Negotiation is dialogue amongst two or more parties whose aim at finding a desired and amicable solution to an existing conflict. The negotiation process is done to resolve difference and satisfy the interests of the various parties involved. Concessions are made, and a position is put forward in order to achieve the agreement. During a negotiation, the negotiators can either be soft bargainers, principled bargainers or hard bargainers. The soft bargainers view negotiation as a competition and often make offers which are not to their best of interests. This is to avoid confrontations and maintain the good relationship with the other party. In contrast, the hard bargainers in negotiation use strategies that are aimed at achieving victory on their side and not to please the other party.
A threat is a strategy used by the hard bargainers’ negotiators to apply pressure in a negotiation process. A threat in negotiation is a proposition which issues demands and gives strong warnings on noncompliance by one or both parties. A threat is mostly applied by negotiators to motivate cooperation, for example, a threat of punishment. A threat is not effective in all types of negotiations. Situations in which use of threat is considered as a tactic which is effective and necessary include the following. First, when there is a heated deadlock in a negotiation process, and negotiators want to attempt pushing past the resistance. Using of threats in such an instance will get the resisting parties to cross over to the bargaining table as they consider what they will have to lose if they do not comply with the proposition made by the negotiator. For example, this threat can be applied when the negotiators want to achieve peace to the parties in conflict while one party is not willing to undertake the process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Using threats which are well crafted in negotiation is also effective in ensuring that it acts as a weapon against recalcitrance of the parties in conflict, and hence steers negotiation which is an impasse towards settling it (Olekalns & Adair, 2013). One of the parties in conflict could be defiant to authority and not willing to obey orders on what is to be done. In such a circumstance, use of threat will serve best to get to an agreement. In addition, applying of pressure or use of threats in negotiation ensures that an agreement which has been made or the conclusion of the negotiation process is followed through and implemented. An agreement can be entered into by the conflicting parties so as to fasten the process or please the negotiator but may be short lived. Use of threat by the negotiators will thus give assurance that the parties will not break default in staying by the agreement made.
Before considering using a threat in negotiation, the negotiator should also consider if the threat being made will incite or lead to the other party giving a counter-threat which will, in turn, dwarf their efforts. Assess whether there is potentiality for having a retaliatory response from the other party. A threat made could be taken as a battle to the other party, and if they view the situation as not having much at stake to lose, they will be in for the battle. If a counter-threat is issued, then the negotiation process will be vulnerable and face the risk of not being solved. The pros and cons of using threat should be well evaluated before being introduced by a negotiator. Moreover, threats should not be used by a negotiator in a bid to punish the other party. It should be used to satisfying own interests. A threat that is wrongly posed could cause more harm by the aggressive negotiator compared to the soft negotiator.
Effective threats should not be issued out of anger. Threats should not arise out of emotions as one of the desirable qualities of a negotiator is that they should be immune to volatile emotions in a given situation and also immune to the momentarily pressures being posed to them during the process. Threats made out of anger are considered to be less effective as it is linked to having poor processing of information by the negotiator. Besides, there is a high probability of the judgment of the negotiator being clouded by the emotions they experience at the moment (Schneider & Brown 2013). Risky behaviors are also likely to occur when one decides without giving much thought due to poor planning.
To ensure a threat is effective, the size or magnitude of the threat issued should be directly scaled to the size of the problem at hand. If a threat issued by a negotiator is considered to be very hostile to one of the parties, may be completely resistant and even pull out of the negotiation process. Threats which are not controlled are seen as dangerous weapons. Also, threats are more effective when they are implemented through escalation. One should issue a small threat to achieving their goal, but unless the threat is neglected, then a bigger threat can be issued. Issuance of a small threat is likely to create an impression that the party has capabilities of issuing much bigger threats. The party being threatened should also believe that the threat will be undertaken for it to be effective. When the threat is given on a light note, it will not be taken seriously, and hence it will not achieve its desired results (Alexandris et al., 2013).
For threats to work during negotiation, one should consider using them as tactics rather than being used as a negotiating strategy. A negotiator who uses threats is likely to gain a quick concession, but in case of change of the circumstances, they are also likely to be disadvantaged. This is due to the fact that it is a short term tactic that can easily destroy good relationships that previously existed among the parties in conflict. An individual may interpret the threat as being demeaned by whoever is issuing it. This might lead to more resistance, and an amicable solution will not result from that negotiation process. Threats can permanently create hostility which may not be easily eliminated. If the cost of threatening is very high as compared to its benefits, it would be more advisable not to be used as a negotiating tactic.
Negative emotions that often result to issuing of threats can cause irrational behaviors. Angry negotiators are prone of planning to use highly competitive strategies; they are less cooperative even before the start of a negotiation process. These strategies which include giving threating statements, often lead to reduce the joint outcome of the process. Due to the negative emotions involved, the parties’ focus is narrowed, and the central goal of the negotiation may be changed from reaching an agreement to having retaliations from both sides as a result of the threat. Threats can also reduce the joint gains as the negotiators are seen to be more self-centered to benefit in their preferences solely, and therefore the most profitable offer is likely to be rejected (Zhang et al., 2014). Also, the use of threat may also not be beneficial as it may lead to acceptance of settlements with the help of a negotiator which will be having a negative utility function as opposes to having a positive utility function.
So as to determine how the use of threat will serve the negotiators interest, it has to be viewed as functioning a motivational factor rather than a punishment. The threat should be framed in a way that non-compliance will not result to thwarting the interest of a party being threatened but compliance to the threat will further the interest of the counterpart. A threat can also be centered on the benefits of its compliance than the negative effects of nom-compliance. The probability of reaching the expected integrative agreement is achieved faster when centered on the benefits (Steinberg, 2015).
Threats, however, can be countered through various methods to those being threatened. Firstly, the threatened party can choose ignorance. This could be for instance through the cutting of communication with the issuer of the threat leading to an element of uncertainty as to whether the threatening message has been received. Secondly, the party that is being threatened can demonstrate to the negotiator that they will not be hurt by the experience the impact of the threat being issued. The party being threatened can also counter the threat by proving that the impact of the threat will be felt more by the other party than the threatened party.
The party conflicting and threatened to agree can also choose to protest to a higher authority if they feel the negotiation process is unfair and leaning towards one party. A highly skilled negotiator has the ability to know that issuing of threats can either blow up or harm either side on the negotiating table. Therefore, both benefits and the possible disadvantages of using a threat should be weighed before being introduced in a negotiation process. A negotiator should also prove to have the ability of not being swayed easily by the parties in conflict. They should have a strong stand on their position in regards to the situation at hand (Alexandris, 2013).
An effective negotiation that uses threats will, therefore, be efficient to the end if followed through. The actions and agreement that is the result of the negotiation process should be implemented and obeyed by the parties in conflict. A threat that is likely to win concessions momentarily but leaves behind a great residue of anger should be avoided. When the threat comes from the parties in conflict, the negotiator will be best placed if they give a strong stand, look at the history of the party issuing the threat and remind the party issuing the threat that often it results in unintended consequences. When the negotiator issues the threat, they should be careful before making threats to ensure that it is effective.
References
Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., Funk, D., & Tziouma, O. (2013). The use of negotiation strategies among recreational participants with different involvement levels: The case of recreational swimmers. Leisure Studies , 32 (3), 299-317.
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict . John Wiley & Sons.
Olekalns, M., & Adair, W. L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of research on negotiation . Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schneider, A. K., & Brown, J. G. (2013). Negotiation barometry: A dynamic measure of conflict management style. Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. , 28 , 557.
Steinberg, A. (2015). To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate, that is the Question: A Cost Analysis of a Non-Negotiation Policy. Peace, Conflict & Development , (21).
Zhang, Q., Ting‐Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Linking Emotion to the Conflict Face‐Negotiation Theory: A US–China Investigation of the Mediating Effects of Anger, Compassion, and Guilt in Interpersonal Conflict. Human Communication Research , 40 (3), 373-395.
