I elevate my subjective assessment to the level of objective truth. I am sure I am right and I can prove it. Since my negotiating partner is now objectively wrong, they must recognize the merit of my position and concede.
I require my negotiating partner to move towards me, give up their position and acknowledge my position as correct.
However, my negotiating partner sees things differently; they have also consulted lawyers and obtained a second opinion to validate their position legally.
As a result, our initial discussions focus more on asserting that one position is correct and the other is wrong, rather than finding common ground or highlighting the willingness to reach an agreement.
Further reading regarding expecting surrender:
Multiple forms of support: In politics, individuals often seek various forms of support to justify escalating a conflict. They might turn to international or domestic law, morality, religion, or history (including rewritten history) to reinforce their “I am right” stance. This pursuit of justification can lead to irrational escalation of conflicts.1;2
References:
1 Fearon, J. D. 1995. Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization, 49(3): 379–414.
2 Hazan, P. 2024. Negotiating with the Devil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insights.
