The absence of a strong Plan B means the power must be built differently.
In negotiation, we often teach and advise about BATNA as one of the foundation elements: know your best alternative to an agreement, improve it, and never accept a deal that is worse than what you can do away from the table.
That is sound advice.
But many negotiations are much more uncomfortable than this. You may not have an attractive Plan B, C or D. You cannot easily replace the supplier, buyer, partner, project or process. Litigation or arbitration may exist on paper, but it may take too long, cost too much and damage the relationship you still need.
This is where many negotiations start to feel locked.
The parties may still talk, but the conversation becomes narrower. The same demand is repeated. The same risks are defended. The same legal and commercial arguments return to the table. Everyone feels the pressure, and no one sees enough room to move.
What can you do in that situation?
When the substance is difficult, the negotiator must often create more power through the relationship and the process. That is the core idea in this article.
I will explore five practical moves:
- Widen the field of vision.
- Build partial alternatives.
- Analyze the other side’s dependencies.
- Use warnings, tactical consent and inertia to create movement.
- Work deliberately with relationship, process and substance.
These moves create room inside a negotiation that first appears locked. They help the negotiator reduce dependency, regain some control and design the next wise move.
A Running Example: A Commercial Dispute Close to Delivery
Let us use an anonymized and adjusted example inspired by a real commercial dispute.
A buyer has entered into a contract with an international supplier for the delivery of three major units. The first unit is close to delivery. Shortly before handover, the supplier claims significant additional costs. The buyer rejects the claim and points to the fixed-price contract. The supplier later reduces the demand but still signals that delivery will not take place unless the cost issue is resolved.
The buyer has legal arguments. The supplier has explanations. Arbitration is possible, but unattractive. It may clarify rights, but it will not quickly deliver the first unit, protect the timetable for the next two units, preserve cash flow or rebuild enough trust to complete the project.
This is the moment when many negotiators say: “We have no Plan B.” Often, what they really mean is: “We have no complete replacement.” Those are not the same.
The difference matters. If we only look for a complete replacement, we may miss the smaller moves that can change the negotiation. We may miss ways to create time, structure, credibility, information and movement. We may also miss the other side’s vulnerabilities because we are too focused on our own.
That is why the first move is to widen the field of vision.
Move 1: Widen the Field of Vision
Good negotiators move between two lenses. They zoom out to see more possibilities. They zoom in again to make the next move practical. In the example, the parties can easily become trapped in one question:
Will the buyer pay the additional amount, or not?
That narrow frame turns the negotiation into a contest of money, blame and principle. The buyer fears precedent. The supplier fears an economic loss, face-saving problems and internal criticism. Both sides become less curious.
This is where bounded rationality becomes visible. I recently explored this with law students, lawyers and business people at the University of Bergamo: under pressure, intelligent negotiators often see too little, simplify too quickly and defend too strongly.
Several traps may be active at the same time: loss aversion, framing, overconfidence and escalation of commitment. The parties protect against loss, defend their story, overestimate their position and continue down a path because they have already invested in it.
The first discipline is to map the negotiation before judging the position. Ask: “What is this negotiation really made of?”
In our example, the negotiation contains several elements: the additional cost claim, delivery, documentation, precedent, timing, internal decision-making, liquidity, reputation, operational pressure and future cooperation. When these elements become visible, the negotiator has more to work with than one painful demand.
That wider picture creates more room to move.
The next task is to identify practical alternatives within that wider picture. They may not replace the deal, but they can reduce dependency, create time and strengthen your position inside the negotiation.
Learn more: Negotiation training with WNI and how we can support you in complex processes
Move 2: Build Partial Alternatives
The idea of partial alternatives is well described in the Harvard Business Review article Negotiating When There Is No Plan B. What I want to add here is how this idea can be used together with process design, relationship-building, behavioral awareness and AI-supported preparation.
A partial alternative does not replace the whole deal. It reduces dependency, creates time, strengthens credibility or gives you more process choices inside the negotiation.
In the example, the buyer could investigate temporary commercial solutions if delivery is delayed. The parties could agree on independent verification of the cost claim. They could separate immediate delivery from the financial dispute. They could explore whether a controlled timing adjustment for a later delivery has value for the supplier and lower cost for the buyer. They could also design any possible cost recognition as exceptional and non-precedential.
None of these options is a perfect Plan B. Together, they may change the balance of power.
Negotiation power is not only the ability to walk away. It is also the ability to influence the choices the other side believes it has.
This is where I increasingly use several AI agents in a structured workflow. One agent works from the case materials and extracts the deal profile, interests, risks and missing information. Another uses my negotiation knowledge base and system instructions to challenge fixed-pie thinking and search for hidden trades. A third simulates the other party from a behavioral profiling perspective.
A useful prompt may be:
“Analyze the following profile from a behavioral profiling perspective. Profile the counterpart based on the available information and provide communication, interaction and negotiation guidance.”
This does not replace human judgment. It improves preparation. It helps me test assumptions, anticipate reactions and see possibilities I might otherwise miss. Partial alternatives do not remove dependency, but they reduce the feeling of being trapped.
Once you have reduced your own sense of dependency, the next task is to understand the other side’s dependency. In difficult negotiations, power is rarely one-sided. The party that looks strong may also have constraints, pressures and risks it needs to manage.
Recommended reading: How to turn negotiation mistakes into your competitive advantage
Når du har redusert din egen opplevelse av avhengighet, er neste oppgave å forstå den andre sidens avhengighet. I krevende forhandlinger er makt sjelden ensidig. Den parten som ser sterk ut, kan også ha begrensninger, press og risikoer den må håndtere.
Move 3: Analyze Their Alternatives and Dependencies
When we feel vulnerable, we often analyze our own weakness too much and the other side’s weakness too little.
In the example, the supplier may appear strong because it controls delivery. But it may also have serious vulnerabilities. It may need the project as an international reference. It may be under capacity pressure. It may need continued cooperation. It may fear a long dispute, reputational damage or internal criticism if the project stops.
This does not mean the buyer should threaten. It means the buyer should understand the real dependency structure. I often ask clients to test the other side’s dependency with one simple question:
“If they say no to us, what problem will they still have tomorrow morning?”
That question helps the negotiator see beyond their own fear. When Plan B is weak, negotiators may try to compensate with tough language. That is understandable, but risky.
Threats easily trigger ego, emotions and escalation.
They increase uncertainty for the other side, and uncertainty often creates a threat response. When people feel threatened, they search for certainty. Very often, that certainty comes through defending the old position harder.
Warnings work differently.
They make the risk visible and invite both sides to manage it before the negotiation becomes harder to control. In the example, the buyer might say:
“We are concerned that if this becomes only a discussion about the additional claim, both sides may lose control over timing, cost and the wider project. We would prefer to explore a structure that handles delivery, documentation and both parties’ internal decision needs.”
This is firm and clear. It also creates enough certainty for the conversation to continue: the buyer signals what it is worried about, what it wants to avoid, and what kind of process it is prepared to explore.
That matters because certainty lowers defensiveness. When the other side understands the concern, the boundary and the proposed process, they have less need to protect themselves through resistance. The conversation becomes less about surrender and more about managing shared risk.
A good warning creates an opening. The next task is to turn that opening into movement.
Move 4: Turn Inertia into Movement
Escalation of commitment is a trap. Parties continue because they have already invested so much that changing direction feels difficult. Here we can also use inertia in the process as a tool. People often continue in the direction they are already moving. The negotiator’s task is to make the constructive path easier to follow.
Tactical consent helps. It means asking for agreement on the next process step, not the whole solution.
Can we agree on a short verification process? Can we separate delivery from the financial disagreement? Can we prepare a non-binding draft structure? Can we agree that any possible cost recognition is exceptional and non-precedential?
Small process moves create movement. Movement may create more trust. More trust may make the substance easier to handle.
That sequence is important: process can improve the relationship, and a stronger relationship can make the substance more negotiable. This is why I rarely look at a negotiation only through the content of the dispute. I look at the three dimensions together.
Move 5: Work the Three Dimensions
In every negotiation, I work with three dimensions: process, relationship, and substance.
Substance is the material and visible part: claims, money, delivery, risk, rights and possible solutions.
Relationship is the human dimension: trust, respect, face, credibility, psychological safety and the ability to understand the other side’s internal pressure.
Process is the communication process that holds the negotiation together. It includes how the conversation is structured, how issues are sequenced, how questions are asked, how listening is used, how information is shared, how pauses are taken, how documentation is verified, how mandates are clarified, and how draft solutions are developed.
When the substance is difficult, the negotiator must work more deliberately with relationship and process.
In the example, a pure substance conversation sounds like this: “Will you pay, or not?” A process-oriented conversation sounds like this: “What would need to be verified before any cost recognition could be considered?” A relationship-oriented conversation sounds like this: “What do you need in order to explain a possible solution internally, and what do we need to ensure this does not create precedent?”
The communication process matters because it shapes what the parties are able to see, say and consider. Poor process narrows the negotiation. A better process creates safety, structure and movement.
The negotiation space often expands when relationship, process and substance are used together.
The five moves point in the same direction: create more room before you decide how hard to push.
A wider field of vision helps the negotiator see more than the immediate demand. Partial alternatives reduce dependency. A better understanding of the other side’s dependencies reveals hidden leverage. Warnings, tactical consent and inertia create movement without unnecessary escalation. The three dimensions help the negotiator work with the whole negotiation.
Together, these moves lead to a more precise negotiation question: “How can we create room in this locked negotiation?”
John F. Kennedy once said: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
In locked negotiations, that is still the discipline: find the room, reduce the fear and design the next wise move.
Recommanded reading: Negotiating When There Is No Plan B, Harvard Business Review.
