In the heat of an argument — whether it’s a tense negotiation or a spirited debate among colleagues — lawyers often feel a reflexive pull to win the point. We’re trained for it. Law school hones our ability to spot laws in logic, dismantle weak arguments, and, let’s be honest, enjoy the intellectual high ground.
In the business world, especially in corporate legal departments where relationships, influence, and outcomes often stretch beyond the board room, there’s a crucial distinction many of in-house lawyers miss:
Do you want to beat them? Or do you want to win?
This was the subject of a recent LinkedIn post by Joshua Horenstein, chief human resources officer and chief legal officer at Innophos, an international ingredients manufacturer with over 1,500 employees worldwide.
As Joshua points out, beating and winning can sound like similar concepts, but they are actually very different.
Beating someone is about proving you’re right and the other person is wrong. Winning is about achieving the best long-term outcome.
It’s a distinction that, if ignored, can derail careers, undermine relationships, and erode the trust needed to influence the business. And yet, we see it all the time. When in-house lawyers insist on beating someone into submission over a technicality or policy, the actual business objective often gets lost in the noise.
The urge to beat someone in the moment is seductive. It feels like control. It feels like validation. It feels like being the smartest person in the room. The problem is beating someone rarely gets the in-house lawyer what is needed to be successful – influence, trust, and the power to shape the business in meaningful ways over time.
Winning The Long Game
So, how do you shift from a “beat them” mindset to a “win the long game” approach?
It requires a conscious pivot from short-term validation to long-term impact. Here are three strategies Josh uses to stay grounded when the temptation to win the argument feels overwhelming.
1. Ask Yourself: Does This Really Matter?
Lawyers love to argue every point, but not every point is a hill worth dying on. Before escalating an issue or digging in, trying pausing and asking: What’s the real business impact of letting this go? Is this a material risk, or is it more about me proving a point?
Most of the time, personal capital is better spent on battles that move the business forward, not on scoring points that feel good, but burn trust.
2. Lead With Questions, Not Conclusions
When you feel the urge to correct or challenge, flip the script. Ask questions that invite dialogue rather than deliver judgment.
Instead of, “This is wrong,” try:
“I might be missing something here — can you walk me through how this approach would address X, Y, and Z?”
Curiosity keeps people in the conversation. Criticism shuts it down. And the more you invite people to think critically themselves, the less you need to do it for them.
3. Chase results, not recognition
Some in-house lawyers love being recognized as the hero who saves the day. If you chase that recognition, you will often find yourself alienating the very people whose support you need.
The people who actually win? They focus on delivering outcomes. They bring people along with them. They create space for others to contribute. And ironically, those are the people who end up with the influence and recognition they weren’t chasing it in the first place.
Don’t Be That Lawyer
We all know those in-house lawyers who wins argument, but loses relationships. They get the clause in the contract but lose the chance to be part of the bigger deal. They win the policy debate but they get sidelined when the next issue arises.
Don’t be that lawyer.
The next time you feel the pull to prove you are right, ask yourself this: Am I trying to beat them? Or am I trying to win?
The best lawyers I know choose to win and they do it by playing the long game.
Lisa Lang is an accomplished in-house lawyer and thought leader dedicated to empowering fellow legal professionals. She offers insights and resources tailored for in-house counsel through her website and blog, Why This, Not That™ (www.lawyerlisalang.com). Lisa actively engages with the legal community via LinkedIn, sharing her expertise and fostering meaningful connections. You can reach her at lisa@lawyerlisalang.com, connect on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/).
Joshua Horenstein has an extensive background in executive leadership and HR/legal/facilities/regulatory management. He is Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer at Innophos Holdings, Inc., an international specialty ingredient and chemical manufacturer. At Innophos, Josh is responsible for all human resources, legal, corporate facilities and regulatory matters worldwide for the company. Prior to joining Innophos, Josh practiced law at several leading law firms in the Philadelphia metro area and was Vice President and Chief Legal Officer at Rock Your Phone, Inc.
The post Winning vs. Beating: The Lawyer’s Dilemma In Business And Beyond appeared first on Above the Law.
In the heat of an argument — whether it’s a tense negotiation or a spirited debate among colleagues — lawyers often feel a reflexive pull to win the point. We’re trained for it. Law school hones our ability to spot laws in logic, dismantle weak arguments, and, let’s be honest, enjoy the intellectual high ground.
In the business world, especially in corporate legal departments where relationships, influence, and outcomes often stretch beyond the board room, there’s a crucial distinction many of in-house lawyers miss:
Do you want to beat them? Or do you want to win?
This was the subject of a recent LinkedIn post by Joshua Horenstein, chief human resources officer and chief legal officer at Innophos, an international ingredients manufacturer with over 1,500 employees worldwide.
As Joshua points out, beating and winning can sound like similar concepts, but they are actually very different.
Beating someone is about proving you’re right and the other person is wrong. Winning is about achieving the best long-term outcome.
It’s a distinction that, if ignored, can derail careers, undermine relationships, and erode the trust needed to influence the business. And yet, we see it all the time. When in-house lawyers insist on beating someone into submission over a technicality or policy, the actual business objective often gets lost in the noise.
The urge to beat someone in the moment is seductive. It feels like control. It feels like validation. It feels like being the smartest person in the room. The problem is beating someone rarely gets the in-house lawyer what is needed to be successful – influence, trust, and the power to shape the business in meaningful ways over time.
Winning The Long Game
So, how do you shift from a “beat them” mindset to a “win the long game” approach?
It requires a conscious pivot from short-term validation to long-term impact. Here are three strategies Josh uses to stay grounded when the temptation to win the argument feels overwhelming.
1. Ask Yourself: Does This Really Matter?
Lawyers love to argue every point, but not every point is a hill worth dying on. Before escalating an issue or digging in, trying pausing and asking: What’s the real business impact of letting this go? Is this a material risk, or is it more about me proving a point?
Most of the time, personal capital is better spent on battles that move the business forward, not on scoring points that feel good, but burn trust.
2. Lead With Questions, Not Conclusions
When you feel the urge to correct or challenge, flip the script. Ask questions that invite dialogue rather than deliver judgment.
Instead of, “This is wrong,” try:
“I might be missing something here — can you walk me through how this approach would address X, Y, and Z?”
Curiosity keeps people in the conversation. Criticism shuts it down. And the more you invite people to think critically themselves, the less you need to do it for them.
3. Chase results, not recognition
Some in-house lawyers love being recognized as the hero who saves the day. If you chase that recognition, you will often find yourself alienating the very people whose support you need.
The people who actually win? They focus on delivering outcomes. They bring people along with them. They create space for others to contribute. And ironically, those are the people who end up with the influence and recognition they weren’t chasing it in the first place.
Don’t Be That Lawyer
We all know those in-house lawyers who wins argument, but loses relationships. They get the clause in the contract but lose the chance to be part of the bigger deal. They win the policy debate but they get sidelined when the next issue arises.
Don’t be that lawyer.
The next time you feel the pull to prove you are right, ask yourself this: Am I trying to beat them? Or am I trying to win?
The best lawyers I know choose to win and they do it by playing the long game.
Lisa Lang is an accomplished in-house lawyer and thought leader dedicated to empowering fellow legal professionals. She offers insights and resources tailored for in-house counsel through her website and blog, Why This, Not That™ (www.lawyerlisalang.com). Lisa actively engages with the legal community via LinkedIn, sharing her expertise and fostering meaningful connections. You can reach her at lisa@lawyerlisalang.com, connect on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/).
Joshua Horenstein has an extensive background in executive leadership and HR/legal/facilities/regulatory management. He is Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer at Innophos Holdings, Inc., an international specialty ingredient and chemical manufacturer. At Innophos, Josh is responsible for all human resources, legal, corporate facilities and regulatory matters worldwide for the company. Prior to joining Innophos, Josh practiced law at several leading law firms in the Philadelphia metro area and was Vice President and Chief Legal Officer at Rock Your Phone, Inc.
The post Winning vs. Beating: The Lawyer’s Dilemma In Business And Beyond appeared first on Above the Law.
