Interviews
Negotiation as an EBITDA Engine: Alex Adamo on Turning Deals into Strategic Assets
Home > Interviews > Negotiation as an EBITDA Engine: Alex Adamo on Turning Deals into Strategic Assets
Global Banking and Finance Review
Company
Interview with Alex Adamo
Alex Adamo is a negotiation expert and founder of The Commercialiser. He has guided some of the world’s best-known organisations through high-stakes negotiations. By combining behavioural science with financial discipline, he helps companies transform line items on their P&L into EBITDA-generating assets. With a track record of securing results on deals ranging from the mid-millions to multi-billion pounds, Adamo offers financial leaders a fresh perspective: negotiations should not be treated as reactive problems but as strategic assets. At a time of inflationary pressures, market volatility, and geopolitical uncertainty, he provides valuable insights.
Q1. How can financial professionals look at negotiation from a fresh perspective?
Most organisations still treat negotiations as a reactive problem - something to fix when margins are squeezed or when they feel forced into raising prices. That approach almost guarantees sub-optimal results. The real shift comes from seeing negotiation not as a liability, but as a strategic asset on the P&L.
Financial leaders should treat cost and revenue line items as assets they can extract EBITDA from through competent negotiation. Even a 0.5% improvement across major contracts or supplier agreements can translate into millions of pounds in additional value. The most successful companies build a culture of proactive negotiation, managing it with the same discipline and competence as they would any other asset class.
Q2. You emphasise the role of conflict adoption and balancing perceived vs. real power. What are the most common pitfalls, and how do you help clients navigate them?
The instinct to avoid conflict is one of the biggest pitfalls. Many professionals treat conflict as inherently negative, but negotiation itself is built on a conflict of interests. By avoiding tension, you often leave value on the table. The key is to adopt conflict strategically — using it when necessary to test assumptions, create movement, and clarify priorities.
Power dynamics are another challenge. Too often, negotiators underestimate their leverage. Our brains are wired for surviving, not thriving, which means we default to defensive thinking. This is when the amygdala takes over - the primitive part of our brain constantly scanning for threats. Companies that fail to recognise their true position - or behave as though they have less power than they do - end up conceding unnecessarily. I encourage clients to run structured power-mapping exercises and consciously decide when to project authority at the negotiation table. Otherwise, even those who hold a position of strength risk being treated as weak.
Q3. Your benchmark for success is generating measurable financial impact in negotiations. In downturns or recessionary periods, how realistic is this standard, and what risk-mitigation strategies do you recommend?
When you measure financial impact in a downturn, if everyone is sinking, competent negotiation gets you to sink less than others - and that’s a win.
The starting point is benchmarking: knowing what the market average outcome looks like, and then setting goals to outperform it. If the market typically allows a 5% reduction, and you only achieve 2%, you’re leaving value on the table.
One must gather intelligence, analyse what the counterparty can genuinely afford to concede, and set clear walk-away points and stretch targets. Creative variables can also make a difference: by identifying concessions that are less costly for one party but highly valuable to the other, you can unlock hidden value even in difficult markets.
Q4. With global geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain disruptions, and market volatility, companies often need to renegotiate post-agreement terms. How do you advise organisations to anticipate and structure for these contingencies?
The most effective negotiators focus on agreeing future-proof deals. Instead of betting everything on one rigid outcome, we agree scenarios upfront linked to indicators that may move in different directions: Plan A for expected conditions, Plan B for more difficult markets, and Plan C for tougher-than-expected environments. That way, 95% of scenarios over the next 12–36 months are already accounted for and a stipulation has been made. This requires a more complex negotiation, but it pays off as an insurance policy against market disruptions.
In the event that a multi-world deal cannot be negotiated, contracts should include trigger clauses tied to external indicators such as commodity prices, policy, or tax changes. If thresholds are breached, both parties agree to return to the table. And beyond the paperwork, regular review meetings are critical. Too many organisations neglect ongoing dialogue, even when it is in both parties’ interests, and wait for contracts to expire before addressing problems and frustrations. Continuous deal health check-ins keep agreements aligned with reality and preserve long-term value.
Q5. You’ve stressed the importance of equitable negotiation regardless of gender, nationality, or background. How does this inclusivity mindset influence M&A processes - for example, in team dynamics, due diligence, and ensuring all stakeholders’ interests are considered?
Perceptions of authority are shaped by bias long before the first word is spoken. Factors such as gender, nationality, and even physical attributes can unconsciously influence how a negotiator is perceived the moment they walk through the door, pick up the phone, or appear in a video call.
Research, for example, shows taller chief executives in large organisations tend to be paid more - an outcome that reflects bias rather than capability. These ingrained perceptions can unfairly advantage or disadvantage negotiators in high-stakes settings such as M&A.
The solution is not to deny that such biases exist, but to actively design processes that counteract them. This means ensuring diverse representation at the negotiation table, building awareness within one’s negotiation team of how stereotypes distort perception, and empowering individuals to project authority through behaviour and communication. Negotiators must also understand how fixed attributes - such as gender or nationality - may influence perception and learn to counterbalance them with adaptable signals such as tone of voice, body language, or communication style.
Q6. Looking ahead, as artificial intelligence and advanced analytics play a bigger role in deal evaluation and due diligence, how do you see negotiation tactics evolving? What new skills will M&A teams need to stay competitive in high-stakes global transactions?
AI is brilliant at preparation, but useless in the room. It can crunch millions of data points, flag where the counterparty is under pressure, and even predict their likely concessions. I’ve seen clients save weeks of work by using AI to map supplier dependencies or stress-test valuation models. That’s where it shines: speed and structure.
But here’s the reality - no deal was ever closed by a spreadsheet. AI doesn’t feel pressure, it doesn’t sense hesitation in a voice, and it doesn’t know when to push harder or when to shut up and let silence do the work. Negotiation lives in those moments of tension. That’s where value is created.
So, what does this mean for M&A teams? The baseline just got higher. Everyone will walk into the room with good data; that’s no longer a differentiator. The edge will come from professionals who can:
In short, AI will make preparation more efficient, but it won’t replace the hard part: navigating human dynamics under pressure. My advice to clients is simple - use AI to do your homework faster, then lean twice as hard on the skills machines can’t replicate. That’s where you’ll win.
Alex Adamo, Founder, The Commercialiser.
Explore more articles in the Interviews category
