Bad Faith In Distributive Bargaining: Friend Or Foe?

Bad faith negotiation is a common occurrence in bargaining scenarios, and it involves a party entering negotiations with no intention of reaching an agreement or honouring commitments. This can manifest in various ways, such as stalling, making unreasonable demands, or sending representatives without decision-making power. While it may be challenging to identify bad faith negotiators initially, there are certain signs and behaviours that can serve as red flags. These include delaying tactics, avoiding answers, highlighting constraints, and making empty promises. Recognising these signals is crucial to avoid potential pitfalls and negative repercussions.

False negotiators and their tactics

False negotiators are those who enter bargaining under false pretences, with no intention of reaching an agreement or implementing any agreement made. They may be seeking a competitive advantage, using the negotiation as a bargaining chip, or procrastinating. False negotiators will use abusive tactics in situations of unequal bargaining power, and their end goals can vary.

False negotiators believe that their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is better than any offer presented to them. They will go through the motions of negotiating, hoping to gain an offer to use as leverage or to get information from you to use to their advantage.

• Dragging out the process: False negotiators will deliberately expand time frames to avoid closing a deal. They may also delay putting forward an initial offer, waiting until explicitly asked to do so.
• Avoid answering questions: False negotiators will hesitate to answer specific questions, instead diverting the conversation to irrelevant subjects, rambling, or pointing questions back at their counterpart.
• Highlighting constraints: They will often claim that factors outside of their control are preventing a deal from being made. For example, they may insist on answering to superiors.
• Making promises: To counterbalance their inaction, false negotiators will make generous promises about their commitment to the negotiations.
• Assigning a lawyer: Sending in a lawyer with no negotiating power is a common tactic used to pressure the other side.
• Responding slowly: False negotiators will take longer to respond to their counterparts, dragging out the process.
• Making fewer relevant statements: False negotiators are more likely to ramble about unrelated issues and concerns.
• Escalating demands: They will increase their demands as the deadline approaches.
• Assigning an unauthorised delegate: When given the opportunity, false negotiators will pass off their duties to unauthorised delegates.

The impact of bad faith negotiation

Bad faith negotiations can have a detrimental impact on all parties involved. By definition, bad faith negotiations involve one party entering bargaining under false pretences, with no intention of reaching an agreement. This can manifest in various ways, including stalling the process, making unreasonable demands, or sending representatives with no decision-making power. The negative consequences of such actions can vary in severity, but they can ultimately be extremely damaging.

Wasting Time and Resources

One of the most common and frustrating outcomes of dealing with a bad faith negotiator is the waste of time and resources. By deliberately prolonging negotiations, false negotiators can cause significant delays, disrupting predefined time frames and causing unnecessary costs. This can be especially problematic if there are specific deadlines or time-sensitive factors involved.

Loss of Critical Information

Bad faith negotiators often enter negotiations with the ulterior motive of gaining critical intelligence or privileged information. They may use attractive incentives to lure the other party into the process, only to ask critical questions and gain access to sensitive data. This can put the targeted party at a competitive disadvantage and compromise their position in the industry.

Damage to Reputation and Relationships

Engaging in bad faith negotiations can severely damage one's reputation and professional relationships. Trust is a cornerstone of any negotiation, and when bad faith is identified, it can lead to a breakdown of trust. This can have long-lasting effects, making future collaborations or negotiations challenging or even impossible. A party labelled as deceitful or untrustworthy may struggle to rebuild their reputation and regain the confidence of potential partners.

Legal Repercussions

In some cases, bad faith negotiations can result in legal consequences, including lawsuits and criminal charges. If a party suffers financial losses or other damages due to the deceptive actions of a bad faith negotiator, they may seek compensation through legal channels. This can escalate the situation from a negotiation room dispute to a courtroom battle, with potential criminal implications.

Negative Impact on Career

The allure of bad faith negotiation as a shortcut to desired goals can be tempting for some professionals. However, it is crucial to recognize the potential harm it can cause to one's career. Engaging in such practices can lead to detrimental consequences, including damage to one's reputation, loss of credibility, and negative repercussions within the industry. Nurturing genuine negotiation skills and adhering to ethical standards are essential for long-term career success.

In summary, bad faith negotiations can have far-reaching impacts, ranging from wasted time and resources to severe reputation damage and legal repercussions. It is essential to approach negotiations with caution and transparency, ensuring that all parties are genuinely invested in reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. Vigilance, active listening, and thorough research are key tools in identifying and mitigating the effects of bad faith negotiation tactics.

How to recognise bad faith negotiation

Bad faith negotiation is a process of "false negotiation", where a person enters bargaining under false pretences with no intention of reaching an agreement. This often involves stalling the process, making unreasonable last-minute demands, or sending in a person without the power to make decisions.

• Dragging out the negotiation process: Bad faith bargainers will deliberately expand time frames or avoid closing the deal as they are not motivated to reach a resolution.
• Avoiding answering questions: False negotiators will hesitate to answer specific questions and may divert the conversation towards irrelevant subjects, ramble, or turn the questioning back on their counterpart.
• Highlighting constraints: Bad faith negotiators will often claim that external factors are preventing them from closing a deal. For example, they may insist that they need to answer to their superiors as an excuse for their inaction.
• Making promises: To counterbalance their lack of action, false negotiators will make generous promises about their future willingness to collaborate. They may also make false action plans or repeatedly use phrases like "from now on".
• Assigning a lawyer: Sending in a lawyer with no negotiating power is one of the most evident signs of bad faith. This tactic is often used to pressure the other side into signing an agreement or abandoning the negotiation.

Additionally, bad faith negotiators may use the negotiation to gain a competitive advantage or as a bargaining chip in another negotiation. They may also engage in procrastination, manipulating deadlines or disrupting predefined time frames to buy time.

If you suspect bad faith negotiation, it is recommended to practice active listening by asking open-ended questions and using silence to prevent revealing vital information. It is also important to research the other party and be aware of their reputation and potential conflicts of interest.

How to manage false negotiation

False negotiation, or bad faith negotiation, is when a party enters a negotiation with no intention of reaching an agreement or following through on commitments. This can take the form of stalling, making unreasonable demands, or sending representatives without decision-making power.

• Active listening: Pay close attention to the false negotiator's words and communication posture. Ask open-ended questions and use silence to your advantage. This can help you gather information and prevent you from revealing too much.
• Research: Conduct a background check on the negotiator and their organisation. Look for any signs of a bad reputation or connections to competitors. This can help you identify potential red flags.
• Confrontation: Approach the false negotiator with a focused comparison, as suggested by Christopher Voss, the CEO of The Black Swan Group and former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator. Do not give in to pressure and be cautious before signing anything.
• Be aware of their tactics: False negotiators often try to drag out the process, avoid answering questions, highlight constraints, and make empty promises. Recognising these tactics can help you counter them effectively.
• Look for a syndrome of signals: Instead of focusing on one or two suspicious behaviours, consider the array of behaviours displayed as a whole. This can provide a clearer indication that someone is negotiating in bad faith.
• Maintain emotional control: Deadlines and pressure can induce stress, anxiety, and frustration, clouding your judgment. Stay calm, control your emotions, and focus on the facts and solutions.
• Be flexible: Actively listen, ask questions, show empathy, and be open to alternatives and compromises. This can help you find win-win solutions and maintain a collaborative approach.
• Set your own deadlines: Strategically setting your own deadlines can counter false deadlines and create a sense of urgency. Ensure these deadlines are realistic, clear, and relevant to the issue and relationship.

Remember, false negotiation can be challenging to identify, and negotiators may employ a mix of cooperative and competitive behaviours. Stay vigilant, trust your instincts, and be prepared to walk away if necessary.

The ethics of false negotiation

False negotiation, or bad faith negotiation, is a deceptive practice where a party enters a negotiation process with no intention of reaching an agreement or honouring any commitments made during the process. This unethical behaviour can have negative consequences for the other negotiating party, ranging from wasting their time to causing significant losses.

Understanding Bad Faith Negotiation

Bad faith negotiation involves a negotiator pretending to work towards a resolution while having no intention of reaching an agreement. Instead, they may have ulterior motives, such as gaining a competitive advantage, using the negotiation as a bargaining chip to improve their position elsewhere, or simply procrastinating to buy time.

The Impact of Bad Faith Negotiation

The impact of bad faith negotiation can vary. In the best-case scenario, the other party may only lose time and energy. However, in the worst-case scenario, they could end up revealing sensitive information, making unreasonable concessions, or missing out on other opportunities. Bad faith negotiation can also lead to a breakdown in trust and damage reputations, and in some cases, it may even be illegal.

Recognising Bad Faith Negotiators

Identifying bad faith negotiators can be challenging, as they may use legitimate bargaining tools deceptively. However, there are some signs to look out for, such as delaying tactics, avoiding answering questions, highlighting constraints, and making empty promises. Their communication may be dominated by rambling and irrelevant statements, and they may assign a lawyer with no negotiating power to pressure the other side.

Strategies for Dealing with Bad Faith Negotiators

When dealing with a suspected bad faith negotiator, it is important to practise active listening and ask open-ended questions to gain a better understanding of their intentions. Conducting background research on the negotiator and their organisation can also help identify any red flags or patterns of unethical behaviour.

Additionally, it is crucial to maintain a firm stance and not give in to pressure or sign any agreements that are not in your best interest. Seeking legal advice or assistance from professionals experienced in dealing with such situations may also be beneficial.

Ethical Considerations

While the temptation to engage in bad faith negotiation may arise, it is important to remember the potential negative consequences. Nurturing genuine negotiation skills and adhering to ethical principles can help prevent reputational damage and ensure long-term success.

In conclusion, bad faith negotiation, or false negotiation, is an unethical practice that can have detrimental effects on individuals, organisations, and their reputations. By understanding the tactics and impacts of bad faith negotiation, individuals can better protect themselves and promote ethical negotiation practices.

Frequently asked questions