When Negotiation Ends: Triangulation and the Personalities That Refuse Resolution

As part of my upcoming appearance on That's Right with Chris Voss on The Success Network, this will be the first in a number of essays discussing the neuroscience and psychology of empathy in negotiations and interpersonal dynamics.

Chris Voss, the former lead international hostage negotiator for the FBI, recently shared a perspective that cuts to the core of human conflict: not everyone can be negotiated with.

Even at the highest level of law enforcement, where negotiation is refined to an art and science, the success rate hovers around 93%.

That remaining 7% is not simply statistical noise.

It represents encounters with people who have no intention of resolving anything.

Voss explained that his first priority in any crisis was not persuasion or rapport-building; it was diagnosis.

He needed to determine, as quickly as possible, whether the person holding the hostages was willing to negotiate at all in a way that attempted to actually resolve the situation.

The behaviors that marked a non-negotiator were telling: manipulation, distortion, and what he described as a pattern of triangulation.

Instead of engaging directly, these individuals positioned themselves in a rotating cycle: casting themselves as the victim, the prosecutor, and the villainizer of the very person trying to help them.

This triangulation is not accidental.

It is a hallmark of certain personality structures that thrive on control, chaos, and narrative dominance.

To recognize them is to understand why negotiation breaks down, and why certain conflicts can only be contained, never resolved.

The Triangulation Pattern

At its core, triangulation is about destabilization.

Rather than relating to others in a straightforward, adult-to-adult manner, the manipulator creates a shifting triangle of roles that keep the counterpart off balance.

• Villainizing: The negotiator, helper, or counterpart is immediately framed as untrustworthy, dangerous, or malicious. This delegitimizes their position from the outset.

• Victimizing: The manipulator then pivots into portraying themselves as powerless or persecuted, manufacturing sympathy while deflecting accountability.

• Prosecuting: Finally, they attack by accusing, moralizing, or putting the negotiator on trial for imagined offenses.

The power of this cycle lies in its fluidity.

As soon as one angle loses effectiveness, the manipulator slides into the next.

It is less about winning the negotiation and more about ensuring no negotiation can succeed.

Personality Structures That Weaponize Triangulation

While anyone can lapse into manipulative patterns under stress, certain personality types rely on triangulation as a core operating system.

The Psychopath

Psychopaths operate with cold calculation and a complete lack of empathy:

• For them, triangulation is not emotional but strategic.
• By cycling through roles, they test for weaknesses and opportunities.
• Villainizing destabilizes authority, victimizing manipulates compassion, and prosecuting exerts dominance.
• The psychopath’s goal is simple: control.

Negotiation is irrelevant unless it grants them an advantage.

The Sociopath

Sociopaths, by contrast, are more impulsive and emotionally volatile:

• Their triangulation tends to be messy but still effective.
• They will villainize to lash out, slip into victimhood to evade responsibility, and prosecute to justify their behavior.
• The inconsistency itself becomes a weapon: keeping counterparts guessing, burning time, and exhausting emotional resources.

For sociopaths, negotiation fails because chaos itself is the desired outcome.

The Narcissist

The narcissist’s use of triangulation is deeply tied to fragile self-esteem:

• Villainizing allows them to attack any perceived threat to their image.
• Victimizing ensures they remain the center of attention, demanding validation.
• Prosecuting provides moral superiority, protecting the illusion of being “correct.”

• With narcissists, negotiation collapses because concession feels like annihilation.

To yield is to face the emptiness beneath the mask, and so they cling to the cycle instead.

Why This Matters Beyond Hostage Rooms

Voss’s 93% success rate is impressive, but it is his recognition of the irreducible 7% that carries the deepest lesson.

Not all people are capable of negotiation because not all people are committed to reality-based interaction.

In personal relationships, workplaces, or business disputes, the same patterns emerge.

When someone consistently villainizes you, plays the perpetual victim, and prosecutes you no matter your effort, the negotiation is already over.

What remains is recognition.

The choice is not how to win them over, but how to contain the damage, protect yourself, and move forward without expecting resolution.

Triangulation, in this sense, becomes a diagnostic tool.

The moment you see the roles shifting through villain, victim, and prosecutor, you are no longer in a negotiation.

You are in the 7%.

Closing Reflection

The genius of Voss’s framing is that it flips the question.

Instead of asking, How do I get through to this person? the better question is, Am I dealing with someone who even wants resolution?

If the answer is no, the strategy changes.

Boundaries replace persuasion.

Observation replaces emotional investment.

And perhaps most importantly: you stop mistaking endless cycles of triangulation for dialogue.

They are not negotiating.

They are performing.

And in that performance lies the proof that some situations are not meant to be resolved, only recognized for what they are.