We tend to forget—at our peril—that not everyone at the bargaining table actually wants to close a deal. Some counterparts enter talks while bargaining in bad faith, with no intention of reaching agreement or honoring commitments.
Consider a few familiar negotiation scenarios:
- A competitor approaches you about a partnership. After promising meetings, your counterpart suddenly stops responding. You suspect the real goal was to extract proprietary information about your business.
- A recent graduate negotiates a job offer she has no intention of accepting, hoping to use it to boost the salary offered by her preferred employer.
- A national government makes impressive but nonbinding commitments in an international environmental negotiation, knowing its legislature will ultimately block implementation.
In each case, one party engages in what researchers call a false negotiation—participating in talks without any genuine intent to reach or implement an agreement.
Such behavior may be merely inconsiderate in some contexts and unethical—or even illegal—in others. Yet many professionals encounter such negotiators at some point in their careers. Some may even feel tempted to engage in similar tactics themselves.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
What Is a False Negotiation?
Research by Edy Glozman (Columbia Law School), Netta Barak-Corren (Harvard Law School), and Ilan Yaniv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, examines this phenomenon in detail.
A false negotiation occurs when a party participates in negotiation while:
- Having no intention of reaching agreement, or
- Having no intention of honoring any agreement reached.
False negotiators typically believe their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is already superior to anything you can offer. However, they still see value in negotiating—perhaps to strengthen that alternative.
Common motives include:
- Using your offer as leverage elsewhere
- Extracting strategic or confidential information
- Appeasing constituents or observers
- Buying time until a better opportunity arises
- Avoiding backlash for walking away too soon
For the sincere party, such negotiations waste time, money, and organizational resources.
Why False Negotiators Are Hard to Detect
One challenge is that false negotiations often look like normal tough bargaining.
A counterpart may:
- Stall discussions
- Demand concessions
- Express willingness to cooperate
- Blame internal constraints
- Delay decision-making
All of these behaviors also occur in sincere negotiations.
This makes distinguishing hard bargaining from bad-faith bargaining extremely difficult in real time.
Research Insights: How False Negotiators Behave
Glozman and colleagues studied negotiation behavior using a simulated negotiation between a high-tech company and a government agency.
Participants negotiated expansion permits, financial incentives, and hiring requirements via instant messaging over a week. Some company negotiators were motivated to reach agreement; others knew future leadership changes would benefit them, giving them incentive to stall.
The results were striking:
- 90% of sincere negotiators reached agreement.
- Only 22% of false negotiators did.
Yet counterparts generally failed to recognize they were negotiating with someone who had no intention of reaching agreement.
Afterward, however, false negotiators were rated more negatively—seen as stubborn, unresponsive, and frustrating.vely—as stubborn, unresponsive, frustrating, and so on—by their counterparts than the sincere ones were.
Common Tactics Used When Bargaining in Bad Faith
Researchers found consistent behavioral patterns among false negotiators, including:
1. Delaying Communication
False negotiators often responded slowly and dragged discussions out deliberately.
2. Avoiding First Offers
They delayed making proposals, often waiting to be pushed before putting anything on the table.
3. Going Off Topic
Instead of focusing on negotiation issues, they discussed irrelevant concerns.
4. Claiming Internal Constraints
They frequently blamed superiors or institutional limitations for lack of progress.
5. Offering Hollow Cooperation
They expressed willingness to cooperate while avoiding concrete commitments.
6. Escalating Late in the Process
Demands often intensified as deadlines approached.
7. Delegating to Powerless Representatives
They sometimes replaced themselves late in negotiations with individuals lacking decision-making authority.
Each behavior alone might seem normal. Together, they may signal bad faith.
Watch for a “Syndrome” of Signals
The researchers caution against drawing conclusions from isolated actions. Instead, negotiators should look for a pattern—or syndrome—of behaviors, such as:
- Habitual delays
- Minimal concessions
- Extreme demands
- Surface-level cooperation
- Delegation to unauthorized representatives
When several such behaviors appear together, your counterpart may not be negotiating sincerely.
Active Listening Helps Reveal Hidden Motives
Ironically, negotiators most vulnerable to false negotiations are often those who talk too much.
Active listening helps reveal:
- Whether your counterpart’s interests are real or vague
- Whether they see value in agreement
- Whether progress is being made or simply postponed
Ask open-ended questions:
The clearer their interests become, the easier it is to determine whether agreement is truly their goal.
The Ethical Temptation
At some point, professionals may feel tempted to initiate false negotiations themselves—perhaps to gather information or gain leverage elsewhere.
But negotiation ethics research consistently warns against this. If discovered, bad-faith tactics can damage reputations, relationships, and future opportunities.
Short-term gain may come at long-term cost.
Key Takeaways: Dealing with Bad-Faith Negotiators
If you suspect bargaining in bad faith, keep these principles in mind:
- False negotiators often resemble hard bargainers.
- Look for patterns of behavior, not isolated signals.
- Active listening improves your ability to detect hidden motives.
- Protect sensitive information early in negotiations.
- Set clear timelines and decision checkpoints.
What strategies have helped you deal with negotiators who weren’t serious about reaching agreement?
Adapted from “Are Introverts at a Disadvantage in Negotiation?” in the November 2014 issue of Negotiation Briefings.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Happy New Year to all at PON and thank you for another wonderful year of materials and advice. Phil Neuer