As a format for complex deals, email negotiation has a bad reputation. Negotiators are more likely to deceive one another when using email, and they have trouble building trust and rapport in email messages. Furthermore, some research has found that negotiators achieve less joint gain and are less satisfied with their outcomes when negotiating over email as compared with face-to-face negotiations.

At the same time, email can be an irresistible format for parties who face time and distance constraints, particularly in international negotiations. Negotiating via email allows parties to craft their messages carefully and overcome time differences.

If email is an appealing or necessary tool in some of your negotiations, how can you overcome its weaknesses and improve your and your counterparts’ success and satisfaction? Dr. Jennifer D. Parlamis of the University of San Francisco and Dr. Ingmar Geiger of Aalen University in Aalen, Germany examined this question. They paired graduate students in the United States with peers in Germany for an email negotiation simulation between a buyer and a seller in which parties could both claim value for themselves and create value to share. The pairs were given 10 days to negotiate an agreement and then answered a survey that included questions about their satisfaction with the outcome.

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

3 Tips for a successful email negotiation

Analyses of the transcripts revealed that participants benefited from the following three behaviors in their email negotiations:

1. Proactive media management.

When parties anticipated and managed potential pitfalls caused by email negotiation, they achieved more joint gain than those who merely tried to address problems related to email communications, such as missed emails or a lack of response, as they cropped up. So-called proactive medium-management behaviors included suggesting how to manage time and language differences, rephrasing information that was unclear, and making explicit suggestions about expectations. Those who were more proactive about managing the process were more satisfied with their agreements than those who were more reactive to problems that emerged.

2. Value-creating behaviors.

Negotiators who engaged in classic value-creating moves, such as making multi-issue offers, suggesting compromises and creative solutions, and noting similar and divergent interests, also increased the gain achieved within a pair.

3. Close contact.

The more negotiators communicated with one another, the more value they claimed, suggesting that active engagement in the process of an email negotiation is critical to success in this medium.

A focus on the facts

Contrary to past findings, relationship-building behaviors, such as engaging in friendly chitchat or disclosing information about themselves, did not improve email negotiators’ outcomes or their satisfaction in this study. Parlamis and Geiger speculated that the one-shot nature of the negotiation was partially responsible for this result: Because the participants had no expectation of negotiating with one another again, they may not have put much effort into building the relationship.

In addition, 10 days may have been too short a time for the negotiators to have begun getting to know one another as individuals. The results suggest that when involved in one-shot email deals, such as a negotiation over the price of a used car, we may be better off focusing more on value-creating moves than on trying to build rapport.

Another surprising result of the study was that the emotions negotiators expressed in their emails had little effect on their outcomes. Negotiators are often cautioned that email communication heightens the chances for misunderstanding, conflict, and emotional outbursts (in the form of “flaming”) due to a lack of verbal and visual cues. But the results of this study point to a possible hidden benefit of negotiating via email, namely that displays of anger and other negative emotions may be easier to brush aside in emails than they are in face-to-face talks, thus allowing negotiators to stay focused on the task at hand.

Similarly, competitive, value-claiming behaviors (such as focusing on facts and positions) had less of a detrimental impact on joint gain within pairs in this study than is typically the case in face-to-face negotiations, perhaps because negotiators may communicate more explicitly and productively about facts and figures in emails than they do in person.

The benefits of vigilance

By staying engaged, active, and connected during an email negotiation, these study results suggest, we may be able to largely avoid the misunderstandings, negative emotions, and disengagement that sometimes characterize online talks. You might increase your odds of skirting these pitfalls by making a commitment with your counterpart to email regularly and to openly share information that could lead to value creation throughout the course of your negotiation.

Do you have any tips to add that have helped you successfully navigate email negotiations?

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

In our negotiations, we all regularly cope with counterparts who try too hard—such as salespeople who pester us with phone calls or show up at our office or home unannounced. Their desperation to reach a deal comes through loud and clear, making them seem not only annoying but also potentially ripe for exploitation. At the same time, we must also deal with those who don’t try hard enough, such as negotiators who seem to drop out of sight for long periods of time or appear indifferent to the prospect of reaching agreement. Portraying confidence in negotiation, but not too much, is a learned habit and sometimes it can be difficult to do so.

How can we ensure that we portray confidence in negotiation and come across as enthusiastic, not desperate, and rational but not aloof? To help you better manage others’ impressions in negotiation, we cover three essential steps, ranging from tactical to introspective.

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

3 methods for improving your confidence in negotiation

Negotiate roles in advance.

Work to ensure team members and superiors share a common view of the role each person will play in the negotiation.

Broaden your perspective.

Try to see beyond the current negotiation by developing alternatives, taking a long view of your career, and considering the other party’s needs.

Audit your blind spots.

Seek feedback about your negotiating behavior, and make a concerted effort to improve.

Now lets dig into them a little more deeply.

1. Negotiate roles in advance if you want to show more or less confidence in negotiation

It’s not unusual for the “big boss” to try to take control of high-stakes dealmaking and dispute resolution. But the presence of a CEO or other top leader at the negotiating table sends the following message, according to Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School professor Guhan Subramanian: “This deal must be so important to them that they had to bring in the big guns!” Such a message conveys to the other team that it can get much more out of the deal than anticipated.

To avoid seeming desperate to reach a deal, your organization should generally limit top bosses to forging connections and making introductions; leave it up to midlevel negotiating teams to work out the details. If necessary, you can involve top leaders on both sides to try to break an impasse or bring a deal in over the finish line—roles they couldn’t play if they were deeply immersed in day-to-day negotiations.

Of course, after negotiations commence, it can be awkward and even risky to try to rein in a boss who believes he or she should be closely involved. For this reason, be sure to include higher-ups in your team’s pre-negotiation strategy meetings. Discuss the hidden benefits of relying on them in an as-needed capacity. Then be sure to keep higher-ups apprised of your progress throughout the life of the negotiations and consult them for advice when necessary.

2. Broaden your perspective

When we feel desperate to reach a deal, it’s often because we see no other way out of a difficult predicament. By taking steps to view the negotiation at hand from a broader perspective, we can ease our fears and make a better impression on others.

The first, most obvious problem may be that your alternatives to the current negotiation are unappealing. The most obvious solution to a weak bargaining position is to do what you can to improve your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA. That might mean looking for new negotiating partners and bargaining on multiple fronts, exploring ways to enhance the status quo, or making a plan for doing the deal at a future date when you or your side may feel more stable, whether financially or otherwise.

Second, desperation can also arise from the sense that there’s a lot riding on a deal: not just future business, but your long-term reputation, your work aspirations, or your organization’s financial health.

To improve your confidence in negotiation, try to resist the urge to view any particular deal as “make or break.” As much as it may feel that way in the moment, rarely is that the case. Over the course of your career as a negotiator, you will have plenty of successes and failures. You also will find ways to recover from what at first seem to be devastating setbacks. When you take the long view, you lessen your odds of sabotaging your negotiation with stressed-out decision making and desperate-seeming behavior.

Third, you may be able to put the negotiation in perspective by focusing more closely on the other side and not just yourself. What are the other side’s interests, priorities, and likely BATNA? Through such an analysis, you may recognize that the other side desires a deal with you just as much as you desire one with them.

If both of you have a weak BATNA, the good news is that there is a large zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA. The presence of a wide bargaining zone means that you should be able to work together to reach a value-creating deal, write Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman in their book Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond (Bantam, 2007). When two or more parties need one another very much, they have a stronger motivation than most negotiators do to ensure that a deal is struck.

3. Audit your blind spots

We may think we strike an appropriate tone in our negotiations—enthusiastic but not ingratiating, levelheaded but not standoffish—but because it’s impossible to get outside our own heads, we can never fully know how we are coming across to others. Our true feelings, including our fears and anxieties, tend to leak out through our facial expressions, nonverbal behavior, and tone of voice, write Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen in their book Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well (Viking, 2014). These fears also seep out through the decisions we make during a negotiation, such as calling someone three days in a row rather than giving him time to digest new information.

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

How can we become more aware of our “blind spots” in negotiation and take steps to address them?

First, we can ask those we trust, such as close colleagues and friends, to give us feedback about how we are coming across. Stone and Heen advise asking specifically about how we might be “getting in our own way”—that is, worrying about what others think might be holding us back from reaching our goals. To encourage honest feedback, try to respond with curiosity and appreciation.

Negotiators in positions of power may have particular difficulty listening to and absorbing feedback that challenges their habits and practices. Unfortunately, power can make us unrealistically confident in our abilities. As a leader, work to accept the fact that all of us can improve our negotiation skills throughout the life of our careers, and everyone can improve their confidence in negotiation, even if it means turning the dial down.

Second, to avoid the temptation to discount upsetting feedback, look for patterns that emerge from discussions with others. Suppose that you have been repeatedly told (or gotten the sense) that you come across as aloof in business interactions. Deep down, you know that you are just shy. This doesn’t mean others are wrong but that your behavior is sending an incorrect impression you might want to try to adjust. For example, you might recognize the value of role-playing important negotiations with those you trust or engaging in low-stakes negotiations to improve your confidence in negotiation and skills at the table.

Third, based on the feedback you receive about your blind spots, work on addressing your underlying tendencies rather than simply trying to change your surface behavior. For example, someone who tends to treat each negotiation as do-or-die may be motivated by deep-seated insecurities or strong internal pressure to succeed. Trying to appear more relaxed is unlikely to help either psychologically or strategically. In this case, you might benefit from asking people to comment on your strengths as well as your weaknesses as a way of bolstering your confidence in negotiation. Or you might need to engage in deeper introspection or relaxation practices such as meditation to help you put your negotiations in perspective.

Have you encountered desperation in negotiation, and how did it all play out? Leave a comment below.

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Sometimes disputes are left to fester for years, even decades, until parties decide there is something to be gained from reaching agreement. In 2015, the nations of Bangladesh and India seized on an opportunity to push the “restart” button on a contentious border disagreement through dispute resolution. Such international conflict resolution examples can illustrate how to move beyond impasse in contentious disputes.

Living in No Man’s Land

For many decades, on each side of the twisting 4,000-kilometer border between India and Bangladesh, small plots of land belonging to each nation were surrounded by the other nation’s territory. The origins of these so-called enclaves—111 Bangladeshi, 51 Indian—were obscure. Some said they represented drops of ink spilled by a drunken British officer as he drew the India-Pakistan border during the 1947 partition. Others said they were the outcome of a high-stakes card game between two regional kings many centuries ago. More likely, the dots of land, which added up to just 15 square miles, were bargaining chips in a 1711 peace treaty in the region, according to the Economist.

Isolated from their home countries, the enclaves were neglected in the decades after India gained independence from British colonial rule in 1947. With neither India nor Bangladesh allowing the other to administer its enclaves, residents were trapped without hospitals, schools, courts, or travel privileges in the nation that surrounded them.

In the 1970s, the Indian and newly formed Bangladeshi governments decided to tackle the problem. The two nations agreed to swap their territories, such that each would acquire the enclaves within its borders. India said it would forgo compensation for an approximate net loss of about 10,000 acres. Those living in the enclaves could decide whether to move to their homeland to remain its citizens or stay put and become nationals of their new country, according to Reuters. However, the agreement proved unpopular and remained unratified for decades.

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Dusting Off an Old Deal

That changed in 2015, when the prime ministers of both countries apparently recognized that resolving the matter would benefit not only the enclaves’ residents but also them personally. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi sought to deflect attention from domestic setbacks with the land-swap agreement, which he hyperbolically compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall. And Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina, widely criticized for authorizing violent crackdowns against her political opposition, saw an opportunity to demonstrate her legitimacy on the world stage through an agreement with the world’s largest democracy, according to the Guardian.

During a brief June 2015 visit to Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, Modi oversaw the signing of about 20 agreements with India’s neighbor, including the land-swap deal. Simultaneously, Indian conglomerates signed draft contracts to invest about $5 billion in improving Bangladesh’s aging power sector.

Those who had been stranded in the enclaves, many for their entire lives, expressed relief that their fate had been finally settled. Most decided to stay put and accept a change in citizenship. They eagerly awaited the arrival of infrastructure and administration. “We didn’t have hospitals, schools, electricity—nothing,” Madhusudan Mohanto, a resident of an enclave in Bangladesh, told the Wall Street Journal. “Now we hope we’ll get our rights back.”

Indian officials said the enclave agreement signaled their nation was equipped to tackle more difficult border disputes with China and Pakistan. In the years since, military standoffs and skirmishes have continued on the borders of territories between India and China; negotiations and commitments have been carried out sporadically. The border between India and Pakistan remains disputed.

The 2015 deal did allow India, long perceived by Bangladeshi leaders and citizens as overbearing on territorial and migration issues, to build trust and goodwill as it prepared to confront more difficult disputes with Bangladesh. Seven years later, in 2022, India and Bangladesh signed an agreement to share the water of the Kushiyara River on their border, notes India-based DownToEarth magazine. However, a difficult dispute surrounding rights to the waters of the Teesta River, which flows through both countries, remained unresolved as of 2022.

Dispute Resolution When, at First, You Don’t Succeed

Business negotiators can absorb valuable lessons from conflict resolution examples in history. Here are some that emerged from the India-Bangladesh dispute resolution process and agreement:

• Never say never.According to “ripeness theory,” negotiators won’t come to agreement until the time is ripe. For this reason, it can pay to periodically revisit mothballed negotiations to examine whether changed circumstances have improved the odds that a dispute resolution effort will succeed.
• Build goodwill.If large problems loom on the horizon, consider starting with a relatively straightforward negotiation. Small wins between parties can build the confidence and trust they need to tackle larger problems together—although negotiators are sometimes overoptimistic about the degree to which more minor agreements resolve their differences.
• Engage leaders.To gain needed advocates, demonstrate to powerful leaders what they stand to gain from a dispute resolution effort. Buy-in from top leaders is typically needed to motivate parties to negotiate in good faith.

What lessons have you learned from real-life examples of conflict resolution?

Sometimes disputes are left to fester for years, even decades, until parties decide there is something to be gained from reaching agreement. The nations of Bangladesh and India recently seized on an opportunity to push the “restart” button on their bumpy relationship by resolving one such ongoing dispute.

Living in no man’s land

Until recently, on each side of the twisting 4,000-kilometer border between India and Bangladesh, small plots of land belonging to each nation were completely surrounded by the other nation’s territory. The origins of these so-called enclaves—111 Bangladeshi, 51 Indian—were obscure. Some said they represented drops of ink spilled by a drunken British officer as he drew the India-Pakistan border during the 1947 partition. More likely, the dots of land, which added up to just 15 square miles, were bargaining chips in a 1711 peace treaty in the region, according to the Economist.

Isolated from their home countries, the enclaves were neglected in the decades after India gained independence from British colonial rule. With neither India nor Bangladesh allowing the other to administer its enclaves, residents were trapped without hospitals, schools, courts, or travel privileges in the nation that surrounded them.

In the 1970s, the Indian and newly formed Bangladeshi governments decided to tackle the problem. The two nations agreed to swap their territories, such that each would acquire the enclaves within its borders. India said it would forgo compensation for an approximate net loss of about 10,000 acres. Those living in the enclaves could decide whether to move to their homeland to remain its citizens or stay put and become nationals of their new country, according to Reuters. However, the agreement proved unpopular and remained unratified for decades.

Dusting off an old deal

That changed this year, when the prime ministers of both countries apparently recognized that resolving the matter would benefit not only the enclaves’ residents but also them personally. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi sought to deflect attention from domestic setbacks with the land-swap agreement, which he hyperbolically compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall. And Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who has been widely criticized for authorizing violent crackdowns against her political opposition, saw an opportunity to demonstrate her legitimacy on the world stage through an agreement with the world’s largest democracy, according to the Observer.

During a brief June visit to Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, Modi oversaw the signing of about 20 agreements with India’s neighbor, including the land-swap deal. Simultaneously, Indian conglomerates signed draft contracts to invest about $5 billion in improving Bangladesh’s aging power sector.

Those who had been stranded in the enclaves, many for their entire lives, expressed relief that their fate had been finally settled. Most decided to stay put and accept a change in citizenship. They are eagerly awaiting the arrival of infrastructure and administration. “We didn’t have hospitals, schools, electricity—nothing,” Madhusudan Mohanto, a resident of an enclave in Bangladesh, told the Wall Street Journal. “Now we hope we’ll get our rights back.”

Indian officials said the enclave agreement signaled that their nation was equipped to tackle more difficult border disputes with China and Pakistan. The deal also allowed India, long perceived by Bangladeshi leaders and citizens as overbearing on territorial and migration issues, to build trust and goodwill as it prepares to wrap up a more difficult dispute with Bangladesh about rights to the waters of the Teesta River, which flows through both countries.

Revisiting difficult negotiations

Business negotiators can absorb the following lessons from the India-Bangladesh agreement:
• Never say never. Periodically revisit mothballed negotiations and ongoing disputes to examine whether changed circumstances have improved the odds of resolution.
• Build goodwill. If large problems loom on the horizon, consider starting with a relatively straightforward negotiation to gain confidence and trust.
• Engage leaders. To gain needed advocates, demonstrate to powerful leaders what’s in it for them.

NEGOTIATION UPDATE: Deal design flaws: A program for struggling homeowners falls flat
In the wake of the 2008 housing crisis, the U.S. government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) emerged as a potential life raft for up to four million borrowers who had been pulled “underwater” by their adjustable-rate mortgage loans. Negotiated among the Treasury Department, the Federal Housing Administration, mortgage lenders and services, investors, and other government agencies and parties as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), HAMP established guidelines for lenders to consider when deciding whether to grant loan modifications to reduce the costs of mortgages to struggling borrowers.

HAMP has fallen fall short of its initial goals, according to a report issued this July by TARP’s special inspector general, Christy L. Romero, the New York Times reports. Six years after the Obama administration unveiled HAMP, only about 887,000 borrowers have received loan modifications, far short of the four million target. Banks participating in the program have rejected about 72% of applications—approximately four million.

The banks say borrowers are to blame for failing to complete paperwork or for missing payments under their new deal terms, but Romero disputes that view. She told the Times that the banks are treating homeowners unfairly and “not following the rules.” Romero and legal aid lawyers representing borrowers paint a picture of stonewalling by the banks, including evaluation processes that are riddled with errors.

HAMP’s failure to live up to its initial promise is rooted in the favorable terms negotiated by lenders and interested parties from the government during the height of the financial crisis. The deal had two “design flaws,” writes Gretchen Morgenson in the Times:

1) the program is voluntary for the banks, and 2) they were empowered to run the process as they see fit. Moreover, federal oversight of the program appears to be weak.

In most business deals, implementation poses significant challenges. When negotiating your next complex deal or dispute, think about the potential long-term pitfalls an agreement could face. Be sure to negotiate safeguards to ensure that each side will follow through on its promises rather than simply choosing to comply voluntarily. If your counterpart tries to evade responsibility for upholding its end of the bargain, it may be time to look for a new partner.

As a format for negotiating complex deals, email has a bad reputation. Negotiators are more likely to deceive one another when using email, and they have trouble building trust and rapport in email messages. Furthermore, some research has found that negotiators achieve less joint gain and are less satisfied with their outcomes when negotiating over email as compared with face-to-face negotiations.

At the same time, email can be an irresistible format for parties who face time and distance constraints, particularly in international negotiations. Negotiating via email allows parties to craft their messages carefully and overcome time differences.

If email is an appealing or necessary tool in some of your negotiations, how can you overcome its weaknesses and improve your and your counterparts’ success and satisfaction? Jennifer D. Parlamis of the University of San Francisco and Ingmar Geiger of the Freie Universität Berlin examined this question in a recent study. They paired graduate students in the United States with peers in Germany for a business-negotiation simulation between a buyer and a seller in which parties could both claim value for themselves and create value to share. The pairs were given 10 days to negotiate an agreement and then answered a survey that included questions about their satisfaction with the outcome.

Analyses of the transcripts revealed that participants benefited from the following three behaviors in their email negotiations:

1. Proactive media management.

When parties anticipated and managed potential pitfalls caused by negotiating via email, they achieved more joint gain than those who merely tried to address problems related to email communications, such as missed emails or a lack of response, as they cropped up. So-called proactive medium-management behaviors included suggesting how to manage time and language differences, rephrasing information that was unclear, and making explicit suggestions about expectations. Those who were more proactive about managing the process were more satisfied with their agreements than those who were more reactive to problems that emerged.

2. Value-creating behaviors.

Negotiators who engaged in classic value-creating moves, such as making multi-issue offers, suggesting compromises and creative solutions, and noting similar and divergent interests, also increased the gain achieved within a pair.

3. Close contact.

The more negotiators communicated with one another, the more value they claimed, suggesting that active engagement in the process of negotiation via email is critical to success in this medium.

A focus on the facts

Contrary to past findings, relationship-building behaviors, such as engaging in friendly chitchat or disclosing information about themselves, did not improve email negotiators’ outcomes or their satisfaction in this study. Parlamis and Geiger speculated that the one-shot nature of the negotiation was partially responsible for this result: Because the participants had no expectation of negotiating with one another again, they may not have put much effort into building the relationship. In addition, 10 days may have been too short a time for the negotiators to have begun getting to know one another as individuals. The results suggest that when involved in one-shot email deals, such as a negotiation over the price of a used car, we may be better off focusing more on value-creating moves than on trying to build rapport.

Another surprising result of the study was that the emotions negotiators expressed in their emails had little effect on their outcomes. Negotiators are often cautioned that email communication heightens the chances for misunderstanding, conflict, and emotional outbursts (in the form of “flaming”) due to a lack of verbal and visual cues. But the results of this study point to a possible hidden benefit of negotiating via email, namely that displays of anger and other negative emotions may be easier to brush aside in emails than they are in face-to-face talks, thus allowing negotiators to stay focused on the task at hand.

Similarly, competitive, value-claiming behaviors (such as focusing on facts and positions) had less of a detrimental impact on joint gain within pairs in this study than is typically the case in face-to-face negotiations, perhaps because negotiators may communicate more explicitly and productively about facts and figures in emails than they do in person.

The benefits of vigilance

By staying engaged, active, and connected during email negotiations, these study results suggest, we may be able to largely avoid the misunderstandings, negative emotions, and disengagement that sometimes characterize online talks. You might increase your odds of skirting these pitfalls by making a commitment with your counterpart to email regularly and to openly share information that could lead to value creation throughout the course of your negotiation.

From time to time, our negotiations are interrupted by an unexpected development from outside the talks, such as the death of a loved one, a serious injury or illness, or a bankruptcy. At times, a pause may be all that’s needed before talks can get back on track; in other instances, the change may have a material impact on the negotiation, as was the case recently for the National Football League’s (NFL’s) New York Giants and Jason Pierre-Paul, a defensive end with the team since 2010.

Holding out for a better deal

In March, with the talented Pierre-Paul having completed a couple of disappointing seasons, the Giants designated him their franchise player. The “franchise tag” designation, as it is known, allows teams to make a one-year offer that tends to be equivalent to the average of the top five salaries at the player’s position or 120% of the player’s current salary, whichever is higher. For Pierre-Paul, that offer was $14.813 million, according to former sports agent Joel Corry of CBS Sports.
Pierre-Paul declined to sign the franchise offer in hopes of scoring a multiyear contract at a higher salary from the Giants or another team by the NFL’s preset July 15 deadline, a right he maintained as a restricted free agent; the Giants could choose to match any offer he received as long as the franchise tender was in place. The Giants made Pierre-Paul a multiyear offer—about $60 million, likely over five years—but he found it disappointing and boycotted the team’s spring workouts in protest. Yet most observers expected that he would come around, sign the one-year deal, and report to the Giants’ training camp on or soon after July 30, according to the New York Times.

An uncertain injury

Then came the Fourth of July holiday. In a fireworks accident at his Florida home, Pierre-Paul sustained injuries to his right hand that resulted in the amputation of his index finger.
Two representatives of the Giants, including the team’s head of medical services, rushed to Florida to check on Pierre-Paul and the quality of his care, but he refused to see them. The extent of the rest of the damage to his hand was unknown to the team. Though the defensive end remained on the team’s roster, the fact that he was without a contract meant he was not obligated to share information regarding his injury.

In the weeks that followed, Pierre-Paul remained mum on the details of his injuries—and thus his likely recovery time and playing future. He didn’t report to training camp or speak to Giants coaches or owners. In a photograph published in the New York Daily News, his right hand was obscured by bandages.

“We don’t know how extensive the damage is—that’s the problem,” team co-owner John Mara said at a press conference. “I don’t know how many fingers he has.”

A stalling strategy

The Giants revoked their multiyear deal, and Pierre-Paul didn’t get another one by the July 15 deadline. As of late August, the Giants’ franchise-tag contract was still on the table. It would be unusual for a team to revoke such an offer because of injury-related concerns, but if the Giants did, Pierre-Paul would become an unrestricted free agent who could negotiate with any NFL team, according to Corry.

What lay behind Pierre-Paul’s stalling strategy? If he signed the Giants’ one-year deal but hadn’t recovered enough to play, the team could put him on its “nonfootball injury list” and potentially dock his pay for games missed. He might save money by not signing until he is healthy enough to play. In addition, he may have been stalling to protest being franchised, a designation that most players dislike, Corry writes.

In public, Mara and the team’s coach, Tom Coughlin, expressed patience with Pierre-Paul and said their relationship with him was still strong. At this writing, it remains to be seen how long that patience might last—and how long Pierre-Paul would continue to test it.

Should you stall?

We can all sympathize with Pierre-Paul for suffering a career setback right in the midst of negotiations for a new employment contract. Stalling for time may have felt like the best option for him. For business professionals who find their bargaining position worsened by a personal setback, delaying tactics may be a tempting choice, but they should be undertaken with care. Evasion may raise the other party’s suspicions and cause them to imagine a scenario that’s even worse than the reality. In their work, for example, Harvard Business School researchers Leslie John, Kate Barasz, and Michael Norton found that employers tended to imagine the worst about employment gaps on job candidates’ résumés. When we withhold potentially damaging information, people tend to distrust us. If you have news that is material to the negotiation that could weaken your bargaining position, be up front about it, but look for ways to reframe the perceived problem to be not as harmful as it first appears.

From time to time, our negotiations are interrupted by an unexpected development from outside the talks, such as the death of a loved one, a serious injury or illness, or a bankruptcy. At times, a pause may be all that’s needed before talks can get back on track; in other instances, the change may have a material impact on the negotiation, as was the case recently for the National Football League’s (NFL’s) New York Giants and Jason Pierre-Paul, a defensive end with the team since 2010.

Holding out for a better deal

In March, with the talented Pierre-Paul having completed a couple of disappointing seasons, the Giants designated him their franchise player. The “franchise tag” designation, as it is known, allows teams to make a one-year offer that tends to be equivalent to the average of the top five salaries at the player’s position or 120% of the player’s current salary, whichever is higher. For Pierre-Paul, that offer was $14.813 million, according to former sports agent Joel Corry of CBS Sports.
Pierre-Paul declined to sign the franchise offer in hopes of scoring a multiyear contract at a higher salary from the Giants or another team by the NFL’s preset July 15 deadline, a right he maintained as a restricted free agent; the Giants could choose to match any offer he received as long as the franchise tender was in place. The Giants made Pierre-Paul a multiyear offer—about $60 million, likely over five years—but he found it disappointing and boycotted the team’s spring workouts in protest. Yet most observers expected that he would come around, sign the one-year deal, and report to the Giants’ training camp on or soon after July 30, according to the New York Times.

An uncertain injury

Then came the Fourth of July holiday. In a fireworks accident at his Florida home, Pierre-Paul sustained injuries to his right hand that resulted in the amputation of his index finger.
Two representatives of the Giants, including the team’s head of medical services, rushed to Florida to check on Pierre-Paul and the quality of his care, but he refused to see them. The extent of the rest of the damage to his hand was unknown to the team. Though the defensive end remained on the team’s roster, the fact that he was without a contract meant he was not obligated to share information regarding his injury.

In the weeks that followed, Pierre-Paul remained mum on the details of his injuries—and thus his likely recovery time and playing future. He didn’t report to training camp or speak to Giants coaches or owners. In a photograph published in the New York Daily News, his right hand was obscured by bandages.

“We don’t know how extensive the damage is—that’s the problem,” team co-owner John Mara said at a press conference. “I don’t know how many fingers he has.”

A stalling strategy

The Giants revoked their multiyear deal, and Pierre-Paul didn’t get another one by the July 15 deadline. As of late August, the Giants’ franchise-tag contract was still on the table. It would be unusual for a team to revoke such an offer because of injury-related concerns, but if the Giants did, Pierre-Paul would become an unrestricted free agent who could negotiate with any NFL team, according to Corry.

What lay behind Pierre-Paul’s stalling strategy? If he signed the Giants’ one-year deal but hadn’t recovered enough to play, the team could put him on its “nonfootball injury list” and potentially dock his pay for games missed. He might save money by not signing until he is healthy enough to play. In addition, he may have been stalling to protest being franchised, a designation that most players dislike, Corry writes.

In public, Mara and the team’s coach, Tom Coughlin, expressed patience with Pierre-Paul and said their relationship with him was still strong. At this writing, it remains to be seen how long that patience might last—and how long Pierre-Paul would continue to test it.

Should you stall?

We can all sympathize with Pierre-Paul for suffering a career setback right in the midst of negotiations for a new employment contract. Stalling for time may have felt like the best option for him. For business professionals who find their bargaining position worsened by a personal setback, delaying tactics may be a tempting choice, but they should be undertaken with care. Evasion may raise the other party’s suspicions and cause them to imagine a scenario that’s even worse than the reality. In their work, for example, Harvard Business School researchers Leslie John, Kate Barasz, and Michael Norton found that employers tended to imagine the worst about employment gaps on job candidates’ résumés. When we withhold potentially damaging information, people tend to distrust us. If you have news that is material to the negotiation that could weaken your bargaining position, be up front about it, but look for ways to reframe the perceived problem to be not as harmful as it first appears.