Conflict management: does the first proposal dictate the agreement?
When a conflict concerns a deadline, a budget or the allocation of resources, the first figure put forward can shape the entire negotiation. The management question is specific: how can we prevent that figure from becoming the agreement's reference point without scrutiny?
What the literature establishes
Adam Galinsky and Thomas Mussweiler (2001, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) showed in experimental negotiations that first offers influence final agreements and can benefit the person making them. Their experiments also indicate that this advantage disappears when recipients focus on information inconsistent with the anchor, including their own target. An opening proposal is therefore a potential influence, not a measure of value or fairness.
The mechanism: adjusting without really leaving the starting point
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974, Science) describe anchoring: an estimate can remain influenced by an initial value, even when that value is arbitrary. Adjustment away from this starting point may be insufficient. Applied cautiously to conflict management, this mechanism suggests asking where the figure under discussion comes from before seeking a compromise around it.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that the best approach is always to make the first demand and make it as ambitious as possible. The cited research supports neither this universal rule nor the assumption that an individual advantage produces a lasting settlement. For a manager responsible for maintaining cooperation, securing a concession and building a defensible agreement are distinct objectives. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot guarantee
Experimental negotiations do not capture the full complexity of workplace conflict: shared history, hierarchical dependence and safety obligations can change the situation. The cited findings also do not demonstrate that written preparation alone can neutralise anchoring within a team. Finally, conflicts over recognition or dignity cannot be reduced to a figure to negotiate around.
A practical check in Fribourg
Within SHR's “Conflict Management” programme, an exercise could start with a disagreement over an agri-food delivery deadline, production capacity in bilingual industry or access to shared equipment in Fribourg's university sector. Before the discussion, each party separately records its target and a verifiable criterion independent of the other party's demand — a documented constraint, available capacity or an access rule — in the agreed working language, clarifying French and German terminology where necessary. The manager can then calculate the proportion of agreements for which such a criterion was recorded before the opening proposal and explicitly used in the final justification, with supporting documentation. This indicator checks a preparation and justification practice; it proves neither the absence of anchoring nor the fairness of the outcome. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Fribourg
- conflict management
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg