“My strength was the ability to say no to things that would have compromised my integrity, and to find a yes where people had simply not yet had the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons openly and honestly.” - Sam McAlister
Sam McAlister spent over a decade as one of the BBC's most tenacious and inventive producers, operating in a world where the word "no" is not an exception – it is the default. A former criminal defence barrister who began her career representing clients accused of serious crimes, she brought to broadcasting a rare combination of legal precision, psychological acuity, and an almost unshakeable composure under pressure.
At the BBC's flagship programme Newsnight, she became the driving force behind some of the most significant interviews of the past two decades – securing access to figures who had every institutional, legal, and reputational reason to stay silent. Her most celebrated achievement was persuading Prince Andrew to sit down for the interview that would become one of the most consequential moments in modern British broadcasting history. That story and the extraordinary negotiation behind it is told in her book Scoops, which was subsequently adapted into a major motion picture.
Sam has lectured at the London School of Economics and the University of Cambridge, and is recognised internationally as a practitioner-expert on persuasion, trust, and the architecture of high-stakes negotiation.
We are delighted to welcome Sam McAlister to the N-Conference as our Fireside Chat guest. In this conversation with N-Conference Director Anna Cajot, Sam shares the negotiation philosophy she has developed across three decades – one that challenges much of what we think we know about power, authority, and what it really takes to get a yes.
Anna Cajot: Sam, your career reads like a masterclass in getting powerful people to say yes. You secured interviews with world leaders, royalty, and figures who had every reason to stay silent – people with entire teams of gatekeepers, lawyers, and PR professionals designed to keep journalists out. What is the very first thing you do the moment you walk into a room where the power is clearly not yours?
Sam McAlister: I should be honest: I rarely negotiated with those people directly, I would typically meet whoever was second, third, or fourth in command. By the time I reached the principal, the negotiation would already have been successful. But in those first seconds with the principal, the power imbalance is best mitigated by a very firm handshake, complete eye contact, a smile, and the impression of total confidence. Confidence, a smile, eye contact, a handshake – those simple things are, I believe, the greatest equaliser when the power dynamic is not in your favour.
Anna Cajot: When the other side holds all the cards, most people naturally shrink. Is there a mindset shift that keeps you grounded – do you prepare for it in advance, or does it come naturally? Are there rituals you practice before those conversations?
Sam McAlister: It is a combination of preparation and confidence; and the preparation is essential for the confidence. When I prepare for a negotiation, the focus is never on me. I already know what I want. The complex part is working out what the other person wants – and not just the financials. My negotiations were never financial; these people had to do what I was asking for free. So the preparation is really about understanding what they are going to be concerned about. I have a robust conversation with myself about the weaknesses and dangers of what I am offering, so that when they legitimately raise those things, I have already thought them through.
On another level, I am able to separate myself as an individual from the power dynamic in the room. Objectively, 99 times out of 100, the person I am dealing with is more superficially impressive – wealthier, taller, extremely famous or controversial. They are a big deal, I am not. So the only way I could deal with that was to separate my subjective self. On a human level, they are no better than me. I would walk in with my subjective confidence while carrying the research to handle the objective power imbalance. That combination of directness and confidence – not making myself small, but making myself tall – while fully acknowledging their objective power, made my skills really compatible with dealing with powerful people.
Anna Cajot: Sam, you say you actively probe your own weaknesses. How do you prevent those weaknesses from holding you back?
Sam McAlister: The weaknesses don't bother me, the strengths are boring and don't interest me. The crucial thing, however, is not to show your weaknesses unless the other side raises them. I look for weaknesses in order to be able to handle them, and sometimes I will have to deal with them on the spot. But knowing the weaknesses makes me feel powerful. What would make me feel disempowered is going in assuming I am offering something really, really strong. Most things we offer other people are not really strong. They require the other person to compromise, to take a risk, to trust you, to deal with you in good faith. The risk is usually on them, not on me. So I have to be honest about those risks, because if I lie, I lose trust – and trust is my greatest superpower. I focus on trust and honesty. If they raise a weakness and I have an answer, I give it. If I do not have a good answer, I am honest about that too. But I do not raise the weaknesses unless they do.
Anna Cajot: We teach that power is subjective and must be assessed in the moment – through demands made, concessions offered, and so on. On that note, women often ask: what power signals can I show immediately in a negotiation that feel authentic, rather than borrowed from a male playbook?
Sam McAlister: You have hit on something crucial. I have nothing against men, but the structures of power they abide by are still different from ours. The mistake many women make is trying to mirror male power signals: wearing an aggressive suit, using aggressive language, crushing the handshake, never being playful, dehumanising themselves to appear more masculine. I take the complete opposite view. A lack of authenticity means you are already in trouble. Power moves during a conversation – it might start 100% with the other person; by the end it could be entirely with you. So I lead with confidence and personality.
The fact that they are not used to dealing with a woman, the fact that I give a firm handshake, the fact that I dress more casually, the fact that I refuse to conform to physical stereotypes, and most importantly, the fact that I lead with confidence rather than aggression. All of that creates a strong impression. Sometimes women become overly aggressive; sometimes they fade to nothing. I prefer a middle path: confident, speaking firmly, and authentic. And the greatest superpower – ironic, given how many words I have just used – is brevity. I lead with one reason, then add information only if requested. Lead with simplicity, confidence, and be yourself: not fully yourself – no one needs your bad jokes – but lead with who you are, not with what you think people expect you to be.
Anna Cajot: We teach that in a negotiation you should listen 80% of the time and speak only20%; and that the moment you start over-explaining, that is where you lose power. Do you prepare a list of questions to keep yourself on track, or do you improvise?
Sam McAlister: I never prepare a list of questions, and brevity is absolutely essential. The more you say, the more questions you expose yourself to. I do not want to be gender-stereotypical, but I think women have more propensity for adding words, because we are very good at speaking to one another in our friendships. I am simply not chatty in negotiations unless chat is initiated by others.
Listening is the greatest skill in negotiation and it is much misunderstood. I remember at law school, in the negotiation module, I walked in at around 20 years old, facing people from far more privileged backgrounds. Everyone else had prepared question one, two, three, four. I walked in and said: I concede on one, it is a red herring. Two, I am half interested in. Three, absolutely not. Four, we can have a conversation. So let's start with four. My counterpart said you cannot do that, you have to start with one. That was one of the very few moments from my education I actually remember, because it made me understand there is no fixed format, and that people who come in to win, with a preconceived script, are already at a disadvantage.
I do not go in to win. I go in to converse and listen. If we reach a compromise that suits both parties, we walk out with what I needed, or enough of it for me to say yes. That is why I do not prepare questions: if I prepare them, I will try to steer the conversation back to myself, and taking the conversation back to myself is a flaw in listening.
Anna Cajot: You have mentioned not taking things personally several times. Is that something you learned, or were you simply born with it?
Sam McAlister: I think it comes from a deep-seated belief that no one owes me anything. I teach sporadically at the London School of Economics and at Cambridge, and one of the things I tell students is: no one owes you anything. There is a beautiful narcissism we have been sold, the idea that we deserve something. But no one deserves anything. People are entitled to make a business or personal decision where what I bring them does not work for them. That is not personal. A lack of entitlement is the reason rejection does not trouble me. It is not really about me. Once I had that feeling, I was truly Teflon when dealing with relentless rejection, and that is what allowed me to get to Buckingham Palace.
Anna Cajot: You built your career getting people to say yes to things they were deeply reluctant to agree to. What tools do you use – is it persuasion, influence?
Sam McAlister: Honestly, I built my career on people saying no to me. At least 90%of my requests ended in a no. Because I have the emotional and intellectual constitution not to take that personally, I could absorb those no’s relentlessly. The conditions in broadcast are often immovable – it is not like a business negotiation where you can find another million or renegotiate a clause. Often they simply did not want to do it; or what they were asking for was incompatible with what we could offer.
The path to the yeses was: persistence, resilience, respect when receiving a no, and never, ever over-promising. It is so tempting to close the deal by telling a small white lie, stretching the truth, offering something you know you cannot deliver. I was brutally honest instead. If they suggested something we could not do, I said so, even knowing I would probably lose the deal. My strength was the ability to say no to things that would have compromised my integrity, and to find a yes where people had simply not yet had the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons openly and honestly. I would always provide the pros, but was equally willing to discuss the cons. Resilience, honesty, integrity, persistence, and walking away when you cannot say yes.
Anna Cajot: Many people see walking away as failure. How do you see it?
Sam McAlister: The complete opposite. A walk away with integrity is the biggest success of all. The Prince Andrew interview is one of the few exceptions that proves the rule. We turned down that interview twice, walked away twice, and still ended up with that extraordinary prize. If I had not walked away twice, it would not have been the prize it was. Walking away is not a failure; it shows your standards. And sometimes people come back because of it. But I never used it as a trick. I would only walk away when I truly had to, and I would explain why. If the other side could meet me on the reason, we could continue. If they could not, I would walk away with no rancour, no ill feeling, just a hope that we might work together in the future.
Anna Cajot: You mentioned autonomy earlier. How do you preserve that sense of autonomy when you are asking people to share stories they do not necessarily want to tell?
Sam McAlister: It comes down to trust. Trust is the drug. I go back to two formative experiences. First, my family were market traders – working class, not much money, but on the markets you have ten seconds to make a connection. If you do not make it with charm and personality, it is over. Second, I was a criminal defence barrister. As a 23- or 24-year-old woman you are placed in a cell with people accused of mass murder, or harming children. You have 90seconds maximum to establish a connection.
That connection is what allows the other person to feel their autonomy is respected, even when you are disagreeing. Because you have created an emotional bond of mutual respect, you can say honestly: I would really like to work with you, but on this occasion, because of how you need to operate – which I respect – I am going to have to walk away. People do not feel it as a personal attack because you have removed morality from it. Take your opinions out, take the morality out, strip it down to pure logic and mutual respect; and people do not experience rejection as a personal assault.
Anna Cajot: How do you build a connection with someone you do not like, or someone who is being disrespectful towards you?
Sam McAlister: Whether I like someone is irrelevant to me, and whether they like me is equally irrelevant. They are entitled to dislike me. I am quite alpha, quite rambunctious, quite robust; those things might be difficult for some people. If someone is objectively rude to me – bearing in mind I have dealt with people accused of very serious crimes, people with real problems, not just rude business contacts – I simply do not care. It is no reflection on me whatsoever; it is purely a reflection on them. I feel a little sorry for them. How embarrassing to lose your temper in a business setting, or to be patronising, or to be vaguely sexist. I reject the behaviour by not reacting to it. I can only think of one or two times where someone has behaved sufficiently rudely that I have said: "I appreciate your view, but there is no need to use that tone of voice." But most of the time I turn the other cheek. No lives are on the line. Lack of engagement is the power when dealing with people you do not like, or who do not like you.
Anna Cajot: On escalations – when someone intentionally tries to raise the temperature, do you focus first on stabilising yourself, or do you also try to stabilise the other person?
Sam McAlister: In the informal negotiations I have done – at the BBC, with broadcasters, with PR teams – escalations are rarely dramatic. They tend to be unreasonable demands of a relatively trivial nature. In those moments it is about treating even trivial suggestions with respect, and recognising that people can be very emotionally invested in things that I do not experience as emotional. I meet them halfway without disparaging their emotion.
I would, however, distinguish this sharply from escalations in my former legal life, where I might be in a cell with someone who is schizophrenic, or where there is a real risk of physical violence. In those environments, behaviour is not predictable and does not conform to normal patterns. After that experience, a boardroom or palace negotiation feels relatively simple. If someone in a business context is escalating, they are not mentally ill, not in a position of literal threat – so I respect their emotion without meeting it with emotional escalation of my own.
Anna Cajot: Finally – tell us about your book. Who is it for, and what can readers, especially women, expect to learn?
Sam McAlister: My current book is not, in the strictest sense, a negotiation manual, though I very much want to write one specifically about women and negotiation. That is my next project. This book is about all the interesting people I managed to engage, usually through their second-in-command, and in one extraordinary case, Prince Andrew himself, face to face. It reveals how media content actually comes into being, in a world most people have never thought about.
When the BBC's interview with Prince Andrew became famous around the world, 99.9% of viewers never stopped to ask: how did that interview come about? My book is the answer to that question. I am the only person in the world who can answer it. I hope it also illuminates the enormous, largely invisible work that goes into creating media – from interviews that are utterly dull and go nowhere, to the ones that, just sometimes, change the world.