Advanced negotiation: why do the same facts fail to bring positions closer?
Two managers can have the same case file and each confidently expect an external decision to favour their organisation. The management question is specific: before commissioning another expert assessment, how can we distinguish missing information from a partisan reading of the available evidence?
What the literature establishes
Leigh Thompson and George Loewenstein (1992, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) show, in experimental negotiations, that judgements of fairness can be shaped by self-interest. Disagreement therefore concerns not only what each party wants, but also what each considers legitimate. Shared information does not guarantee a shared interpretation.
When predictions become partisan
Linda Babcock and George Loewenstein (1997, Journal of Economic Perspectives) review research on the role of self-serving biases in bargaining impasses, drawing notably on simulated disputes. One party may interpret the evidence as pointing towards a favourable decision, while the other draws the opposite conclusion from the same material. If both expect more from arbitration than from compromise, rejecting an agreement may seem reasonable to each.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that negotiators simply need to become more objective. The difficulty is precisely that partisan interpretations can be sincere: a reminder to remain neutral is not enough to correct them. What we demand, what we consider fair and what we actually predict also need to be distinguished. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot determine
A substantial part of the findings discussed comes from experimental settings or simulated disputes; it does not measure how frequently this mechanism occurs in businesses in Valais. Divergent predictions may also reflect private information, different expertise or genuine uncertainty. Diagnosing a bias without examining these possibilities would replace one partisan interpretation with another.
A practical check in Sion
Within SHR — Swiss Human Resources' « Négociation avancée » programme, an exercise applicable in Sion would use an anonymised purchasing or service case from hydropower, healthcare, viticulture or Alpine tourism. Before roles are assigned, each participant would record the decision they would expect from an independent third party, then repeat that prediction after assignment, without receiving any additional information. The indicator would be the proportion of predictions that shift in favour of the assigned role, calculated from each participant's two written responses. This result would provide an observable starting point for discussing interpretations, without proving bias in an actual negotiation. To go further: explore the Advanced Negotiation training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Advanced Negotiation in Sion
- advanced negotiation
- Sion
- research
- training sion