Introduction
It is important to note that the process of negotiations is a delicate process, which requires knowledge of effective strategies and an understanding of the perspective of the other party. One of the oldest and fairly common methods of negotiation is centered around threats. However, it is not clear whether or not the use of threats is effective during the negotiation process since it has both advantages and drawbacks. The given analysis will primarily assess if threats are effective during the negotiation process. The findings indicate that threats can be effective, but only in a specific set of conditions and against a specific category of individuals.
Defining Threats in Negotiations
It should be noted that the term threat is a broad concept, which can be interpreted as a number of influences, forces, or actors. In the context of negotiation, a threat is a type of statement done by one side with an intent to communicate that some form of hostile action or negative outcome will be inflicted if the other side does or does not do something the former side desires (Morveli et al., 2020). In other words, threats are tightly intertwined with the concept of intimidation, fear, and warning, where one sides benefits, and the other side experiences a loss.
Inherent Effectiveness of Threats
Threats belong to a category of a persuasive force, where restrictive actions and statements are made to sway the decision-making or behavior of the other party in favor of the one imposing them. It is evident that threats can be effective as a method of negotiation since it was utilized throughout the history of humanity. However, there are two critical factors, which need to be put in place in order to make these measures effective.
Firstly, it is highly important for the proponent agent to have some form of credibility for the opposition party in order to make the threat valid and perceived as such (Espinoza et al., 2020). In other words, threats can be taken seriously if the proponent of these measures has no authority, power, or perceived credibility to enforce them. For example, a threat of a lawsuit is more threatening from a professional law firm or legal agency than from an average individual since the former cases have more perceived power and credibility as well as competence to follow up with the claims.
Secondly, the context and strength of the threat itself are critical to the overall effectiveness (Espinoza et al., 2016). In other words, a serious threat with more undesirable consequences is stronger than a mild one. For example, a threat from a person with a gun threatening to take someone’s life is stronger than of a person threatening to file a complaint. Therefore, the combination of the perceived credibility of a proponent and the strength of a threat determines the overall effectiveness.
Specificities of Opponents
In addition to the factors inherent to threats, the specificities of opponents also play a major role in determining the overall outcome. Evidence suggests that “when the threat is not activated, high FTS buyers pay more than low FTS buyers. Consistent with face theory and social role theory, this effect is moderated by gender, with the association being stronger for women buyers than for men buyers” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 2).
In other words, women tend to have higher levels of face threat sensitivity or FTS, which in turn makes them more susceptible to threats compared to males. For example, in the context of negotiations, a person’s threats can be more effective if used against people with high FTS rather than low FTS. Therefore, the typology and characteristics of an opponent can play a critical role in influencing the general effectiveness of threats in the negotiation process.
Sustainability of Threats
It should be noted that so far, threats’ effectiveness was assessed in an isolated scenario, which does not include their impact on its consistent and continuous use, which determines its sustainability. It is stated that active use of threats as a primary method of negotiations can not only lead to a major backlash from an opponent but also force other potential opponents to take on a position with tougher bargaining conditions (Schneider, 2019). In other words, threats are not effective in the long term, and they are not useful for building sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships, which could lead to a multitude of gains in the long run. Therefore, threats are only feasible and plausible as a one-time solution, where a proponent does not plan to engage with an opponent and related parties in the future.
Conclusion
In conclusion, threats are a form of negotiation measure, which can be effective under a specific set of conditions. Firstly, threats’ effectiveness is determined by their inherent strength and a proponent’s perceived credibility. Secondly, threats are more effective against categories of opponents, who have a higher degree of face threat sensitivity. Thirdly, threats are only feasible as an only one-time solution since they are unsustainable and can make future negotiations more difficult. Therefore, threats should only be used if a proponent does not plan to negotiate with an opponent and related parties in the future, has the credibility and power to do so, and uses them against high FTS individuals.
References
Espinoza, M. M., Possebom, A. T., & Tacla, C. A. (2016). Construction and strength calculation of threats. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 1, 403-410. Web.
Espinoza, M. M., Possebom, A. T., & Tacla, C. A. (2020). On the calculation of the strength of threats. Knowledge and Information Systems, 62, 1511–1538. Web.
Miles, E. W., Schatten, J., & Chapman, E. (2020). How to face threat sensitivity affects proactive negotiation behavior. Organization Management Journal, 17(1), 2-14. Web.
Morveli, E. M., Nieves, J. C., & Tacla, C. A. (2020). Measuring the strength of threats, rewards, and appeals in persuasive negotiation dialogues. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 35, e36. Web.
Schneider, A. K. (2019). Negotiating from the bully pulpit: Teaching Trump, tactics, and turmoil. Negotiation Journal, 35(1), 215–218. Web.