Advanced negotiation: does having to justify an agreement improve the decision?
An agreement may be acceptable to the parties yet difficult to defend before senior management, a legal department or a supervisory authority. The managerial question is specific: does announcing before negotiations that choices will need to be justified improve their quality, or simply encourage alignment with the decision-maker’s preferences?
What the literature establishes
Philip E. Tetlock (1983, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) shows that requiring people to justify a judgement can change the complexity of their reasoning, depending on the conditions under which the requirement is introduced. When the evaluator’s preferences are unknown, anticipating this evaluation can encourage consideration of multiple perspectives. This is, however, a finding about judgement, not direct evidence of improved negotiated agreements.
The mechanism: scrutiny or conformity
Jennifer S. Lerner and Philip E. Tetlock (1999, Psychological Bulletin) review research showing that the effects of accountability depend, among other things, on when it is announced and on the characteristics of the audience. Knowing the evaluator’s position can encourage alignment rather than critical scrutiny. Having to justify a decision after committing to a position can also lead people to defend an existing choice rather than reconsider it.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that adding managerial approval is enough to improve negotiation. These studies do not support that conclusion: obtaining a manager’s approval and developing sound reasoning are not the same thing. The useful distinction concerns what must be justified: conformity with an expected answer, or the way the options were compared. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of the evidence and current practice
These studies largely concern judgement and decision-making; they do not establish that a particular procedure increases contract value in organisations in Berne. Real negotiations also involve legal constraints, confidential information and responsibilities that cannot be suspended to make evaluation more open-ended. Finally, a well-written justification can conceal a superficial comparison: documentation quality alone does not establish decision quality.
A practical check in Berne
Within SHR — Swiss Human Resources’ « Négociation avancée » programme, an exercise applicable in Berne is to announce the justification criteria before discussions begin, then date a short document comparing the available options. In federal administration, public health, telecommunications or precision manufacturing, these criteria might cover total cost, deadlines, service continuity and compliance, depending on the mandate. Over a pilot period defined in advance, measure the proportion of cases containing a written comparison of options against these criteria before the first external proposal; timestamps make this verifiable. This indicator tests whether prior scrutiny took place, not whether the resulting agreement was economically superior. To go further: explore the Advanced Negotiation training in Bern, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Advanced Negotiation in Bern
- advanced negotiation
- Bern
- research
- training bern