Should You Make Concessions Under Pressure? Think About It From Their Perspective

High-stakes negotiations with unsettled power dynamics are in play everywhere we turn. Whether they take the form of labor strikes, litigation or threats to take business away, there is usually one party making demands for some sort of concession, and backing those up with aggressive action.

In the best cases, one or both parties seeks to prevent or end a conflict. They explain their interests and suggest a way to meet them, but remain open to other options. What we sometimes see, though, are negotiations that open with a version of: "I can hurt you more than you can hurt me; let me show you…"

Often these negotiations are covered in the media from the perspective of the party being pressured: How long can this retailer resist a social media backlash, or how long can this manufacturer afford to have its plants shut down? The question readers are invited to consider is, "What should [the side under pressure] do?”

When you face that kind of aggression, you likely see three options: give in and hope the pain stops soon; fight back and show them that pain can go both ways; or reach some kind of compromise. (Of course, you can also try to solve the underlying issues and put a real end to the conflict, but I've noticed that happens less frequently than you'd hope.)

The right choice for you will depend on a lot of factors, but there is at least one piece of advice I can share that is universal: Before you act, spend a moment in the shoes of the other side. Even when they seem unreasonable, misguided or downright evil, understanding their perspective can inform the path you take with the negotiation and the quality and outcomes of the ultimate resolution.

Many of us would resist being told to "get in the shoes” of those pressuring us; that sounds too much like an invitation to see them more sympathetically. But consider how this action could help you gain some insight into what might or might not work in your negotiation. If you want to persuade them to cease their pressure, it helps to understand what some offer of appeasement looks like from their perspective.

This kind of negotiation analysis begins in the voice and terms the adversaries would use: "Shall I (the adversary) today stop making threats or inflicting pain because they have conceded X?” (And X represents the appeasement the negotiator is thinking of offering.)

If I say "yes":

• They will never offer me more than X.
• I haven't "won."
• I may give them an opportunity to recover, and perhaps oppose me again.
• I have effectively set the price I will accept to change my behavior.

• I get to keep the benefit of X.
• I show I'm in charge.
• I keep making the rules.
• If I keep pressuring them, they may give me more than X.
• And, I can always agree to stop later.

The sad reality is that there is literally no unilateral commitment that will get the aggressor to stop, so long as they believe that if they say "not yet," they may get a better offer.

Pressuring someone so they will make a unilateral concession often shows up in everyday commercial negotiations. One common example is the demand made by some procurement teams when they put a large contract out for bids.

Along with other bid requirements, they might include a "standard master service agreement” (MSA) and ask bidders to pre-commit to accepting those terms before knowing if they have been selected. From the buyer's perspective, if suppliers will agree to these terms at a time in the bidding and negotiation process when the buyer has the most leverage, why not ask? If a supplier accepts some unfavorable terms up front, great; no need to negotiate about those later. And since there is no reciprocal commitment from the buyer, any terms the supplier does not accept now can still be negotiated later if and when they are selected.

As a bidder, however, you should recognize the problem and consider how to renegotiate the process. Ask yourself (and perhaps your erstwhile buyer): Will your responses about the MSA be a formal part of the bid evaluation process? How much weight will they have? What penalty, if any, will you incur for reserving those discussions to later in the process? Are any concessions you make regarding contract language truly binding, or could you reopen those if you are selected?

When faced with threats or pressure in a negotiation, be wary of making concessions "as preconditions for negotiation" or in the hope they will lead your counterpart to be more amenable.

Instead, analyze the demands from your counterpart's perspective. Pause and step into their shoes. Is any unilateral concession going to be "enough" to put an end to the pain? If not, put your efforts into changing the dynamics, so that you are exchanging a commitment for a commitment, instead of giving something up and hoping for the best.

Originally published by Forbes.