Asymmetric negotiation is a process which that occurs when counterparts of significantly different sizes, as measured by the parties' relative resources and market share in a particular context, seek to negotiate with each other. The context for these negotiations or conflicts can range from mergers and acquisitions and international trade deals, to hostage-takings and initiating change at a local school board. This specific form of negotiation contrasts with symmetrical or standard negotiations where the parties are more similar in size.
A larger party in one context can be a smaller party in another. For instance, a US corporation may be a much larger buyer in an asymmetric negotiation with a North American supplier, while reduced to being a relatively small player overseas in negotiations with the European Union where it has fewer resources and less impact.
Just as in asymmetric warfare, research has shown that smaller players can prevail in getting what they want from much larger players by applying distinct approaches, strategies and tactics that increase their odds of success.
Given the growing number of large corporations and government entities worldwide, and the corresponding growth in asymmetric negotiations, this phenomenon has received increasing attention in recent decades, with numerous journalists and academics addressing the subject in articles and journals. International negotiator Peter D. Johnston's book Negotiating with Giants provides an in-depth survey of "size-imbalanced" negotiations. In this 2008 book, Johnston studied more than 100 negotiations from across history to the present day, where smaller players got what they wanted from much larger players, with the author identifying unique strategies that worked for these "Davids" in their negotiations with wide-ranging giants or "Goliaths."
According to Johnston, successful smaller players should change the game on their larger counterparts by using seven distinct approaches given the unique challenges they face in asymmetric negotiations: