Deadlines
By Alain Burrese
During a recent mediation, it was
interesting to see how one of the parties changed positions the closer we got to
another meeting he wanted to attend. As
the other commitment neared, his position changed to “give her what she wants,
I just want this over and to get out of here.”
Those that have mediated or have been parties at mediations or settlement
conferences probably have their own stories regarding how things settled as
Timing is a critical component of negotiation. Time is a motivational factor for negotiators as well as a variable regarding how well interests will be met. The most common form of time management in regards to final bargaining and settlement is the deadline.
Deadlines define the limits regarding the period of time in which agreement must be reached. A trial date is a common deadline that influences parties to settle in many cases days or even hours before trial. The unpredictable outcome of court proceedings and the potential for negative consequences during litigation influence out-of-court settlement. But just as studying for finals is not as urgent until the days or night before the exam, settling a case is often not urgent until the trial deadline nears.
Negotiators need to understand deadlines and how they can be used as a tool in the negotiation or mediation process. In The Mediation Process by Christopher W. Moore, he discusses different characteristics and variables of deadlines that affect their utility in negotiations. I’ll briefly share a few of those here. These are all things a good negotiator will consider during the process.
Internally and Externally Established Deadlines
Deadlines can be established by a party, or outside forces may be the determining factor when negotiation ceases. The above impending court date is an example of an externally imposed constraint. This external deadline can be important to the negotiator in that without the “last minute” time pressure, a client may feel that a more favorable deal could have been made if they would have held out longer or bluffed more.
Coordinated and Uncoordinated Deadlines
Parties may have the same time limits or different ones. For some, a delay in decision making may result in increased benefit, where for others a rapid decision may be essential. In the example at the beginning of this column, waiting helped one party as the other “gave in” when his deadline neared.
Actual and Artificial Deadlines
Some parties will be constrained by deadlines regarding events beyond their control, and other deadlines may be artificial time constraints that are more or less arbitrarily established by one or more parties. These deadlines are related to rigid and flexible deadlines. Rigid deadlines, as those set by a court, are often a stronger impetus for settlement because the parties must adhere to the time boundaries. More flexible deadlines such as an arbitrarily established time frame may provide extra latitude to reach decisions when additional time is needed to consider last-minute proposals or to gain the needed approvals.
Deadlines With and Without Consequences
One of the reasons deadlines help
promote settlements is because they usually imply negative consequences if the
time limit is transgressed. While
the deadline does not have to imply dire consequences such as threats or actual
imposition of negative sanctions, it must present the possibility of a worse
option than if a settlement were reached. If
it does not present a worse option, the deadline will have little value in
influencing a reached agreement. During
negotiations, the consequences of not reaching agreement before a deadline can
be manipulated because these known or unknown consequences may incline parties
toward agreement.
Deadlines can be good or bad during negotiations. It is important to understand your deadlines and any that you know about regarding your opposition. At times, you will not want to reveal confidential information regarding time constraints. In other situations, you may be able to use time constraints to your advantage. The critical thing to recognize is that deadlines can be very influential in the negotiation process and should not be overlooked.
While time constraints can be used
to influence agreement, parties must be careful when using deadlines during
negotiations to avoid certain dangerous moves such as the game of “chicken.”
This is a strategy where each party delays making concessions until the
deadline is imminent. Often threats
of dire consequences are made if agreement is not reached before the deadline,
testing the other’s will to the extent that he will give up and make a
concession rather than risk deadlock or the negative costs if the deadline
passes. If neither side gives,
parties are forced to carry out the threats and endure consequences that most
likely no side wanted. Therefore,
threats are usually discouraged and positive offers are more likely to induce
agreement closer to the deadline.
Without a deadline, or at least a perception of a deadline, there is little inducement for taking action, much less for accommodation and compromise. While you will never know everything that motivates behavior, deadlines do help precipitate action. With this in mind, you can better understand deadlines and how they influence the negotiation process and how you can use them to reach agreements and settlements.
Alain Burrese is a mediator and attorney with Bennett Law Office, P.C. in Missoula, MT. He conducts mediations and settlement conferences as well as speaking and training in negotiation and mediation. He can be contacted at: www.bennettlawofficepc.com or (406) 543-5803.
This article first appeared in "The Montana Lawyer" April 2006 issue.
Return to the Articles main page.