Two or three packages of equal value to the negotiator, differing in how they trade price, timing, and scope, go on the table together, and the other side's choice shows what it values.
An example
Without saying why, the claims vice president at a regional insurer had rejected IT's first proposal for retiring the department's old document system. The head of IT did not send a revised single offer. He put three packages on the table at once, each costing IT about the same: migration by June with IT paying for training; migration by October with claims paying half the training but getting two extra integrations it had asked for; or a phased migration over a year with the old system running in parallel. The claims vice president chose the October package and asked to add one more integration in exchange for a slightly earlier date. That told the IT head the integrations mattered more to claims than the cost did. They settled within two weeks on September, with three integrations.
Why it works
Offering several packages at once makes the deal look better because the other side gets to choose, which feels like control and makes each option more acceptable. It makes agreement easier because the other side does not have to reject anyone; it only picks. Its choice also tells you what it values, which a single offer rejected without explanation never does. For it to work, the packages have to be equal in value to you, differ on the issues that matter, and be few enough to compare.
The thinking behind it
Deepak Malhotra Deepak Malhotra and Max Bazerman's Negotiation Genius (2007) recommends discussing multiple issues together and making package offers, so each side can trade what it values less for what it values more. Its advice to put several packages forward at the same time is described here from secondary summaries, and the controlled research on equivalent simultaneous offers is by other authors. The idea still explains the scene: the package the claims vice president chose, and what he asked to add, told the IT head which issue mattered most.
When it fits
Several issues in play, a counterpart who has rejected offers without saying why, or simple uncertainty about what they value: those are the conditions. You need a clear sense of what each issue is worth to you and enough authority to offer more than one package. Single-issue haggling over price gives it nothing to work with.
How to use it well
Work out what each issue is worth to you first, so you can build packages you would be equally happy with.
- Build two or three packages that trade the issues differently: one rich on price, one on timing, one on scope.
- Present them together, and say you are open to any of them.
- Ask which comes closest and why.
- Use the answer to build the final package.
Keep the number small. More than three choices overwhelms the other side and blurs what the choice tells you.
What it costs and where it backfires
You reveal more about your flexibility than a single offer would, and a sharp counterpart may take the best part of each package and ask for all of them. Building balanced packages takes work. The packages must be truly equivalent and truly on offer. A decoy built to be rejected so another looks good, or an offer you would not honor, makes the choice a setup, and the other side will treat your later offers with suspicion.
When it is used on you
Question the other side on what each package is worth to them and why they consider the packages equal. Take your time comparing. Pick the closest one and then ask for an improvement, knowing that your choice has already told them something about your priorities.