Negotiation - Strategic Objectives and Bad Outcomes
What are some Strategic Objectives that Lead to Bad Outcomes?
Written by Jason Gordon
Updated at April 15th, 2022
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
-
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
- Courses
Table of Contents
What are some strategic objectives associated with negative outcomes in a Negotiation?What is the Under-aspiring negotiator (winners curse)? What is the Over-aspiring Negotiator? What is the Positional Negotiator?What is the Grass-is-Greener Negotiator (Reactive Devaluation)? What is the Irrational Escalating Negotiator? Discussion QuestionWhat are some strategic objectives associated with negative outcomes in a Negotiation?
In some situations, the objectives sought by a negotiator can result in less than optimal outcomes. Some common examples are discussed below.
Back to: Negotiations & Communications
What is the Under-aspiring negotiator (winners curse)?
This characterizes a situation in which a negotiator makes an offer or requests something that is immediately accepted by the opponent.
The rapid acceptance indicates that the offer was below (often substantially below) what the other party expected or was willing to concede.
As such, the under-aspiring negotiator fails to claim value that is ready to be conceded by the other party.
What is the Over-aspiring Negotiator?
The over-aspiring negotiator seeks more (or far more) value in the negotiation that the other party is willing to concede. Such action risks appearing unreasonably and alienating the other party.
Note: Some negotiators will setting an outcome objective that has no justification or basis. This is known as a focus point. Remember, a target point should be researched and realistic.
What is the Positional Negotiator?
Such a negotiator determines a set of terms desired in a negotiation, presents those terms, and refuses to budge on any dimension of any issue.
This effectively makes the target point and reservation point the same.
Drawing a line in the sand and an unwillingness to make concessions will often cause the other party to walk away from the negotiation.
In some scenarios, the target point is outside of the other party's reservation point. Other times it may cause the other party to perceive a procedural unfairness in the negotiation.
What is the Grass-is-Greener Negotiator (Reactive Devaluation)?
This concerns the tendency of a negotiator to devalue an option previously considered to be attractive (or more attractive), merely as a consequence of it being offered by the counter-party.
It is natural to be wary of concessions from an adversary.
A good negotiator, however, realizes that concession between parties allow for the creation of integrative bargains in which value is created.
As a result, all parties are better than they would have been without negotiating.
What is the Irrational Escalating Negotiator?
This concerns the tendency to over extend ones self irrationally in a negotiation. This tendency is closely related to the concept of sunk costs.
Sunk costs are monies or other value invested that cannot be recovered.
Too often a negotiator will focus on these when assessing a target or desired outcome.
The expenditure of these funds has no effect on the prospective outcome in the negotiation.
As such, prior expenditures should not be considered when determining whether to invest future resources or effort in a venture. This means that sunk costs should not be an influence when negotiating a potential agreement regarding the subject of these expenditures.
Another related concept is the endowment effect. This is a propensity of individuals to pay more to retain something that they own (or believe they own).
Focus on the value of the respective item subject to negotiation without regard to who enters the negotiation as owner.
Related Topics
- What is Strategy in Negotiation?
- How does Motivational Orientation affect strategic orientation?
- What is a strategic objective in a negotiation?
- What are some strategic objectives associated with negative outcomes?
- What is the process for developing a strategic negotiation plan?
- What is Self Assessment when strategically planning a negotiation?
- How should you proceed to Assess the Other Party when strategically planning a negotiation?
- How do you Assess the Situational Aspects when strategically planning a negotiation?
- How do you assess the Social Context when strategically planning a negotiation?
- What other factors are understood to affect strategy in a negotiation?
- Power Tactics and Strategy in a Negotiation?
- Tactics aimed at persuading a counterparty?
- Tactics to facilitate bargain within the Zone of Potential Agreement?
- Dealing with Distributive Negotiation Tactics?
- Integrative negotiation tactics?
Discussion Question
Can you think of any other strategic objective that could potentially result in a negative outcome? Can you provide any example of how any of the above strategic objectives resulted in a negative outcome in a negotiation? Can you think of an example where pursuing one of the above strategic objectives resulted in a positive outcome?
