Unions striking for lower wages? Buyers seeking higher prices? Such cases of counter‐intuitive or paradoxical bargaining strategy and behavior prove useful in refining the concepts and statement of negotiation theory. Examination of four such instances of apparently nonsensical negotiation reveals the underlying soundness of the distinction between position and interest, once these concepts are specified appropriately. The resulting enrichment of theory, in turn, leads to improved practice, underlining the importance of exploring interests. The argument emphasizes the value of examining the unexpected.

There are many roads to NO. Some are routed there intentionally. Parties sometimes engage in negotiations even though they are determined to avoid agreement, or at least consider any agreement as incidental to their reason for negotiating. The author identifies two varieties of avoidance negotiation. Opportunistic avoidance subsumes a variety of circumstances and motivations. By contrast, demand avoidance can be comprehended in a more unitary fashion as a response to audience expectations by a reluctant negotiator. The analysis is anchored in cases drawn from a range of settings and in the negotiation literature. It includes a discussion of diagnosis, response, and implications for theory and research as well as for negotiation and mediation practice.