Lessons from a tragedy: what King Lear teaches about negotiations, decisions, and leadership.

"King Lear, Act I, Scene I" by Edwin Austin Abbey (1902)

In the play King Lear by Shakespeare, the king, now elderly, decides to divide his kingdom among his three daughters based on each one's demonstration of affection. Goneril and Regan flatter him. Cordelia, the most loyal daughter, responds with sincerity. Her frankness provokes the father's wrath, and he disowns her. When Kent, his loyal advisor, tries to warn him, he is also banished. This scene offers many lessons applicable to negotiations—direct or mediated—and decision-making. It reveals timeless human flaws and provides valuable lessons to those involved in decision-making processes.

The first lesson to be learned is about how we respond to hearing what we don't want to hear, when we receive negative feedback, or when a person loyal to us has opinions and positions different from ours.

A very important practice to increase the chances of achieving beneficial results in a multi-stage negotiation, or longer negotiations, is the debriefing after a round. In this analysis, the leader and their team should share impressions, observations, and conclusions about different aspects of the negotiation.

Concerning the other side, it is important to answer a few questions: What are the actions and reactions of the other side? Are they seeking a more hostile or more friendly negotiation? What importance do they seem to assign to the relationship between the parties? Is their behavior in harmony with what they say? These and other questions are fundamental for solid analysis and effective preparation for the next stage.

Self-analysis is as important as analyzing the other side. Where did the team get it right? Where did they go wrong? What can be done differently next time? Were the speeches appropriate? Was the tone and assertiveness appropriate? Was the shared information timely or excessive? Was the tone and assertiveness appropriate?

During this self-analysis, it is important to know how to listen to criticism from other team members. And everyone should engage in an essential reflection, especially those in leadership positions: how do I react when I hear what I don't want to hear? Am I creating a safe environment for honest feedback?

Another important warning concerns the risk of surrounding ourselves with people who only say what we want to hear and creating an environment where there is no psychological safety for people to share their opinions without fear of being punished for giving opinions that differ from the majority or the boss's.

Lear gives all his fortune to the two flattering and treacherous daughters, asking in return only that they take care of him in his old age. The daughters betray his trust as soon as they take possession of his wealth and titles. Lear, betrayed and helpless, loses his mind and goes insane.

Just hearing compliments, agreements, and "yes" distances us from reality, inflates our ego, and makes us more fragile and more susceptible to manipulations. The ego is a terrible advisor that leads us to make bad decisions. I have already written about the risks of ego-driven decisions, as you can read in this text.

Besides the emotional and relational issues, there are also mental factors that influence Lear's decision, which leads us to a third lesson we can draw from this story: the risk of cognitive biases. The King is a victim of some cognitive biases in his decision-making. Lear succumbs to the confirmation bias – our tendency to value opinions and information that corroborate what we think and ignore those that contradict us. Moreover, he also falls into the trap of escalation of commitment when he expels Kent from his kingdom.

Everyone experiences cognitive biases, and recognizing their presence is a significant step towards mitigating their impact. I discuss some of these cognitive biases in another text.

Finally, we can learn from the famous king the consequences of impulsive decisions based on strong emotions. A famous proverb advises against making promises when very happy, arguing when angry, and making decisions when very sad. Emotions should be felt and not repressed, but they are poor guides. The ideal is to let the dust settle, reflect, listen to other opinions when appropriate, and only then make a decision.

By reacting with anger and vanity, Lear breaks valuable bonds and hands over power to those who do not respect it. His trajectory is a warning about the risks of thoughtless decisions— and about the importance of cultivating environments where the truth can be spoken without fear. If we want better decisions—in any field— we need to cultivate the courage to hear what we don't like, sustain difficult conversations, and resist the impulses of the ego.

Real cases help illustrate these lessons. Kodak, for example, was a pioneer in the creation of the digital camera, but its leadership ignored internal warnings about the need for adaptation. Attached to the traditional model, they preferred to listen to voices that reinforced past success — until disruption caught up with them. Ignoring dissenting views proved costly.

Another emblematic case of mismanaged decisions — now in the public sector — is the disaster involving the Challenger space shuttle in 1986. NASA engineers and the contractor company Morton Thiokol had warned about the risks of failure in the "O-rings" at very low temperatures. Despite the technical warnings, the decision to proceed with the launch was maintained, influenced by political and scheduling pressures. The tragedy showed how ignoring dissonant alerts, due to institutional pride or fear of facing difficult conversations, can be costly. The case became a global reference on the dangers of groupthink, escalation of commitment, and the absence of a psychologically safe environment for dissent.

Enron followed a similar path. Its leaders created an internal culture based on extreme competition, information concealment, and punishment for those who questioned the decisions of top management. Many executives were aware of the accounting risks and the fragility of the results, but the fear of retaliation and the culture of silence prevented effective warnings. Just like in King Lear, the absence of a safe environment for truth and the cult of the leader's image contributed to a devastating downfall.

Leading well requires more than making decisions: it requires open listening, especially in the face of opinions that challenge our certainties. It requires courage to embrace differences and humility to recognize that when the ego speaks louder, it distances us from reality. Incorporating dissenting voices does not weaken leadership — it strengthens the quality of decisions and the trust of the group.

By Alessandra Corrêa