Push and you risk creating a conflict of interest
If you are too pushy, the result could be reduced productivity in implementation. So it is better to show you are open to increasing the value in other parts of the deal. Think also about agreeing on some preventive solutions.
Nor does a deal immediately translate into performance. What if you force your counterpart into accepting a deal that is all too clearly advantageous for you? In that case the counterpart may choose to underperform.
It is not only about negotiated outcome
There is research to show that when people perceive a conflict of interest and are forced into a less favourable deal, their work is less precise and they also spend less time on it. The research further suggests that providing higher remuneration does not lead to higher productivity; however, in such cases participants do at least demonstrate more effort and dedication. So bear in mind some advice from an article on the website of the INSEAD business school:
- Do not let any party over-commit
- Negotiation goes beyond the deal and includes implementation
- Negotiation frames the beginning of the relationship
How about avoiding negotiation and making a fair, fixed offer? General Electric's former executive Lemuel Boulware used a negotiation tactic known as Boulwarism. He would simply make what he saw as a fair and rational first and final offer to the labour unions. However, this take-it-or-leave-it power approach infuriated the unions and ultimately was also deemed to be unfair practice.
-jk-