Advanced negotiation: do more options make agreement easier?
In a services negotiation, variations in price, coverage and service levels can quickly make proposals difficult to compare. The management question is specific: should the options presented be reduced to support an informed decision?
What the literature establishes
Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper (2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) show, in consumer and task-choice settings, that a wider assortment can attract more interest without encouraging action. In their experiments, having fewer options improves certain decision or motivation outcomes. These findings establish a possibility, not a rule directly applicable to every negotiation.
An effect that does not appear everywhere
Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter M. Todd (2010, Journal of Consumer Research) qualify this finding in a meta-analysis: the average choice-overload effect is virtually zero, with substantial variation across studies. Adding options therefore does not automatically prevent a decision. The challenge is to identify the situations in which a broad offer becomes an obstacle rather than a resource.
The hasty conclusion
Concluding that fewer alternatives should always be presented would go too far. In negotiation, removing an option can also eliminate a combination that meets the other party’s constraints. A useful distinction separates the available possibilities from their presentation: making differences clear does not necessarily require narrowing the offer. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these data cannot settle
This research does not specifically address complex negotiations between organisations and does not establish an optimal number of proposals. An insurance or technology services contract involves approvals and constraints absent from a simple consumer choice. A longer decision time is therefore insufficient to diagnose overload: it may also reflect necessary scrutiny.
A practical check in Zurich
Within SHR’s “Advanced Negotiation” programme, an exercise relevant to financial services, insurance, tech and the European headquarters of international groups in Zurich is to present identical contractual alternatives in two formats: separate documents or a comparison table using consistent criteria. Randomly assigning each participant a format, then asking them to identify the alternative that meets predefined written constraints, makes it possible to compare the proportion of correct answers and the time required. Content, constraints and available information must remain identical. This check tests the clarity of a presentation, not the universal superiority of a narrower offer or its effect on reaching real agreements. To go further: explore the Advanced Negotiation training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Advanced Negotiation in Zurich
- advanced negotiation
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich