Negotiation at University - 3 Strategies for Effective Groupwork

It’s your first term at university.

You’re still learning your way around campus, figuring out which cafés have the shortest queues, and trying to remember names from your seminar group.

Then it happens: you’re assigned your very first group project.

You’re matched with a few strangers. You don’t know how they work or who’s good at what,

and let’s be honest, you’re not even sure how you work under academic pressure yet.

The group chat starts. “Hey! Should we have a Zoom meeting to get started?”

The meeting is scheduled.

The call begins.

Everyone is silent.

No one wants to be “that person” who takes charge. You feel awkward, hesitant.

You don’t want to seem bossy, but also don’t want to stay up all night before the deadline.

And just like that, you’re in a negotiation.

Want to get things done without stepping on anyone’s toes?

Want to lead without sounding pushy?

You’re in the right place.

This blog explores how everyday group work is full of negotiation strategies

and how to master three of them, even if you’ve never attempted them before!

In our examples, you'll meet four groupmates called Zoe, Oliver, Peter, and

Angela. Try out their interactive scenarios at the end of each section to challenge

yourself!

1. Anchoring: Take the Lead, Beat the Drift

The silent Zoom call — your first taste of negotiation

Have you ever experienced a group meeting like this?

Everyone sits on Zoom…

No one talks. Everyone waits.

Then, a few days later, someone finally says:

“Should we just finish the draft by next weekend?”

And just like that, a default timeline is set — one that no one really planned, but everyone now follows.

This is the Anchoring Effect in action.

What is Anchoring?

In negotiation psychology, anchoring refers to the cognitive bias where individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered — often a number, deadline, or proposal — when making decisions.

Even if the anchor is arbitrary or unreasonable, it shapes the range of what feels acceptable.

According to Tversky & Kahneman (1974), anchoring is one of the most robust heuristics in human judgment under uncertainty. Their studies found that even when participants were told the anchor was random (e.g., a spun roulette wheel), it still influenced their estimates on unrelated tasks.

“Anchoring works not because we trust the anchor, but because we unconsciously adjust from it — and rarely enough.”

(Epley & Gilovich, 2006)

In negotiation settings, this means the person who sets the first anchor often frames the entire discussion, whether that’s a salary negotiation, a project timeline, or a shared workload.

A Real Group Work Example

Let's say no one speaks at the start of your group meeting. Then you say:

“How about we draft the outline by Wednesday? That way, we'll have time to revise it.”

Congratulations! You've just set the anchor.

Now, even if others want to slow things down, they're likely to respond with:

“Maybe Thursday?”

Instead of:

“Let's start it on Sunday night.”

If you don't anchor, someone else will — and their timeline may work against you.

Anchoring and Procrastination: Hidden Connections

Procrastination often stems not from laziness but from a lack of defined parameters.

When there are no clear time anchors, goals become fuzzy, and group members default to “wait and see” behaviour — what psychologists call temporal ambiguity. Setting a clear anchor helps break that inertia.

According to Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002), externally imposed deadlines (like anchoring early tasks) can improve performance and reduce procrastination — especially in collaborative contexts.

 

Practical Anchoring Tips

• Be the first to speak: Start with clarity — “Let’s finish the structure today.”
• Set a concrete timeline: “Can everyone finish their part by Monday?”
  
• Prepare your anchor in advance: Don’t wait until the call starts to think.
• Hold your ground: If others resist, guide the conversation around your anchor instead of backing off entirely.

An Interactive Scenario

During your groupwork meetings, Oliver says:

“Let’s just pull an all-nighter the day before submission and finish everything.”

How should Zoe respond?

  A. “Okay, sure ”

  B. “Maybe we can draft something three days earlier?”

  C. “I’ve already done my part. I’ll just submit mine on time.”

✅ B. — You’ve just re-anchored the timeline.

Smart negotiators don’t just say “yes” — they offer a better alternative.

2. Making Concession: Give Smart, Not Away

Your group is coming together on a video call after some preliminary research to discuss what each group member is going to contribute to the presentation.

Knowing that writing the presentation’s analysis section will take the most time and effort, Zoe volunteers to take that part after the conversation has concluded. Later in the conversation, Peter volunteers to help with the first person’s bibliography, hoping to balance the group’s workload.

This exchange is an example of the power of making effective concessions in a negotiation setting! Knowing this theory can be essential in salvaging a deadlocked negotiation and maintaining good intra-group relationships.

A Sign of Strength, and Sometimes Weakness

Making concessions can sound like a double-edged sword - after all, by giving something up voluntarily, aren’t you taking a huge risk?

If this is what you’re thinking right now, consider the same situation from another point of view. In a negotiation, you’ll often be trying to find the best possible agreement between yourself and one/multiple other parties, who may value things differently from you. Every party will therefore want to maximise their chances, which can be especially difficult if neither side is willing to budge on a contentious element. Making concessions is therefore a form of conflict resolution.

You don’t want to concede every time your party is faced with some pushback - not only is that disadvantageous for you, but a study by Komorita (1973) argued that it can also tell the other negotiating party/ies that you have no interest in communicating and problem-solving with them, which could be exploited later on. Concessions must be used intelligently because they have the potential to highlight new elements for you to negotiate.

Making a concession doesn’t make you weak! You just have to make sure that you’re making them voluntarily, and that the other party is willing to adjust their requests for you, too.

You Give, I Give

When it comes to making concessions, understanding reciprocity is essential, especially when considering negotiations regarding collaborative work like group presentations!

Molm (2010) describes reciprocity as the social theory of how people give away benefits in return for previously received benefits. This behavioural feature is incredibly important to social life and society as a whole, but it doesn’t just happen naturally. It’s a learned behaviour that can be used to find agreements and problem-solve with groupmates in mutually advantageous ways.

Below, you can find some examples of how reciprocity looks in group work settings.

 

Generally, all concessions should be made and appear voluntary - as a negotiator, you need to know your goals and have a plan to achieve them. Being forced to accommodate a groupmate’s shortcomings is also not a form of concession-making. For it to be an effective strategy for conflict resolution, both parties should be willing to relent and make concessions, and you should never continue making unreciprocated concessions.

Why is that? Keep reading to discover why falling into a pattern of unreciprocated concessions can become a slippery slope…

Beware of the Salami

During another meeting, Oliver requested Zoe’s help with fixing the format of his presentation slide, as he claimed not to be knowledgeable about technology. Zoe agreed to help, but a few moments later, Oliver also asked her to help fix his citation slide, as he wasn’t sure if he’d been doing it correctly. 

After agreeing to help again, they thanked her, but wondered out loud if Zoe completing all of his citation slides for him wouldn’t be faster. “He’s got a point,” Zoe thought, believing that she was just making another small concession to help her teammate. She got to work, but only later realised that she’d been spending more time ‘helping’ her teammate than doing her research.

In the situation above, Oliver uses a strategy that research by Jensen has called a salami negotiation. Despite its funny-sounding name, this tactic is dangerous. People may consciously (or sometimes subconsciously) use it to make progressively significant demands and give little in return.

It is difficult to stop a salami negotiation once it has started to impact how you view the exchange. Just like a salami getting sliced, by demanding small things at the beginning and progressively increasing the requests’ worth and commitment, you’re creating a situation where the other party will have a hard time recognising the extent of your demands.\

How to prevent salami negotiations

• Look for patterns: If your groupmates tend to ask you for concessions, be ready to set boundaries.

• Communicate frequently with your groupmates: Negotiations are active conversations, and you should be sure to voice your concerns rather than getting swept up in small things over time!

• Don’t partake in this strategy yourself: Whilst it may sound like an effective way to have your demands met, it may sour your relationship with the other party. In a groupwork situation, you all want to achieve the same goal to the best extent possible. Working against your teammates like this may result in more strained communications and less reciprocity in future negotiations.

An Interactive Scenario

Two weeks before the deadline, during a group meeting, Oliver suddenly mentions that he believes that the amount of work that has been assigned to him is unreasonable. Zoe and Peter, however, believe that the work has been split evenly and are upset at Oliver for suggesting that they’ve purposefully disadvantaged him so close to the deadline.

Angela wants to resolve this conflict and potentially make a concession - what should she say? 

A. “Don’t worry, Oliver! I’m mostly done with my slides already. I can complete that one for you, just let me know if you need any extra help since I’m pretty much finished.”

B. “I’ll make an adjustment and complete this slide for you, Oliver. Now that you’re in a better position, I hope you can finish your remaining work a day earlier. That would be helpful to the team.”

C. “I could complete that slide for you, if you’d like. I’m much better at making slides, it would probably be faster that way.”

Which option makes an effective CONCESSION?

✅ B.
This choice includes a voluntary concession that requests a form of bilateral reciprocity without being too callous, whilst giving a clear boundary (“finish your remaining work a day earlier”). The response also highlights how these concessions would improve the team’s result as a whole, which brings attention to the shared goals of the group, rather than furthering the conflict between Oliver and the rest of the group.

Why not the others?

❌ A.
Whilst this option may make it seem like you’re being friendly and cooperative, you’re not inviting them to reciprocate the concession. You’re asserting that you have a lot of free time, and that may lead other parties to initiate a salami negotiation. Setting boundaries is a must!

🟡 C.
This option sounds practical, but it would be best to make the concession more obvious. By focusing on your efficiency, you are not pointing out how this concession could result in bettering the team’s project. It is always worth considering these exchanges not as simple ‘gifts’, but as two-way conversations.

3. BATNA: Your Backup is Your Power

The group project is due in two days. The presentation is 10 minutes long, and everyone agreed to take 2.5 minutes each. Then this happens:

Zoe: “Hey… my part is longer than I thought. Can I get one more minute?”
Oliver: “That’s fine, I guess?”
Peter: [still hasn’t submitted his slides]

Now Angela is staring at her screen, wondering:
“Should I cut my part? Say something? Just go with it and hope it works?”

Before you respond, here’s a question worth asking:
What would you do if this group completely fell apart? If your answer is panic and stress out… then you need a BATNA.

What is BATNA, and why it matters

BATNA stands for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Introduced by Fisher and Ury (1981), it refers to the course of action you’ll take if a negotiation fails. In simple terms, it’s your backup plan: If this doesn’t work out, what will you do instead? 

In negotiation theory, BATNA is a strategic baseline that gives you clarity, confidence, and leverage. Humans are likely to:

• Avoid conflict when uncertain

• Over-accommodate to maintain harmony
• Lose perspective under pressure.

Research in behavioural negotiation shows that people often underestimate their own power (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001), especially in collaborative contexts. BATNA acts as a cognitive anchor, helping you resist groupthink and panic.

In multiparty settings, a strong BATNA can also buffer against groupthink or toxic conformity. Without it, teams are more likely to default to consensus-driven decisions, even when those decisions are irrational or harmful.

Middlemarch and the cost of BATNA

In the novel Middlemarch, there's a negotiation between Bulstrode and Raffles. In it, Raffles threatens to expose Bulstrode’s dark past.

As Read & Hills (2021) show in their negotiation analysis of the novel, Bulstrode has no realistic alternative. His position is weak, and he knows it. The result? He becomes desperate, makes worse decisions trying to keep control and ultimately crumbles emotionally and socially.

Now replace Bulstrode with you and Raffles with a chaotic teammate, and the metaphor becomes alarmingly real.

A good BATNA is prepared in advance:

So... How do you build a BATNA?

A good BATNA doesn’t come from panicking after things go wrong.

It comes from quietly preparing while things still seem fine.

In a group project setting, this means thinking ahead, setting personal boundaries,and knowing when to push, pause, or pivot.

An Interactive Scenario

It’s the night before the group project is due. You’ve finished your slides. You’ve rehearsed. You’re ready. There’s just one problem: Peter still hasn’t submitted anything. In the group chat, Zoe writes:

“Sooo should we just wait and hope he sends something?”

Oliver reacts with a 😬 emoji. Silence follows.

Now it’s Angela's move. What should she say?

  A. “Yeah, fingers crossed 🤞 ”

  B. “Let’s just cover his part ourselves to be safe.”

  C. “If we don’t hear from him by 10 p.m., I’ll message the professor and submit it as it is.”

Which one uses BATNA?

✅ C.

You set a specific deadline.
You communicate your next step in advance, giving the group a chance to act.Your part is ready, and you’re not letting someone’s disorganisation affect you. 

Why not the others?

❌ A.

This is passive and uncertain. You're waiting, hoping, and giving up control, with no plan B.

It may feel cooperative, but it leaves you with zero leverage if things go wrong.

🟡 B.

This sounds responsible, but it’s reactive and emotionally expensive. You’re taking on extrawork to save the group without setting limits.You’re taking responsibility for someone's failure, which can lead to resentment/burnout,classic "no BATNA" behaviour. 

-----

Take Home Messages

• Don't wait for someone else to lead.

• If you anchor first, you lead the rhythm of the team.

• Anchoring isn't about being controlling--it's about being clear.

• Making Concessions is all about enacting a voluntary strategy. Don't give away things when not reciprocated.

• Teamwork is about setting boundaries, too - if someone is asking you to make too many concessions, don't hesitate to stand your ground!

• BATNA is the difference between passively agreeing and actively choosing. Bulstrode didn’t have a BATNA, and it cost him everything. If you’re prepared and ready, a messy group doesn’t have to mean a messy outcome.

• In negotiation, as in life, sometimes the most powerful thing you can say is "this doesn’t work for me, and that’s okay".

Now you are ready to go out there, use these negotiation strategies in real life and ace whatever groupwork assignment you may face during your university course!

Thank you for reading this blog, and remember - stay calm, think through your options, and you'll figure everything out!

-----

Bibliography

• Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00441. 
• Brett, J. & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.003.
  
• Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x.
  
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
  
• Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669.
  
• Jensen, K. (2024). The Elements of Negotiation: 103 Tactics to Win Every Deal. Wiley.
  
• Komorita, S. S. (1973). Concession-Making and Conflict Resolution. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(4), 745–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277301700408.
  
• Molm, L. D. (2010). The Structure of Reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510369079.
  
• Read, D. & Hills, T. (2021). A Negotiation in Middlemarch. Negotiation Journal, 37(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12355.
• Spangle, M. L. & Isenhart, M. W. (2002). Negotiation: Communication for Diverse Settings. Sage Publications.
  
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Image Bibliography

• Jabian Journal. (n.d.). Silence in the workplace speaks loud and clear [Digital image]. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://journal.jabian.com/silence-in-the-workplace-speaks-loud-and-clear/
• Jobicy. (n.d.). Understanding procrastination: What are its causes [Digital image]. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://jobicy.com/blog/72160-understanding-procrastination-what-are-its-causes
• MyTheraphyNYC. How to be assertive and stand up for yourself. MyTheraphyNYC. Retrieved April 28, from https://mytherapynyc.com/how-to-be-assertive-stand-up-for-yourself/.
• Nawar, B. (2025). How to use BATNA in group projects (inforgraphic). Created with Canva.
• Smith, A. Building Bridges. Cruciform Church of Christ. Retrieved April 28, from https://www.cruciformcoc.com/sermons/building-bridges-3-the-church/. 
• Vehnta. (n.d.). What is the anchoring effect and how to use it in a commercial negotiation [Digital image]. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://vehnta.com/what-is-the-anchoring-effect-and-how-to-use-it-in-a-commercial-negotiation/