Propose a post-settlement settlement to optimize an agreed deal

After reaching a deal, offer to see if you can both do better — many agreements leave joint value on the table.

Why it works

Agreed deals are often inefficient: both parties accepted because the deal beat their BATNA, but it may not be at the Pareto frontier — the point where neither side can gain without the other losing. A post-settlement settlement (PSS) is an offer to renegotiate for mutual improvement, with the current agreement as the fallback. Because neither side risks losing the deal, it is a low-cost way to discover joint gains both left on the table.

How to do it

1. Once a deal is agreed, propose: "We’ve got something we both prefer to no deal. Could we see if there’s a version that’s even better for both of us, with this as our fallback?"
2. In the PSS discussion, share priorities more openly — the deal’s existence reduces strategic risk.
3. If no improvement is found, the original deal stands.

Evidence

Research on post-settlement settlements found they reliably improve joint outcomes when both parties participate honestly — the protective fallback reduces strategic misrepresentation. (observational)

The PSS assumes both parties act in good faith during the renegotiation — a bad-faith counterpart could use the PSS to reopen and erode terms.

Sources

• Raiffa (1985), "Post-settlement settlements", Negotiation Journal

Common mistake

Declaring a deal done and disengaging before exploring whether a simple conversation could have improved it for both sides — the cost of asking is low; the gain can be significant.