Adversarial bargaining
Adversarial bargaining is a negotiation approach characterized by aggressive and confrontational tactics aimed at gaining an advantage for one party. While such tactics, including threats, personal insults, and take-it-or-leave-it offers, may yield short-term successes, they often risk damaging relationships between negotiating parties and reducing the likelihood of compromise. This method is typically most effective in situations where the negotiation involves a single issue with a clear winner and loser, such as negotiating the price of a car. In contrast to adversarial bargaining, approaches like integrative negotiation focus on collaboration and mutual benefit, allowing negotiators to prioritize their interests and reach fair agreements. The use of aggressive tactics should be approached cautiously, as they can provoke resentment or backlash from the other party. Understanding the context and potential consequences of adversarial tactics is crucial for negotiators, as the power dynamics at play can significantly impact the outcomes of negotiations. Overall, while adversarial bargaining may seem appealing in certain scenarios, fostering positive relationships often yields more sustainable results in the long run.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Adversarial bargaining
Adversarial bargaining refers to the use of aggressive, confrontational tactics within a negotiation. While these tactics may secure a better result for one party, they often reduce compromises and damage the relationship between the negotiating parties. Because of this, adversarial bargaining is used less often than tactics that foster compromise.
The most common type of adversarial bargaining tactic is the threat. Threats demand that one party capitulate to the demands of the other party, while warning of harsh negative consequences for a refusal to comply. Other common adversarial bargaining tactics include the use of personal insults and take-it-or-leave-it offers.
Background
Bargaining and negotiating are an important part of many professions. They allow people to compromise with one another, actively seek better conditions in a working environment, and find solutions to difficult problems. For this reason, strong bargaining skills help people secure advantages that they otherwise may not have been able to acquire.
People seeking to change something may engage in many types of negotiations. The ability to recognize the type of negotiation that a person is using is advantageous. In distributive negotiation, also called zero-sum negotiation, two or more parties struggle over a fixed value. Because the amount of value available is finite, any gain by one party is a loss for the others. A successful party in a distributive negotiation attains the largest possible percentage of the fixed value.
Integrative negotiation is a larger negotiation that involves simultaneously discussing multiple issues. This allows people engaging in the negotiation to compromise more easily by prioritizing the issues that are most important to them. To reach a satisfactory result, most parties are likely to compromise on issues that are important to other parties. This gives all parties a sense of fairness at the conclusion of the negotiations.
Team negotiations, sometimes referred to as collective bargaining, involve one party representing many people at the same time. This style of negotiation is common in workplace disputes, when a union or an elected representative negotiates with an employer on behalf of a large number of workers. This streamlines the negotiation process, while possibly also altering the balance of power in favor of the larger party.
In contrast to team negotiations, multiparty negotiations involve simultaneous bargaining between several invested people or groups. This may complicate negotiations, as individual parties may each push for their own agenda. However, it also provides many opportunities for compromise and conflict resolution.
Overview
Many people find that friendly negotiation is the most pleasant and effective way to mitigate conflict. However, others believe that the best results can be attained through adversarial bargaining, which uses aggressive negotiation tactics. While these tactics may be effective, they run the risk of damaging the relationship between the parties involved in the negotiation. Because of this, aggressive bargaining tactics should be used carefully and sparingly.
The most common type of adversarial bargaining is the use of threats within a negotiation. In this context, a threat is any proposition that demands that one party capitulate to the other’s demands, while warning of negative consequences for failing to comply. Threats may be used to force one party to make concessions that they may not have made if another option was available. Threats may also be used to display a power imbalance within a negotiation, showing that one party may be able to bully another into submission.
In many cases, actually making a threat is unnecessary to achieve success in a negotiation. Instead, skilled negotiators carefully make other parties aware of a strong power imbalance within the negotiations without directly stating it. Once all parties are aware of such an imbalance, this implied threat overshadows the negotiations. Weaker parties may be willing to accept less favorable demands to avoid giving the stronger party a reason to utilize their leverage.
Though useful, threats do not always work in favor of the more powerful party. In some cases, weaker parties resent being manipulated and may do everything possible to resist the aggressive party’s demands. A weaker party may be willing to suffer negative consequences just to deny any benefit to the party making threats.
Additionally, threats may prove to be dangerous when the power balance of a negotiation is unclear. If a weaker party engages in threats, the more powerful party may become angry. This might result in the more powerful party using a stronger threat, harming the weaker party and forcing them to comply.
Other aggressive bargaining tactics include take-it-or-leave-it negotiations, personal insults, and unreasonable demands. In take-it-or-leave-it negotiations, the aggressive party completely refuses to compromise. Instead, they make one offer, then threaten to walk away from the bargaining table. Personal insults are attacks against those making the negotiations, and have little to do with the bargaining itself. They are intended to upset or belittle the other party so that they do not think clearly. Unreasonable demands refers to making an offer that is clearly impossible for a party. The aggressive party may then slowly walk back their demands, so that any other offers they make appear favorable by comparison.
The most effective time to utilize aggressive bargaining tactics is when only a single issue is being negotiated. Additionally, that issue should be something in which one party can clearly win while another party can clearly lose. In most circumstances, people who enter negotiations with one another should attempt to work together to find a way that they can both benefit from a compromise.
Bibliography
“10 Hard-Bargaining Tactics to Watch Out for in a Negotiation.” Harvard.edu, 2020, www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/10-hardball-tactics-in-negotiation. Accessed 20 July 2021.
“Aggressive Negotiation Tactics: Threats at the Bargaining Table.” Harvard.edu, 2021, pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/how-to-make-wise-threats. Accessed 20 July 2021.
“Collective Bargaining.” AFL-CIO, 2021, aflcio.org/what-unions-do/empower-workers/collective-bargaining. Accessed 20 July 2021.
Cote, Catherine. “What Is the The Negotiation Process? 4 Steps.” Harvard Business Review, 4 May 2023, online.hbs.edu/blog/post/steps-of-negotiation. Accessed 20 May 2024.
Gavin, Matt. “Bad Negotiation: 9 Mistakes to Avoid at the Bargaining Table.” HBS.edu, 20 Nov. 2018, online.hbs.edu/blog/post/negotiation-strategies-what-not-to-do. Accessed 20 July 2021.
“How to Neutralize Aggressive Negotiators Tactics.” The Negotiation Academy, www.negotiationtraining.com.au/articles/aggressive-negotiator-tactics. Accessed 20 July 2021.
Mastrony, Maura A. “Aggressive vs. Bad Faith Bargaining: Where Is the Line?” Littler, 2021, www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/aggressive-vs-bad-faith-bargaining-where-line. Accessed 20 July 2021.
Shonk, Katie. “Understanding Different Negotiation Styles.” Program on Negotiation, Harvard Business School, 6 May 2024, www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/understanding-different-negotiation-styles. Accessed 20 May 2024.
“Types of Bargaining Strategies in Negotiation and Conflict.” EduNote, iedunote.com/types-bargaining-strategies. Accessed 20 July 2021.
“What Types of Bargaining Are There?” OSBA, osba.org/Resources/Article/AskHR/What‗types‗of‗bargaining‗are‗there.aspx. Accessed 20 July 2021.