When parties are at loggerheads, neither are prepared to move, negotiations stall. Once any momentum has been lost then it can become increasingly difficult to resolve a conflict. During the Cold War, Charles Osgood developed a bargaining strategy to assist in the gradual reduction in tension (GRIT) between two parties The idea is that one party can break the deadlock that has arisen in negotiation by making a small, unprompted initial concession to the opposing party on the assumption that concession will be matched by the other side. If it is ignored then strategy is for repeated concessions; a second and a third time which will lead to the other side eventually taking notice and entering into negotiations. Perhaps the most famous application of this strategy is when Michail Gorbachev made a series of small concessions in order to get the attention of Ronald Reagan. It led to anti-nuclear proliferation talks between the two countries, and ultimately a reduction in their stockpiles. Another example is when Anwar Sadat of Egypt made a visit to Jerusalem, a huge step, to establish trust between Egypt and Israel, and ultimately helped bring about a peace agreement. However the application of the strategy can go beyond saving the world from nuclear disaster, or regaining regional peace. At its most basic, it’s designed to encourage parties to draw the other party to meaningful negotiations that will help resolve the dispute. This can seem counter-intuitive to many people. When in dispute, giving ground to the other side without gaining any benefits seems to break a basic tenet of negotiation, of making sure that you get something for every concession you make. It also feels as though it gives the other party no incentive to negotiate. They can simply sit back and watch the concessions being made for no cost to them. However Osgood’s strategy has some specific rules. The conceding party needs to first announce an intention to cooperate before it makes a unilateral concession, at which point it must also signal that it expects the concession will be matched by the other side. If it is not matched then the initial party needs to repeat the process once or twice, to fully capture the other side’s attention. Osgood also states that the concession cannot threaten the party’s security or ability to defend against a hostile act (this was invented during the Cold War) but can be translated to ensuring concessions do not undermine your negotiating position; what might get the other party’s attention but not influence the underlying subject matter of the negotiations? Another interesting feature is that if the concession is met by a refusal to negotiate and signs of intransigence, then Osgood advocated retaliation and retribution before instigating another concession. OK so it’s more difficult to translate this one into everyday negotiations, but you could indicate at the time the concession is made that it should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and that you are still resolved to pushing your side of the argument but you are prepared to give this negotiation further time. Overall, this is not a strategy for all except the most difficult circumstances, but it is a useful addition to any negotiator’s and mediator’s tool-kit where the parties have got stuck deep into their positions, and other methods have not worked. Think of it as something akin to a nuclear option. Comments are closed.
|
Subscribe (below) to our free Newsletter for Negotiation Tips, Tricks and Training
AuthorRichard Marshall is an Accredited Civil and Commercial Mediator with over 25 years experience as a Litigation Solicitor, as well as being a qualified Solicitor-Advocate. He is the founder of Striving to Settle, through which he works as a mediator and provides negotiation training. www.strivingtosettle.co.uk Archives
August 2022
|
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.