Typical Negotiation Hardball Tactics

Typical Negotiation Hardball Tactics

We will now discuss some of the more frequently described hardball tactics and their weaknesses. 

Good Cop/Bad Cop The most famous good cop/bad cop tactic is named after a police interrogation technique in which two officers (one kind, the other tough) take turns questioning a suspect; it can frequently be seen in episodes of popular television series such as Law and Order and CSI. The use of this tactic in negotiations typically goes as follows: The first interrogator (bad cop) presents a tough opening position, punctuated with threats, obnoxious behavior, and intransigence. The interrogator then leaves the room to make an important telephone call or to cool off—frequently at the partner’s suggestion. While out of the room, the other interrogator (good cop) tries to reach a quick agreement before the bad cop returns and makes life difficult for everyone. A more subtle form of this tactic is to assign the bad cop the role of speaking only when the negotiations are headed in a direction that the team does not want; as long as things are going well, the good cop does the talking. Although the good cop/bad cop tactic can be somewhat transparent, it often leads to concessions and negotiated agreements. This tactic has many weaknesses. As mentioned above, it is relatively transparent, especially with repeated use. It can be countered by openly stating what the negotiators are doing. A humorously delivered statement like “You two aren’t playing the old good cop/bad cop game with me, are you?” Will go a long way to deflating this tactic even if both of the other parties deny it self-righteously. The good cop/bad cop tactic is also much more difficult to enact than it is to read; it typically alienates the targeted party and frequently requires negotiators to direct much more energy toward making the tactic work smoothly than toward accomplishing the negotiation goals. Negotiators using this tactic can become so involved with their game playing and acting that they fail to concentrate on obtaining their negotiation goals. 

Lowball/Highball Negotiators using the lowball (highball) tactic start with a ridiculously low (or high) opening offer that they know they will never achieve. The theory is that the extreme offer will cause the other party to reevaluate his or her own opening offer and move closer to or beyond their resistance point. The risk of using this tactic is that the other party will think negotiating is a waste of time and will stop negotiating. Even if the other party continues to negotiate after receiving a lowball (highball) offer, however, it takes a very skilled negotiator to be able to justify the extreme opening offer and to finesse the negotiation back to a point where the other side will be willing to make a major concession toward the outrageous bid. The best way to deal with a lowball (highball) tactic is not to make a counteroffer, but to ask for a more reasonable opening offer from the other party. The reason that requesting a reasonable opening offer is important is because this tactic works in the split second between hearing the other party’s opening offer and the delivery of your first offer. If you give in to the natural tendency to change your opening offer because it would be embarrassing to start negotiations so far apart, or because the other party’s extreme opening makes you rethink where the bargaining zone may lie, then you have fallen victim to this tactic. When this happens, you have been “anchored” by the other party’s extreme first offer. Good preparation for the negotiation is a critical defense against this tactic. Proper planning will help you know the general range for the value of the item under discussion and allow you to respond verbally with one of several different strategies: (1) insisting that the other party start with a reasonable opening offer and refusing to negotiate further until he or she does; (2) stating your understanding of the general market value of the item being discussed, supporting it with facts and figures, and by doing so, demonstrating to the other party that you won’t be tricked; (3) threatening to leave the negotiation, either briefly or for good, to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the other party for using this tactic; and (4) responding with an extreme counteroffer to send a clear message you won’t be anchored by an extreme offer from the other party.  

Bogey Negotiators using the bogey tactic pretend that an issue of little or no importance to them is quite important. Later in the negotiation, this issue can then be traded for major concessions on issues that are actually important to them. This tactic is most effective when negotiators identify an issue that is quite important to the other side but of little value to themselves. For example, a seller may have a product in the warehouse ready for delivery. When negotiating with a purchasing agent, however, the seller may ask for large concessions to process a rush order for the client. The seller can reduce the size of the concession demanded for the rush order in exchange for concessions on other issues, such as the price or the size of the order. Another example of a bogey is to argue as if you want a particular work assignment or project (when in fact you don’t prefer it) and then, in exchange for large concessions from the other party, accept the assignment you actually prefer (but had pretended not to). This tactic is fundamentally deceptive, and as such it can be a difficult tactic to enact. Typically, the other party will negotiate in good faith and take you seriously when you are trying to make a case for the issue that you want to bogey. This can lead to the very unusual situation of both negotiators arguing against their true wishes (the other party is asking for large concessions on other issues to give you the bogey issue you really don’t want, and you are spending time evaluating offers and making arguments for an issue you know you do not want). It can also be very difficult to change gracefully and accept an offer in completely the opposite direction. If this maneuver cannot be done, however, then you may end up accepting a suboptimal deal—the bogey may be something you do not really want, and perhaps the other party doesn’t either. Although the bogey is a difficult tactic to defend against, being well prepared for the negotiation will make you less susceptible to it. When the other party takes a position completely counter to what you expected, you may suspect that a bogey tactic is being used. Probing with questions about why the other party wants a particular outcome may help you reduce the effectiveness of a bogey. Finally, you should be very cautious about sudden reversals in positions taken by the other party, especially late in a negotiation. This may be a sign that the bogey tactic has been in use. Again, questioning the other party carefully about why the reverse position is suddenly acceptable and not conceding too much after the other party completely reverses a position may significantly reduce the effectiveness of the bogey.  

The Nibble Negotiators using the nibble tactic ask for a proportionally small concession (for instance, 1 to 2 percent of the total profit of the deal) on an item that hasn’t been discussed previously in order to close the deal. We may describe the nibble as follows: After trying many different suits in a clothing store, tell the clerk that you will take a given suit if a tie is included for free. The tie is the nibble. You usually get the tie. In a business context, the tactic occurs like this: After a considerable amount of time has been spent in negotiation, when an agreement is close, one party asks to include a clause that hasn’t been discussed previously and that will cost the other party a proportionally small amount. This amount is too small to lose the deal over, but large enough to upset the other party. This is the major weakness with the nibble tactic—many people feel that the party using the nibble did not bargain in good faith (as part of a fair negotiation process, all items to be discussed during the negotiation should be placed on the agenda early). Even if the party claims to be very embarrassed about forgetting this item until now, the party who has been nibbled will not feel good about the process and will be motivated to seek revenge in future negotiations. There are two good ways to combat the nibble. First, respond to each nibble with the question “What else do you want?” This should continue until the other party indicates that all issues are in the open; then both parties can discuss all the issues simultaneously. Second, have your own nibbles prepared to offer in exchange. When the other party suggests a nibble on one issue, you can respond with your own nibble on another.  

Chicken The chicken tactic is named after the 1950s challenge, portrayed in the James Dean movie Rebel without a Cause, of two people driving cars at each other or toward a cliff until one person swerves to avoid disaster. The person who swerves is labeled a chicken, and the other person is treated like a hero. Negotiators who use this tactic combine a large bluff with a threatened action to force the other party to “chicken out” and give them what they want. Clearly this is a high-stakes gamble method. On the one hand, involved one party must be willing to follow through on the threat—if the counter party calls their bluff and they do not follow through, they will not be believed in the future. On the other hand, how can the counter party take the risk and call the bluff? If the threatening is telling the truth, the consequences will be extreme. The weakness of the chicken tactic is that it turns negotiation into a serious game in which one or both parties find it difficult to distinguish reality from postured negotiation positions. Will the other party really follow through on his or her threats? We frequently cannot know for sure because the circumstances must be grave in order for this tactic to be believable; but it is precisely when circumstances are grave that a negotiator may be most tempted to use this tactic. Compare, for instance, the responses of Presidents William Clinton and George W. Bush to Iraq’s defiance of the United Nations weapons inspection program. It appears that Iraq felt it could “stare down” President Bush because it had successfully avoided outright conflict during President Clinton’s term. The subsequent events demonstrated the error of this assessment. The chicken tactic is very difficult for a negotiator to defend against. To the extent that the commitment can be downplayed, reworded, or ignored, however, it could lose its power. Perhaps the riskiest response is to introduce one’s own chicken tactic. At that point neither party may be willing to back down in order not to lose face. Preparation and a thorough understanding of the situations of both parties are absolutely essential for trying to identify where reality ends and the chicken tactic begins. Use of external experts to verify information or to help to reframe the situation is another option.  

Intimidation Many tactics can be gathered under the general label of intimidation. What they have in common is that they all attempt to force the other party to agree by means of an emotional ploy, usually anger or fear. For example, the other party may deliberately use anger to indicate the seriousness of a position. Another form of intimidation includes increasing the appearance of legitimacy. When legitimacy is high, set policies or procedures are in place for resolving disputes. Negotiators who do not have such policies or procedures available may try to invent them and then impose them on the other negotiator while making the process appear legitimate. For example, policies that are written in manuals or preprinted official forms and agreements are less likely to be questioned than those that are delivered verbally; long and detailed loan contracts that banks use for consumer loans are seldom read completely. The greater the appearance of legitimacy, the less likely the other party will be to question the process being followed or the contract terms being proposed. Finally, guilt can also be used as a form of intimidation. Negotiators can question the other party’s integrity or the other’s lack of trust in them. The purpose of this tactic is to place the other party on the defensive so that they are dealing with the issues of guilt or trust rather than discussing the substance of the negotiation. To deal with intimidation tactics, negotiators have several options. Intimidation tactics are designed to make the intimidator feel more powerful than the other party and to lead people to make concessions for emotional rather than objective reasons. When making any concession, it is important for negotiators to understand why they are doing so. If one starts to feel threatened, assumes that the other party is more powerful (when objectively he or she is not), or simply accepts the legitimacy of the other negotiator’s “company policy,” then it is likely that intimidation is having an effect on the negotiations. If the other negotiator is intimidating, then discussing the negotiation process with him or her is a good option. You can explain that your policy is to bargain in a fair and respectful manner, and that you expect to be treated the same way in return. Another good option is to ignore the other party’s attempts to intimidate you, because intimidation can only influence you if you let it. While this may sound too simplistic, think for a moment about why some people you know are intimidated by authority figures and others are not—the reason often lies in the perceiver, not the authority figure. Another effective strategy for dealing with intimidation is to use a team to negotiate with the other party. Teams have at least two advantages over individuals in acting against intimidation. First, people are not always intimidated by the same things; while you may be intimidated by one particular negotiator, it is quite possible that other members on your team won’t be. The second advantage of using a team is that the team members can discuss the tactics of the other negotiators and provide mutual support if the intimidation starts to become increasingly uncomfortable.  

Aggressive Behavior A group of tactics similar to those described under intimidation includes various ways of being aggressive in pushing your position or attacking the other person’s position. Aggressive tactics include a relentless push for further concessions (“You can do better than that”), asking for the best offer early in negotiations (“Let’s not waste any time. What is the most that you will pay?”), and asking the other party to explain and justify his or her proposals item by item or line by line (“What is your cost breakdown for each item?”). The negotiator using these techniques is signaling a hard-nosed, intransigent position and trying to force the other side to make many concessions to reach an agreement. When faced with another party’s aggressive behavior tactics an excellent response is to halt the negotiations in order to discuss the negotiation process itself. Negotiators can explain that they will reach a decision based on needs and interests, not aggressive behavior. Again, having a team to counter aggressive tactics from the other party can be helpful for the same reasons discussed above under intimidation tactics. Good preparation and understanding both one’s own and the other party’s needs and interests together make responding to aggressive tactics easier because the merits to both parties of reaching an agreement can be highlighted. 

Snow Job The snow job tactic occurs when negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that he or she has trouble determining which facts are real or important, and which are included merely as distractions. Governments use this tactic frequently when releasing information publicly. Rather than answering a question briefly, they release thousands of pages of documents from hearings and transcripts that may or may not contain the information that the other party is seeking. Another example of the snow job is the use of highly technical language to hide a simple answer to a question asked by none expert. Any group of professionals—such as engineers, lawyers, or computer network administrators—can use this tactic to overwhelm (“snow”) the other party with so much information and technical language that the none experts cannot make sense of the answer. Frequently, in order not to be embarrassed by asking “obvious” questions, the recipient of the snow job will simply nod his or her head and passively agree with the other party’s analysis or statements. Negotiators trying to counter a snow job tactic can choose one of several alternative responses. First, they should not be afraid to ask questions until they receive an answer they understand. Second, if the matter under discussion is in fact highly technical, then negotiators may suggest that technical experts get together to discuss the technical issues. Finally, negotiators should listen carefully to the other party and identify consistent and inconsistent information. Probing for further information after identifying a piece of inconsistent information can work to undermine the effectiveness of the snow job. For example, if one piece of incorrect or inconsistent information is discovered in the complete snow job package, the negotiator can question the accuracy of the whole presentation (e.g., “Since point X was incorrect, how can I be sure that the rest is accurate?”). Again, strong preparation is very important for defending effectively against the snow job tactic.

Have a better negotiation ahead.