The art of objection handling: From resistance to building trust in sales

Introduction

When people think about persuasion - in sales, leadership, or even day-to-day conversations - they are often taught to “manage objections.” The training typically focuses on preparing responses for when resistance shows up, like rehearsing lines for an inevitable confrontation.

But here’s the paradox: instead of learning to collide with objections head-on, we might be better served by thinking about how to avoid the collision in the first place. Just as modern cars are designed with systems that prevent crashes rather than only airbags to protect us during one, effective communicators anticipate objections before they surface. This shift - from reacting to resistance to preventing it and validating people's concern - is where most people go wrong.

Common Misconceptions

One of the first mistakes people make when sniffing a hint of an objection is hoping it simply won’t matter. A subtle form of denial creeps in: when an objection appears, it’s treated as a small bump that will go away if ignored. But objections rarely vanish on their own. Left unaddressed, they become reasons to say no later in the process.

A deeper misconception is treating objections as barriers rather than opportunities. In this mindset, an objection is something to “get over” or “get around,” rather than a signal pointing toward what truly matters to the other person. Sales training often reinforces this by offering scripted responses. Playbooks ready built with tidy one-liners designed to neutralise concerns. The problem is that people recognize scripts for what they are, and scripted answers tend to undermine trust rather than build it (HBR on sales conversations).

Another trap is focusing on “winning” the argument instead of building trust. When the goal shifts toward proving the other person wrong, persuasion collapses into confrontation. The objection is answered, but the relationship is damaged. Trust, once lost, is difficult to recover.

Finally, many overlook a subtle but critical distinction: turning the selling process into a buying process. Objection handling should not be about pushing harder, but about validating the prospect - acknowledging their concerns and making them feel seen. Psychologists sometimes call this a “verbal stroke”: a moment where the other person feels recognised, not dismissed. Without it, the conversation remains transactional rather than relational.

Why people get it wrong

At the heart of many failed attempts at objection handling lies a misunderstanding of reactance - the psychological tendency to resist when we feel our freedom of choice is threatened. When salespeople seek quick yeses and avoid hearing no, they unintentionally trigger resistance. The prospect feels cornered, and instead of being persuaded, they push back. They forget to slow down to speed up.

Another blind spot is confirmation bias. In the rush to close, many hear only what supports their position. Objections are filtered out as noise, or worse, reframed in ways that preserve the seller’s narrative rather than acknowledging the buyer’s reality. This self-deception erodes credibility. This is classic element of their sales DNA, the software that defines how we see the world and how we should engage with it. Very few people are aware of their own Sales DNA which is costing them a huge amount of time and money.

(This is why we never work with clients without assessing their Sales DNA with the leader in the field, OMG. In sales, techniques do matter. Mindset is however more important).

A third error is the lack of real empathy. Too often, sales people stay at the surface of an objection - treating it as a problem to swat away rather than a window into deeper concerns. One possible reason is they fear to loose the deal, clinging on the hope that, if they don't dig on the issue too much, it will go away.

For example, when a prospect says, “It’s too expensive,” the real issue might not be budget but uncertainty about value, trust in delivery, or fear of making the wrong decision. Without real empathy, the response addresses the words but misses the meaning.

These patterns - seeking yeses, filtering reality, and staying on the surface - explain why objection handling so often fails. Instead of uncovering the truth, they close the door on it.

A better approach

The most effective way to handle objections is to place them on the table before they appear. This means asking questions that, on the surface, seem counter to the sales process: “You told me XX and I feel this will be a hurdle moving forward?” or “We don't do blue widget and you mentioned a couple of times blue widget were important to you. I fear this will be a show stopper” Far from derailing the conversation, these questions reduce the tension of unspoken doubts. Research shows that proactively raising potential objections increases trust and credibility, because it signals transparency (Harvard Business Review).

Reframing is another powerful tool. Instead of viewing objections as barriers, they can be treated as insights into needs, fears, or priorities. A concern voiced openly is a clue to what matters most. By leaning into these signals rather than pushing them away, sellers uncover the real decision-making criteria.

The foundation of this approach is active listening - not just hearing words, but validating them. Studies on negotiation consistently show that outcomes improve when participants feel heard. Simple phrases like “I understand why that matters” or “That’s a fair concern” can transform the dynamic, turning a defensive exchange into a collaborative dialogue. But do go beyond this and deploy a socratic approach to understanding the person you talk to.

In short, the better approach to objections is not about clever rebuttals. It’s about anticipating, reframing and listening in ways that turn tension into trust.

Research-backed insights

Research consistently shows that the way objections are handled can either build trust or destroy it. A study in the Journal of Consumer Research found that when salespeople acknowledged concerns openly rather than deflecting them, customer satisfaction and long-term loyalty increased significantly .

Active listening plays a crucial role here. In negotiations, participants who demonstrated active listening behaviours - paraphrasing, summarising, and validating - were more likely to reach agreements that satisfied both sides. One study reported that active listening increased the likelihood of successful negotiation outcomes by more than 30%.

Empathy also has measurable effects. Neuroscience research shows that when people feel understood, their brain activity shifts toward trust and openness, reducing defensive reactions. This means that validating an objection isn’t just “good practice” - it has a biological basis for lowering resistance and fostering collaboration.

Together, these findings underline a simple truth: objection handling isn’t about polishing comebacks. It’s about creating the conditions for dialogue where trust can grow.

Conclusion

Objection handling has long been framed as a defensive maneuver - a way to overcome resistance with clever responses (flash news: people buy emotionally, not rationally so smart answers don't get you far). But that mindset is precisely why so many get it wrong. Objections are not accidents to be cleaned up after; they are signals of what truly matters, and often they are best addressed before they even arise.

The shift from defence to dialogue is the difference between managing resistance and building trust. It’s not about chasing yeses or rehearsing rebuttals. It’s about asking pre-empting such objections by tabling them early, by asking better questions, listening deeply and treating objections as insights rather than obstacles.

In the end, effective objection handling is less about handling at all and more about understanding. When you embrace objections as openings and try to understand your prospects, you turn confrontation into collaboration - and that changes everything.