need readability. They need to know what's valid, what's changing, what's accountable and what's no longer. Once leadership begins to operate according to the mood of the moment, assumptions or unspoken exceptions, trust breaks down not loudly but quietly. And then it shows up in performance, loyalty and willingness to carry things along.

One of the hardest disciplines in leadership is to endure being misunderstood in the short term, as long as you know you are holding the right framework in the long term. Not every disagreement means you've got something wrong. Not every tension is a sign of poor leadership. Sometimes tension is a natural consequence of stopping to carry someone else's chaos.

But at the same time, the other side applies. Harshness without reflection is usually just defence disguised as decisiveness. Leaders have their blind spots and the cost is high, especially when they confuse authority with infallibility. That is why it is useful to return to what I repeatedly overlook in managing people and what dynamics I myself co-create.

What 25+ years in business and leading a team of 42 men will teach you about yourself

In the beginning, you think that entrepreneurship will teach you mainly strategy, business and resilience. It teaches. But something else is just as crucial: it will show him where he's getting ahead of himself. Where he's adapting more than he should. Where he gets sucked into someone else's pace. Where he explains too much. Where he wants to be understood before he understands exactly what is happening.

Many problems in leadership and negotiation do not start with the other side. They start by not noticing our own activation. The body speeds up, the voice tightens, the thinking narrows, and the person begins to react automatically. Then he says something that is not accurate. Or, conversely, he says nothing where he should have intervened.

The ability to capture this moment is practical, not theoretical. It determines whether you lead the conversation or your reaction leads you. In challenging situations, it is often more useful to slow down and refine the frame than to add more arguments. If a person learns to work with their activation, it doesn't mean they stop feeling pressure. It means that the pressure stops driving his actions. It also has to do with How to manage emotions at work without pretense.

Accuracy in communication is a form of respect

The longer I work with people and observe what causes unnecessary damage, the more I think that inaccuracy in communication is no small thing. It leads to assumptions, defensive reactions, silent wrongs and loss of influence. Accuracy is not coolness. It's a form of respect for yourself, the other, and the situation.

This means talking to the point, but not in a short-hand way. Naming the problem, but not confusing it with the person's diagnosis. Distinguish between saying something is not working and saying someone has failed as a person. And also not to use honesty as a weapon. Many people say they want candor, but they can't really carry its impact. That's why not only the content is important, but also the form, the timing and the degree of contact with reality.

Over the years, I have taken away perhaps the most sobering realization of all: people are more complex than we would like, but there are patterns that repeat themselves. When you start to see them, you stop being so surprised. Not because you've lost your sensitivity. But because you no longer let first impressions, the pressure of the moment, or the need for quick clarity drive you.

And that is perhaps the most practical thing to take away from years like this. Not that you learn to be right all the time. But that you get to know more often what's really going on in the moment. And you can act on it more accurately.