Negotiations Training 101: Ban the Word “Should”

Should: we have all heard it, we have all said it. When dealing with others, whether on a professional team, in a business negotiation, or even in our own homes, people often allow themselves the luxury of thinking about what other people “should” have done. This thinking can even seep into the way people talk to themselves, demanding that they “should” or “ought to” be better.

Negotiations experts warn against the use of the word “should” in our communication with ourselves and others. Here’s why:

“Should” calls on a person to act from an obligation

In a recent negotiations training, the trainer shared a valuable insight. As you sort through different negotiations tactics, remember one underlying principle: people are all making decisions to meet their own needs.

They use negotiation strategies that will get them closer to fulfilling those needs (Rosenberg, 2015). They are not going to want to do things because they must, but because doing so helps them to meet their needs.

When you tell your team what they “should” do, you’re asking them to ignore their own needs analysis and the strategies they use to get those needs met. You ask them instead to act out of a sense of duty, rather than passion. This dissonance can lead people to feel guilt at failing to meet your expectations. They may also feel rebellion against that sense of obligation.

Guilt can lead them to agree to do things because they feel they must, leading to embitterment and straining the relationship you’ve built. Rebellion can cause people to reject your ideas and proposals out of hand. These sentiments can create tension and hinder team decisions.

When you move away from “should,” you can move towards a productive negotiation strategy that will answer the questions “what are everyone’s needs?” and “how can they all be met?” The ideal outcome will promote team collaboration and provide mutual benefits, instead of compelling your team to ignore their needs out of a sense of duty about what they “should” do.

“Should” assumes shared knowledge of your needs

Many people, even with years of negotiations training, find themselves using “should” when they believe other people have understood their needs. They imagine the other person knows what they desire and has chosen to ignore it.

They believe that the other person should know what they need and should not be ignoring their interests. This nagging sentiment can lead to outrage and hurt feelings, always damaging in the workplace.

A smart negotiator’s skills will cause them to take a step back from their emotional reaction and ask whether they have been clear with their co-workers about their needs. Rather than quietly expecting more from the other person and getting frustrated or hurt when they don’t deliver, a person with good communications and negotiations skills will work to express their needs and expectations in a clear, concrete, and actionable way.

“Should” often provides an unclear and unattainable standard

Many times when people use “should”, their internal demand is for someone to be flawless. “You should not make mistakes.” “You should never close a bad deal.” Statements like these may seem legitimate, at first glance. Nonetheless, they leave a lack of clarity.

What is a mistake? What is a bad deal? These definitions change from context to context, making it hard for those you work with to understand, much less live up to, the demands of your “should”.

Without that clarity, it’s nearly impossible for them to gauge whether or not they’re disappointing you. This leads to feelings of frustration, disappointment, and shame, which can hinder development and creativity.

That’s why it’s important for teams to build communication skills that allow them to provide clear expectations, rather than sulking silently in their disappointment about what “should” have occurred.

Likewise, even with a clear definition, “should” doesn’t really leave space for human error. It demands perfection. However, people make mistakes as they move through life. To stay motivated, folks need attainable goals.

“Should” emphasizes the negative, highlighting where your team has fallen short. It diminishes their successes as merely something they were expected to do. By moving away from “should”, you can create space for new ideas, for learning by doing, and for curiosity and growth.

“Should” suggests that people have implicit shared values

The word “should” not only assumes that your team understand your needs, but also implies that they are guided by the same set of needs and values as you are.

If you think back on any business negotiation you have been a part of, you’ll remember that people’s beliefs and value systems are quite different. Indeed, that variability is part of what makes life (and business) so interesting. People’s different ideas about the world are guided by cultural norms, religious and political beliefs, and their own set of experiences.

You cannot assume that the person you are working with shares your value set. When you use “should”, you are seeking to control the definition of right and wrong, while ignoring the differing beliefs and values that the other person brings.

When you negotiate with the people you work with, your goal isn’t to prioritize your beliefs about what the other person “should” do, overriding their own belief system. Rather, those spaces allow you to seek a win-win, in which everyone acts according to their values and needs to move the group towards a common goal.

“Should” limits creativity

When you get stuck with one idea of the “right” way to do things, which others “should” respect and follow, you limit your own creativity. This kind of rigid thinking stifles innovative solutions and makes it difficult to adapt to new challenges. In the context of negotiation, a key lesson from training is that successful employees foster curiosity and openness, encouraging themselves and their teams to explore creative solutions.

If you can only imagine one way of doing things, you lose the ability to envision alternatives that might better serve everyone involved. This is especially crucial in a business environment where flexibility and innovation are essential for long-term success. The more you allow yourself and your team to step away from the “should” mindset, the more likely you are to uncover ideas that could lead to mutually beneficial outcomes.

Moreover, clinging to a singular vision may cause you to overlook valuable perspectives and insights from others. A collaborative approach that encourages different viewpoints enables you to find solutions that you might never have considered on your own. Flexibility in your business and negotiation strategies empowers both you and your team to adapt to new opportunities and navigate challenges with greater ease. By embracing creativity and openness, you foster an environment where everyone feels valued and empowered to contribute, leading to more innovative and effective results.

“Should” undermines psychological safety

When people use the word “should” in the workplace, it often carries an implicit message: you failed. It suggests not only that something went wrong, but that the person on the receiving end ought to have known better. Over time, these subtle judgments don’t just shape how work gets done – they shape how people feel about themselves and about being part of the team.

Psychological safety is the belief that one can speak up, take risks, or admit a mistake without being ridiculed, sidelined, or blamed. It’s a crucial foundation for any high-performing team. When “should” enters the room, it can quietly corrode that foundation. Employees begin to fear judgment. They may second-guess themselves or withdraw, not because they don’t care, but because they don’t feel safe to be open. A fear of being “shoulded” can become a fear of being wrong at all.

This erosion doesn’t only impact communication or collaboration – it chips away at emotional well-being. Employees who feel consistently misunderstood or judged may begin to experience anxiety, burnout, or low self-worth. They may interpret the constant “shoulds” as a signal that their effort is never enough. Over time, this emotional weight can prompt talented individuals to disengage or even leave the organization entirely, not because of the workload, but because of how the workplace feels.

When leaders move away from “should” language, they make room for psychological safety to take root. They create space for questions, learning, and dialogue. This shift is not just good for team performance – it’s essential for sustaining a workplace where people can grow, feel valued, and stay.

Staying Away from “Should”

When you use “should” too often at work, you create an environment that demands people act from a sense of duty rather than desire. This leads to miscommunication, hurt feelings, and limited creativity. Eliminating “should” from your vocabulary will open the door to honest and clear communication, creative proposals, and space for your team’s individuality and passion.

Instead of saying “You should do this” or “You should have done that,” try rephrasing with a more open-ended approach, such as “What do you think would work best?” or “I’d love to hear your ideas on this.” By doing so, you create an atmosphere where team members feel empowered to contribute their thoughts and take ownership of their work. This shift in communication promotes a sense of autonomy, which fosters a more engaged and motivated team.

Ultimately, removing “should” nurtures a culture where creativity and individuality thrive. Your team will feel more confident, valued, and motivated, leading to better results and a more positive work environment. By communicating in a way that promotes trust and openness, you’ll unlock the full potential of your team’s ideas and contributions.