Advanced Negotiation training in LucerneNegotiation: does having to justify an agreement improve the decision?

A manager may give a team freedom to negotiate, then demand a detailed justification of the resulting agreement. For SHR’s “Advanced Negotiation” programme, this tension raises a precise question: how can accountability be organised without turning negotiation into a search for approval?

1. What the literature establishes

Jennifer S. Lerner and Philip E. Tetlock (1999, Psychological Bulletin) show in a literature review that having to justify decisions does not consistently improve judgement. Its effects depend, among other things, on when the requirement is announced and on the expectations attributed to the person who will assess the explanation. Accountability can encourage critical scrutiny, but also conformity or the defence of a position already adopted.

2. Anticipating the manager’s judgement

Philip E. Tetlock (1983, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) shows that anticipating the need to justify a judgement can change the complexity of reasoning. When the audience’s position is unknown, this anticipation can encourage consideration of multiple perspectives; when it is known, it can encourage adjustment towards that position. Applied cautiously to negotiation, this mechanism suggests distinguishing the examination of options from the pursuit of the result a superior wants to hear.

3. The premature conclusion: require more justification

It would therefore be premature to recommend a more detailed report after every agreement. A justification requested only after commitment may primarily serve to defend the choice already made. The managerial task is instead to announce, before the discussion, the criteria against which the reasoning will be assessed, without predetermining the acceptable solution. (our executive and employee training programmes)

4. What these findings do not establish

These studies concern judgement and accountability, not the effectiveness of a specific commercial negotiation protocol. They do not establish that a preparation sheet alone improves the terms secured. In practice, a procedure can even become a ritual if a manager presents open-ended criteria but rewards only the conclusion of a deal.

5. A practical check in Lucerne

In Lucerne, where tourism, hospitality, regional financial services and industrial SMEs coexist with many family-run businesses with short decision-making chains, a hypothetical case would be a hotel negotiating a maintenance contract with an industrial SME. Within SHR’s “Advanced Negotiation” programme, one possible exercise is to obtain approval before the meeting for a sheet listing decision criteria, uncertainties and reasons not to sign, without recording the owner-manager’s preferred agreement. Afterwards, comparing this sheet with the meeting report makes it possible to identify the criteria actually used, those added retrospectively and changes supported by new information. The proportion of files containing criteria written before negotiation is a verifiable measure of the process, though it does not by itself demonstrate financial benefits. To go further: explore the Advanced Negotiation training in Lucerne in the canton of Lucerne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.

In pictures: Advanced Negotiation in Lucerne

• advanced negotiation
• Lucerne
• research
• training lucerne