Raiffa theorizes (and backs it up with experiments) that in any negotiation, negotiators rarely reveal the true weights they place on different negotiation parameters. What ends up happening is that both parties end up in a settlement that is sub-optimal. This can be likened to the classic Prisoner's Dilemma problem of Game Theory. His solution: once a settlement has been reached, bring in an interlocutor. This person will go to each of the negotiation participants and offer to get them a better settlement in return for candid information on the true value of their weights on the negotiation parameters. Each can review the new settlement and reject it if unacceptable. Raiffa's argument is that this will invariably result in a better solution.
Although this sounds great in theory, I had some issues on how it will work from a practical perspective.
a) People will rarely share their true interests even to a reputed interlocutor. Hell, they might not even know what their true interests are!
b) It is quite difficult to isolate a negotiation into distinct line items and place weightages on each parameter. This in itself would require tremendous effort on the participants.
Overall though, it was a fascinating concept in negotiation theory. Go Raiffa!
