Final answer:
Negotiators lacking transparency about a good alternative often end up with weaker outcomes in their negotiations. The presence of a strong alternative, known as BATNA, empowers negotiators by providing them leverage in the bargaining process and influencing the willingness to make concessions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Negotiators who did not reveal the availability of a good alternative received inferior negotiation outcomes. In the context of negotiation strategy, concealing a strong alternative can often weaken a negotiator's position because it can make them appear more desperate or willing to concede, and they may accept less favorable terms. This concept relates to the idea of BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), a term often used in negotiation theory indicating the most favorable alternative course of action a party can take if negotiations fail. Having a strong BATNA usually provides a negotiator with greater power during discussions.
The availability of a good alternative affects the bargaining process significantly. This is evident in the aforementioned scenarios where individuals or companies faced with various choices and information asymmetry manage their positions in different contexts, whether it's a political negotiation, market transaction, or in historical legal systems. Knowledge of a good alternative serves as a leverage point, affecting the dynamics of the negotiation process and the willingness to compromise.