Negotiation

Negotiation is both a subject on its own and also a common element of

many persuasive situations. Here are a wide set of things you can do to be a
successful negotiator in many different types of situation.

Negotiation styles: Varying by belief, profession and context.

The Eight-Stage Negotiation Process: A detailed negotiation method.
The Three-Stage Negotiation Process: for simple, everyday situations.
Negotiation activities: Specific things to do during negotiation.
Negotiation tactics: Tips and tricks that are used in negotiation.
Negotiation mistakes: Common errors made by negotiators.
Negotiation articles: Further understanding of the negotiation process.

Negotiation Styles
Negotiation styles vary with the person, their beliefs and skills, as well as the
general context in which they occur. Here are a number of different styles
considered from different viewpoints.

Belief-based styles
There is a common spectrum of negotiation that ranges from collaborative to
competitive. The approach taken is generally based on beliefs about people
and how selfish or generous they are.

The Spectrum of Negotiation Styles: From concession to competition.

Collaborative Negotiation: Negotiating for win-win.
Competitive Negotiation: Negotiating for win-lose.
Balanced Negotiation: Walking between collaborative and competitive
negotiation.

Professional styles
Professional styles are those used by people who have a significant element
of negotiation in their roles. Here is a selection of different contexts in which
such negotiation takes place.

Industrial relations: Confrontational bargaining.

Managing Board: Together and competing.
International: Diplomatic dancing.
Political: Scheming horse-trading.
Selling and Buying: Professional sellers and buyers.
Hostage: Emotional big-stakes exchanges.

Contextual styles
Negotiation often happens within non-professional contexts, where the
people either do not know that they are negotiating or they are not skilled at
it.
Domestic: Discussions and arguments at home.
Everyday: Everybody, every day, negotiates.
Hierarchical: Parent-child, boss-subordinate, etc.
Remote Negotiation: Negotiating at a distance.

The Spectrum of Negotiation Styles

Although negotiation styles can be classified as competitive or collaborative,

in practice there is a range of styles, based on the degree to which a person
thinks first about themself or about the other person.

Consideration for self

Considering yourself in negotiation is natural and reasonable -- after all, the

main point is to get something that you want. If you care little about the
other person or the relationship, then you will prioritize your needs above
those of others.

Excessive consideration for self leads to a Machiavellian approach, where the

ends justifies the means. Overt aggression, intimidation and coercive
deception are considered normal and necessary, and destroying the other
person in some way may be a symbol of your victory over them.

Consideration for others

Consideration for others will depend on your values, which are often based
on your beliefs about people. In particular, if you put yourself down (for
example if you have low self-esteem) or you escalate the importance of
others (or your relationship with them) too highly, then you will think
considerably more about the other person and prioritize their needs well
above your own.

Excessive consideration for others leads to relentless concession, where you

create a lose-win situation with you as the loser. You may even lose
elements of the relationship as giving away too much can just end up in you
losing respect. Some people like being the victim, but it is no way to conduct
a negotiation.

A middle way

Between concession and competition lies balance, although in practice this

may be more dynamic and variable than may be expected. What should be a
highly collaborative negotiation may become a balanced negotiation, even
with competitive elements. Shared values are commonly used, however, to
protect the relationship and ensure fair play. At worst, some third person is
called in to ensure a reasonable balance.

Collaborative Negotiation

In collaborative negotiation (also called constructive, principled or interestbased negotiation), the approach is to treat the relationship as an important
and valuable element while seeking an equitable and fair agreement (as
opposed to always conceding in order to sustain the relationship).

Win-win

The competitive approach to negotiation assumes a fixed pie, zero-sum, winlose situation. In collaborative negotiation, it is assumed that the pie can be
enlarged by finding things of value to both parties, thus creating a win-win
situation where both parties can leave the table feeling that they have
gained something of value.

Fair process

As humans we have a deep need for fairness, and when this does not
happen, even if we emerge as winners from a competitive negotiation, the
result is not truly satisfying. The most comfortable result from a negotiation
happens when our needs are met, including the need for fairness.

Joint problem-solving

The collaborative approach to negotiation seeks to convert individual wants

into a single problem and to bring both parties together to work on solving
this problem.

By converting individual positions and wants into separated problems, the

people can be freed up from jealous and personal attachment to their
requirements so they can then take a more objective and equitable position
from which they can act in a more collaborative way.

Collaborative strategy

Being collaborative does not mean being weak and giving in. On the
contrary, a collaborative approach seeks to gain the best possible solution.

Transparency and trust

Whilst you may not give away all of your information, deceptive practices
need to be curtailed if trust is to be gained. A simple way of eliminating
suspicion is to be open and transparent, giving information before it is
requested.

When the other person is competitive

The biggest dilemma occurs when the other person is acting competitively,
and will try to take advantage of your collaborative approach (possibly
seeing it as a weakness).

The approach with aggressive others is to be assertive and adult rather than
fall into the fight-or-flight reaction, for example naming attempts at
deception and showing your strength whilst offering an olive branch. A
critical preparation for this is to have your fall-back alternative to a
negotiated agreement ready, and to show that you are prepared to use it.

Competitive Negotiation

In competitive negotiation, the approach is to treat the process as a

competition that is to be won or lost. Competitive negotiation may be be
known as distributive, positional or hard-bargaining negotiation.

Zero sum

The basic assumption of competitive negotiation is that it is a 'zero sum

game'. That is, the people involved believe that there is a fixed amount to be
gained which both people desire, and if one person gains then the other
person loses. It is like arguing over a pie: if one person gets a piece of the
pie then the other person does not.

Win-lose

The outcome of zero-sum negotiation is defined in terms of winners and

losers. One person gets what they want and feels smug (or maybe a bit
guilty), while the other person loses out and feels cheated or a failure.

Substance only

In competitive negotiation, the substance of what is being traded is the only

real concern, and dealings are done in a hard and 'what I can get' way.
A way of thinking zero-sum is to translate everything into financial terms.

Thus, for example, if you are buying or selling a car, you think first in terms
of its resale value. The only perceived negotiable for many competitive
negotiators is price.

Unimportant relationship

In competitive negotiation, the relationship between the people is

unimportant. They do not care about one another or what the other thinks
about them. This typically occurs in one-off sales where 'caveat emptor' is a
key rule.

To show concern for the other person is to show weakness that may be
taken advantage of. This can lead to trickery where false concern is shown,

and reactions where any show of concern is perceived as likely trickery (and
can lead to attempts of two-faced double-dealing).

Competitive strategy

Competitive strategies that seek substantial gains focus on hard exchange

and may descend into deceptive double-dealing.

Hard exchange

In a hard exchange, what is being exchanged is clear and above-board and

both sides agree to the deal. There is no trickery or pressure and the players
agree to the exchange, albeit with one person potentially more satisfied than
the other.

The hard exchange is like a fair fight. Both players accept the rules and play
cleanly (although perhaps based more on a respect for the rules than
respect for the other person). This may be encouraged by potential
punishment for double dealing, such as in the litigation that sellers may face.

Double dealing

The alternative method of competitive negotiation is to throw the rulebook

out of the window and resort to tricky approaches such as aggression and
deception. Either party may tell lies and use verbal or even physical
persuasive methods. We are all bound by internal values and the level of
trickery or physicality used will vary along a spectrum. Although we may find
this distasteful, we all know that it happens and many of us have been less
than fully truthful in our negotiations.

Balanced Negotiation

Summary of differences

There are a number of differences between Competitive and Collaborative

negotiation, which are summarized in the following table:

Characteristi
Competitive approach
c

Collaborative approach

Relationship

Long-term

Temporary

Consideration Self

Both parties

Atmosphere

Distrust

Trust

Focus

Positions

Interest

Aim to gain

Advantage,
concession

Fair agreement

Information

Concealed, power

Shared, open

Strategy

End justifies means

Objective and fair

rules

Tactics

Coercion, tricks

Stick to principles

Outcome

Win-lose

Win-win

The way between

Between competitive and collaborative negotiation is a narrow path where

competitive elements highlight win-lose elements and where collaborative
concerns temper any Machiavellian tendencies.

It is in this gray zone between black and white where many real-life
negotiations tread, as the participants struggle between the need to achieve
their more immediate substantive goals whilst also keeping within social
norms and personal values.

It is within this middle way that social norms can vary greatly. In some
global cultures, it is acceptable, or even expected, that negotiations are full
of rude personal insults and outrageous lies, yet in other cultures, even a
hint of rudeness would cause the negotiation to be immediately called off. In
fact, the insulting and apparently highly competitive approach often works
within strict social rules and, when the negotiation concludes, the parties can
act as friendly acquaintances again.

When either side of the negotiation table comes from a different negotiation
culture, then the results can be quite interesting. It can be entertaining, for
example, to watch a polite (in their terms) Western person trying to barter in
an Eastern market. Even within national cultures, different social positions
can lead to very different styles.

The trick, then, is to first understand the other person's natural negotiating
style and the degree of movement into gray areas that they will expect or
accept. When you have identified the style boundaries in which they
negotiate, then you can adapt your style to find an optimally effective
solution.

Industrial Relations Negotiations

Negotiation in industrial situations are typified by trade union

negotiationswhere a team from the trade union seeks to gain better pay and
working conditions from a reluctant management.

Although many companies are more enlightened about such negotiations

these days, the 'traditional' confrontational methods are illustrative of a
particular style and still may be found in many other organizations.

Confrontation and competition

The typical industrial negotiation between trade unions and managers can be
very confrontational and competitive in style.

Team negotiation

Both sides of the negotiation usually have multiple members on their teams.
A team is typically led by a lead negotiator and supported by experts and
people whose main job is to observe the other side and watch for body
language and other subtle signals.
The presence of several people can create a sense of intimidation. This is
exacerbated if they are physically large, look scary and use aggressive body
language.

Robust style

The standard opener is with the trade union making demands that have
been determined through many meetings and deliberations. They are usually
very well prepared and have a clear concession strategy and walk-away
alternative (that typically involves strike action or other punishment).
Managers also may respond in kind, flatly refusing any possibility of pay
rises or reducing hours or maybe even requiring cuts in staff, pay or
conditions to cope with downturns in business.

Powerful brinksmanship

The industrial negotiation are also characterized by overt use of power,

threats and taking things to the edge (and over).

The power of the membership

The basic weapon of employees is refusal to work. The company could

punish one person or allow them to resign. However, the fact that trade
union are representing a large number of people gives them power, both in
the mandate that they bring and in the potential consequences of failure to
agree, for example in taking strike action or 'working to rule'.

Managers also have a strong mandate in their position and their more senior
managers will likely have given them a clear directive about what they can
and cannot offer. Their basic weapon is continued employment and provision
of amenities on the requirement that employees do specified work.

Argument and breakdown

Rather than gentle bargaining, the approach is often to play the game right
up to the wire, squeezing the maximum concessions out of the other side
without a great deal of consideration for the relationship.

This typically includes abrasive argument and strong use of negative

negotiation tactics. Negotiators may dramatically walk out of the room and
play a waiting or posturing game. In larger organizations particularly, the
press may be deliberately drawn into the game with each side pleading its
case to the public at large while journalists seek interesting angles for their
stories.

Mediation and arbitration

When relationships break down and trust has completely evaporated such
that either or both sides refuse to negotiate further, the only chance of
resolution comes from the use of third parties.

There is a dilemma in using third parties as, for such arrangements to work,
both sides of the negotiation need to agree on who they will both trust.
Independent organizations exist to carry out such services and these may
need to be interviewed by either side before they are hired.

Mediation

Mediators shuttle up and down between the two sides, impartially carrying
messages and encouraging the warring parties to find some place of
agreement. The mediator may also coach the negotiators, showing how their
current position is unlikely to result in a desired resolution and that some
movement is necessary.

Arbitration
If mediation does not work, then an arbitrator may be engaged. This person
listens to both sides and then tells them what the solution will be. In order
for this to work, both sides must first agree to be bound by whatever the
arbitrator decides. Generally, the arbitrator will look at similar cases in other
circumstances as well as the demands and constraints of both sides before
making their final judgment.

Modern consideration

These days there are a number of more enlightened trade unions and also
enlightened managers who at last realize that competition within the
company is not good for business and not good for jobs.
The result is that a lot more collaborative negotiation can be found in the
modern workplace, although competitive and combative approaches can still
be found.

Managing Board Negotiations

Top management teams often have to negotiate amongst themselves for the
limited resources in the organization, whether it is budget, people or
something else. Although this pattern appears largely in companies, it also
happens at national levels, where a cabinet of ministers jostle for power and
budgets.

Power and control

Something that defines the people at the top of the company is that they
have, by dint of their position, significant control over the working lives of
many people. The cogwheels at the top of the company turn a few degrees
and the wheels at the bottom spin like mad. They also may control
significant budgets, which they gain through potentially quite political
negotiations and often at the expense of other directors.

People who rise to the top of the pile very often are both motivated by power
and are very good at acquiring it and using it. The top team thus represents

the most powerful people in the company who are skilled at managing and
using that power.

Together and apart

The managing board has a unique dilemma in that, while they negotiate with
one another for resources and may disagree about strategy or policy, they
are still a single unit with a single purpose of sustaining and growing the
company. This cohesive force provides a common drive in their negotiations
and decision-making that pushes them towards agreement.

The board members thus experience contradictory forces and have to

manage this dilemma of being both together and apart. As board members,
they must appear as a single mind to employees, investors and the public at
large. Yet as heads of their own functions, they must battle for resources
and, as leaders one step below the ultimate position, they may build empires
and seek approval of their chief.

Power deals and horse trading

The style of negotiation of board members, then, may well be quite political
and often makes use of whatever forms of power they have at their disposal.
Whilst decision-making may appear as polite (or maybe not so polite) debate
in the boardroom, much of the negotiation happens in the corridors of power
or on the golf course. Alliances and coalitions may form and the use (and
calling in) of favors are used to gain power and achieve goals.

Conflict at the top can actually be quite healthy and is better than a backslapping country club or a timid following of the chief's orders. Open
disagreement, where the benefits of shareholders, customers and employees
are balanced and debated, will help create a healthy culture. Constructive
criticism of alternative strategies will lead to a better way forward.

Executive conflict fails where personal ambition overshadows the real job of
creating value for shareholders and other stakeholders. When power-play is
used to grab control and discredit other board members, the net result is
personal gain and company loss.

Sometimes companies indirectly reward this negative activity, with bonuses

based on individual performance rather than team success. Sometimes also
the boost to the sense of control is sufficient to motivate dysfunctional
behavior.

International Negotiations

Between countries

International negotiation is as it says: inter-national. It is about negotiation

between countries. International negotiation occurs all the time between
governments and is the main subject of this page. It also happens between
individuals and companies, where the traps and tricks of cross-border
negotiation can ensnare even the most experienced home-country
negotiators.

International negotiation is often not just between individual people, but

between large delegations, each of which is well organized and where every
person has specialized and skilled work. There may be cultural experts,
linguists and subject specialists as well as a chief negotiator and support
negotiators. In a complex negotiation, there may be multiple and interlined
sub-negotiations going on at the same time, for example where a trade
negotiation includes a deal involving various industries and interests.

Cultural confusion

A big trap in negotiation lies in misunderstanding the culture of other

countries, especially in the rules they use to negotiate. While one country
may emphasize politeness and integrity, another might use deception and
coercive methods as a norm of negotiation (although they may still be polite
and friendly outside the negotiation arena).

It is easy to offend people from other cultures without realizing what you are
doing. Body language, and particularly gestures, can have very different
meaning, and what may seem an innocent movement to one person can be
extremely rude to another.

Diplomacy and tact

International negotiation, done well, takes very careful notice of local

cultures and customs, and is often conducted with remarkable diplomacy
and tact. Good international negotiators are very smooth and practiced in
their art, and ensure they are extremely well informed not only about
national cultures but also about the very individual perceptions of the people
on the others side.

The complexity and care of international negotiations may mean that the
process can take an inordinately long time, quite likely months and possibly
even years. Some negotiations never conclude, but the very fact that the
two sides are talking is sufficient to distract them from more violent
interplay.

Blocs and alliances

International negotiation often happens between many countries at the

same time. These may band together into economic blocs (such as the
European Union) or develop shorter-term strategic alliances, such as where
smaller countries band together to confront a dominant larger nation.
Such collective negotiations are often as much marriages of convenience as
the joint action of true friends. Whilst international relationships are
essential, each country eventually puts its own needs above the needs of
others. Even when countries go to war on behalf of one another, the ultimate
goal is still national at root.

War and destruction

International negotiation can be about life and death, literally, and even
survival of the entire planet. In the cold war period, Russia and America
engaged in an endless series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) to
prevent the horrors of mutually-assured destruction (MAD). More recently,
negotiations on limiting global warming have met with limited success that
may yet (depending on who you believe) lead to even more damaging
outcomes than nuclear war.

The madness of not agreeing on matters of global survival illustrates well the
difficulties of international negotiation. It is easy on the international stage

to paint yourself into a corner, and for personal posturing and political
ambition to morph into extreme and ultimately foolish acts.

Political Negotiation

In politics, both national and local, negotiation can be a brutal careerchanging affair. Whilst some negotiation takes a friendly and collaborative
approach, many exchanges are based on personal and political gains.
Perhaps more than other methods, political negotiation makes most use of
social power.

Favors and back-scratching

A common scenario in the political arena occurs where one person has some
legislation which they want to get approved. In order pass this, they first
have to get a majority of their own party to back the proposal. Whilst many
may agree, they may also see this as an opportunity to ratchet up the points
they are owed or demand a particular concession.

Political parties are typified by an inner circle (and maybe more circles with
circles). Currying favor with those higher up in the party who have greater
influence and power is a normal route to advancement. 'Old boy' networks of
people who went to the same schools or belong the same societies may
abound, as will a social web of real and convenient friendships.

Negotiations are integral to the fabric of daily political life and their effects
ripple outwards into the future. To be a politician is to navigate treacherous
shoals and clearer waters of the history and effects of negotiations by many
other people as well as yourself.

Skeletons and blackmail

Politicians live on their public persona and anything that might besmirch
their squeaky-clean image can be not only damaging but finish their career
in very short order. Stories from a mis-spent youth can come back to haunt
politicians later in life, for example with questions as to whether they
experimented with drugs. Sexual adventures are also a wonderful hunting
ground for opponents and journalists.

Negotiations that were used in the past to climb the political ladder may also
prove unwise at a later date. A classic here is allowing political influence
from major sponsors. If a person or company contributes funds to your
party, they may well believe that you owe them something in return, which
they will one day call in -- and may threaten to expose the politician if the
obligation is not returned as requested.

An effect of all this is that much energy is spent in covering up any careerlimiting history, which itself then becomes even more corrupt. The net result
is that many people in the political arena have something to hide, leading to
the stalemate of a tacit agreement to not expose others if they do not
expose you.

When a new person appears on the scene, this can lead to a flurry of
research into their background and a determined seduction of them in order
to bring them into the fold of safe corruption.

Of course the extent to which this happens is unlikely to be universal -- but

we are also unlikely to ever find out that which is well-hidden. There are

politicians who, against currents of subtle corruption, maintain their integrity

throughout their careers, which may be limited as a result of their refusal to
compromise on their ideals.

Selling and Buying

Business to business

Much selling is not done to the general public, but from one business to
another. These 'B2B' sales are typified by being for much larger sums than
the general consumer sale. Businesses buy in bulk, spending large sums in
order to minimize unit costs and hence gain economies of scale. Where they
make individual purchases for such as computers or industrial machines,
they cannot afford to buy low-quality equipment that will easily break down.
Stoppages in production can be far more costly than spending more on
acquiring reliable equipment.

This, coupled with the common need of the sales person to make multiple
repeat sales means that they will most likely seek to use relationship selling
rather than use the trickier one-off selling methods.

The professional buyer

In industrial buying and selling, the person doing the buying has a significant
responsibility to get the best deal for their company whilst not buying
shoddy goods. Professional purchasing people are thus used, who are

qualified and experienced in their craft, and may even have gone on the
same sales training courses as the people who are going to sell to them.
Professional buyers can easily spot closing techniques and objectionhandling and will push back strongly against any inappropriate manipulation
by the sales person. They do need sales people from suppliers, but will seek
those who will take time to understand their real business needs and offer
superior value.

The rest of the clan

The sales person may need to persuade a range of other people across the
customer company, in particular three customer types. There may be many
presentations and exchanges which form the overall negotiation. In some
circumstances the purchasing manager may make the primary purchasing
decisions, but in other circumstances they support the negotiation but make
neither the initial nor final choice.

Hostage Negotiations

A hostage negotiation happens when a criminal or deranged person uses

innocent people as bargaining chips.

About hostage situations

This can happen in a range of circumstances, including:

A desperate mother who barricades herself in with her own child.

A bank robber who is disturbed on the job.

Terrorists who take foreign nationals.

Thus:

There may be one or more hostages of any age

The situation may be planned or ad hoc.
There may be one or more hostage-takers, who are usually armed.

In the more extreme hostage situation, the hostage-taker has several

choices:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Kill hostages or release them.

Kill themselves by their own hand or in a shoot-out.
Negotiate a way out (often desired, seldom possible).
Give themselves up.

Fortunately for most of us, we never meet these situations. Fortunately for
those who become hostages, there are professionals whose job it is to get
them safely released.

First arrival

Police will on a hostage scene before a negotiator and may be trained to use
the ICER concept.
Isolate
Isolate the hostage zone, creating an outer perimeter and keeping keep
onlookers beyond the police safety line.
Contain
Limit the mobility of the hostage taker to the smallest area possible (the
inner perimeter) and prevent them from observing police activity.
Evaluate

Evaluate the original information provided, which may be from the hostage
taker or a representative, or perhaps a member of the public.
Without causing any escalation, gather as much additional information as
possible, including the number of hostage takers and hostages, their
appearance, weapons and so on.
Assess the threat and estimate the resources that may be needed to handle
the situation.
Report
Report all available information gathered, including on the hostage takers
and hostages, events, weapons, zones, routes and so on, informing other
officers and the chain of command.

Assessing the situation

Preventing early harm

The first job of the hostage negotiator is to assure safety. When they arrive
on the scene, there may be armed police, high emotion and general
confusion in which hostages may get hurt.
Their immediate task is to get a swift briefing from the officer in charge and
to ensure that any actions by the police do not lead to hostages being
harmed. The police (or whatever authority is in charge) may have a high
interest in capturing the hostage-taker, whilst the negotiator is only
interested in the safety of the hostages.
Getting organized
The next step is to organize communications with the hostage-takers.
Hostage-takers usually want this, to make their demands known. If the
negotiation looks like it could take some time (which may be days or more),
then a permanent position must be found. There may also be covert
monitoring, for example with window lasers and hidden cameras. Everything
that provides information is used, including relatives, friends and other
sources.

Finding information

The negotiator will want to find as much information about the situation as
possible, including:

The numbers and names of the hostage-takers.

What they are demanding and what they really want.
Their emotional state and how close they are to harming hostages.
The numbers and general health of hostages.

Some of this information may be available from the authorities. Other will be
gained from the hostage-takers. In the early conversation with them, which
is very much about listening, the negotiators may find out much of this.
Some other information may take a while to extract.

The hostage-takers will want to make their demands known, but may be
very cagey with other information as they fear deception and attack.
The police will also want all information, including the location of everyone in
the situation, in case an armed assault is required.

Getting close

A critical process used in many hostage negotiations is to get close to them,

to build bonds and gain their trust.

Creating normality
Whilst there may be chaos and panic on all sides, the negotiator first seeks
to create calm. They talk in a calm voice and do a great deal of listening. In

particular, they seek to establish a sense of normality amongst the emotion,

a space in which the hostage-takers can talk with the negotiator as
reasonable people, much as you would talk with any normal person on the
phone.
The negotiator is always there and always ready to talk. They will listen to
everything and will create an even keel on which reasonable negotiation can
be conducted.
Creating humanity
Within the normality, the negotiator listens uncritically to the hostage-taker,
accepting them as they are and creating a sense of humanity. From that
humanity, they then can extend to discussing the hostages, how they are
bearing up and whether they are unwell.
Developing authority
The negotiator may also seek to position themselves as an authority figure.
This can start by being authoritative on behalf of the hostage-taker, for
example in getting them communications and food. This may later turn to
being authoritative with the hostage-taker, which can be a tricky and
dangerous activity as the hostage-taker wants to be in charge. Authoritative
work may thus be done in particular circumstances. If the negotiators can
establish this relationship, they may be able to direct the hostage-taker's
actions more effectively.

Developing the scene

Once a relationship is established, the negotiator can seek to move the

situation forward.
Small steps
Progress may be in small steps, as trust and relationships continue to be
built. Food and medicine may be given. Conversation with a hostage may be
requested. Everyday chat creates normality.

Depending on the urgency of the situation, the negotiator may seek to speed
up or slow down the talking. If hostages are hurt, then speed may be
needed. If the hostage-takers are requiring transport or other things that
would lead to more problems, then it may be more prudent to insert delays,
such as saying you are 'looking into it'.
Managing stress
Stress and tension will continue throughout the negotiation in some way. The
negotiator may deliberately manage this, reducing stress to create hostage
safety, but also possibly increasing stress to wear down the hostage-taker.
Exploring solutions
Talks will eventually get around to what can be done to resolve the situation.
The negotiator may ask the hostage-taker for their thoughts and may offer
possibilities themselves. Of course the safe release of the hostages is always
an important element.
The goal of the hostage taker may be simply to escape and may be for
publicity or other gain. If this is not acceptable to the authorities, for
example release of a captured terrorist leader, then other alternatives must
be found.

Releasing the hostages

Wearing them down

Sometimes, just talk, talk, talk is enough to wear down the hostage-takers
and for them to give themselves up. High emotions do not last forever and
are followed by exhaustion. The ideal negotiation ends with the hostagetaker agreeing to let everyone go.
Releasing the weak
Depending on the number of people taken hostage, a release of children, old
people and those with medical conditions may be negotiated. It allows the

hostage-takers to show that they are not 'bad' people after all and also rids
them of the problems of illness and wailing children.
Concessions for people
People may also be exchanged for various concessions, from food to
publicity. When something is given to the hostage-takers, especially if it is
on their list of demands, then a concession may be requested in return, with
the ultimate concession of hostage release.
The final assault
It is a very delicate balance for the negotiator when no clear exchange can
be found and the hostage-takers look like they are going to kill hostages.
Whilst they are seeking to create exchange, the negotiator must also find
the point at which they pull the plugs and let the armed forces take over.
Even though some hostages may be killed, force may ultimately be the best
solution to minimize total harm.

Domestic Negotiation

Domestic negotiation includes all the exchanges that you have in the home
environment, whether with your partner, children or other residents or
neighbors.

Little things writ large

In the grand scheme of things, domestic negotiations are seldom the most
critical things for humanity. Yet they happen and include many significant
decisions.

When your time at home is a big part of your life, then what may appear
small to others becomes larger for you. When others at home do things
about which you disapprove, then this can be remarkably annoying. I, for
example, hate it when people leave lights switched on everywhere. My wife
is not very keen on the way I leave piles of books in assorted corners.

And so we negotiate at home most of the time, whether it is to answer the

phone or to decide where to go on holiday.

Love and hate

It is difficult to exclude emotions from domestic negotiations. In fact, other

than such traumatic circumstances as hostage negotiations, few negotiations
can raise the emotional temperature so far and so fast. Love and hate can
change places in seconds and domestic disputes lead to physical or
psychological harm on too many occasions.

Almost by definition, you have an emotional relationship with others in your

household, whether they are your children or house guests. This relationship
is easily dragged into the negotiation and can quickly become a weapon ('if
you love me, you'll do what I want').

Persistence and creativity

Domestic negotiators are, by definition, amateurs. They lack the subtly of

industrial sellers and buyers or international negotiators, yet they can be
remarkably effective.

Children, in particular, are an arch-example of how lack of training does not

mean lack of skill. They famously and frequently run rings around their
exhausted parents, playing mom and dad against one another or just
nagging and whining until they get their way. They may not have subtlety,
but they do have persistence and creativity, two of the key attributes that
make for successful negotiation.

Everyday Negotiation

Everybody, every day

'Everyday negotiation' is a simple description of the negotiations in which we

engage every day. And we do negotiate, almost every time that we meet
another person.

Silent negotiation

We even negotiate silently with strangers as we dance past them on the

street. We look at them, they look at us. One of us leans the body slightly
one way, the other lean the other way. The leans turn into swerves. Or
maybe one person just goes straight and the other has to dodge around.

Conversational dancing

In conversation, we want others to listen to us, which is a negotiation in

itself as we seek to interrupt their flow. We wait for our turn or dive quickly

into the pause. A slightly raised voice at the start of our speech is often used
to firmly grab the talking stick.
Then we get even more serious as we try to change their minds.
At a crass level, we just assert our ideas and work on the principle that
because they are obvious truths to us, they must be obvious truths to
others. More subtly, we try to see things from their viewpoint and genuinely
try to persuade.
Yet we are still amateurs.

Amateur vs. professional

Where things get particularly tense for us is when we have to buy something
from a professional sales person. All at once, we are up against someone
who knows that they are doing and knows what we are thinking. Sometimes
we know this and sometimes we are lambs to the slaughter. Either way, if we
are not careful we can end up with a much worse deal than we realize.

Joe buys a car

A classic scenario is where Joe (or Jane or you) buys a car.

Joe drives up to the sales lot in his old Ford. The sales person smiles broadly
at Joe and shakes his hand.
'Hello sir, what are you looking for today?'
Joe smiles back and frowns. 'I need a new car.'
'Indeed sir.' The sales person also contemplates the Ford and shakes his
head. 'Well, you've come at just the right time, sir. We've some new stock in,
including some very popular Toyotas. I never keep those cars long. They're
so comfortable and reliable that people in the know go for them every time.'

Joe raises his eyebrows. 'Toyota? I wasn't thinking about them. Can you
show me one?'
'Certainly sir. Just sit in this lovely blue one over here...There, how does that
feel?...Now watch this...'
Joe seems impressed and asks how much.
'Before we get to that, sir, I'd just like to show you another car. We've only
one and it's just in the back at the moment, but I can see that you
appreciate good motoring so I thought I'd let you have a go. In fact my
manager's not in yet, so why don't we go for a drive in it...'
Guess which car Joe drives off the lot, with a smile on his face and a hole in
his finances that will horrify his wife. Never mind. Bill next door will be green
with envy.

Hierarchical Negotiation

Domestic hierarchy

Hierarchy starts at home, where the most fundamental hierarchy is that of

parent-child.

Parent power

We grow up with the imbalance of parents in charge and children who, at

least for some time, were seen and not heard. Parents have financial,

resource and (at least for a while) a physical advantage. Even though we
railed against it from time to time, it gave us a sense of security that harked
back to very early childhood where we instinctively clung to our mothers for
safety.

Our parents provide the dual key needs of a sense of control and a sense of
identity from early in our lives. In exchange, they demand our respect and
often obedience.

Even later in life, our parents have a unique sway over what we think and
do. Depending on the family and culture, parents may be friendly advisors or
harsh dictators. Matriarchs and patriarchs are a regular feature around the
world.

Child power

When children argue and leave, parents suffer terribly. The children's
bargaining chips, of compliance and relationship, are deployed even at an
early age when they refuse to hug a parent who has upset them.

Asymmetrical negotiation

Domestic negotiation is affected by this hierarchy, with parents doing more

telling and children doing more disobedience. This hierarchical relationship
may thus seem imbalanced, but the exchange is simply different.
Asymmetrical negotiation works when a balance can be found in which each
has something the other wants and each has the power to change how the
other feels. It is, in the end, the relationship on which domestic negotiations
stand or fall.

Social hierarchy

The hierarchies that we learn at our parent's knees are often replicated
subconsciously in social relationships. The fact is we like hierarchies, they
make us feel comfortable and, as a result, they generally work simply
because they are a mechanism that most people respect.

Building the hierarchy

When we meet with others, one of the first things we try to discover is
whether they are superior or inferior to us. When we form groups and
teams, one of the early negotiations is about who is going to be the leader
and how the pecking order is going to work. Only when this 'storming' is
complete will the team function effectively. If every command or request is
debated, opposed or negotiated, then things will happen very slowly indeed.

When it's not a hierarchy

Social negotiation often works in a networked sense, in that to create any

significant change you need to generate a groundswell of opinion. This
means selling your ideas to many people, which typically requires a lot of
time and energy. Much social power lies with opinion leaders to whom many
other people will listen and accept new ideas. Social negotiation is more
effective if you can reach these people and get them to spread your ideas
further.

Hierarchy at work

In the workplace, a part of the contract of employment is that you will

respect the chain of command, and that disobedience and even disrespect of
a manager may be grounds for instant dismissal.

Boss power

Managers have the power vested in their position to tell their subordinates
what to do. They allocate work to people and, possibly as a negotiating ploy,
may offer more desirable work to those who play the game.
Managers also make decisions about pay and promotion. If they like you,
then you can climb the hierarchy. If they do not, then your career may be
seriously limited. This power can reach beyond the company as they may
give bad references to people who leave under a cloud of some sort.
Managers generally can be less pleasant to their employees than their
employees have to be to them. Of course there are rules and harassment is
not allowed in many companies. Yet the manager can still make the life of
their people more or less comfortable, and it is the implied threat of this that
can have a significant effect on general motivation and in specific
negotiations.

Worker power

Workers also have power. First, they have the power of expertise, of being
able to do the job. They then have the power of their two feet: they are not
captives and may leave at any time (although personal financial
circumstances may make this difficult). Workers also have the power of the
collective, and may negotiate not as individuals but in the form of industrial
relations negotiations, as used by trade unions.

Another form of power that is often forgotten is how bosses are human and
want to be liked. A part of the reason that people want promotion is so
others will look up to them and hence support their identity needs. A little
flattery goes a long way and being nice to your manager builds social capital
that can be of significant weight in individual negotiations.

Individual negotiation

As opposed to industrial relations negotiations, individual negotiation at work

can be asymmetrical in a similar way to parent-child negotiation. The
manager may ask, though this is generally a face-saving way of telling.
When a manager says 'Can you do this, please', they usually mean 'do this'.
Workers, on the other hand, need to think particularly carefully about how
they will change the manager's mind, and may marshal evidence and
otherwise employ more subtle techniques.
Managers may be concerned with leadership, which is less hierarchical as it
implies optional followership. They may also be concerned with motivation of
their people and so be careful about the demands that they make.

Remote Negotiation

When negotiating, you do not need to be face-to-face with the other party.
You can use telephone, email, letter and so on. This remote nature of

negotiation however does change the dynamic.

Face-to-face

When people negotiate face-to-face, they are forced to consider social

niceties more than when they are negotiating remotely. Face-to-face
negotiations hence tend to be more civilized, with more concessions made
and a higher likelihood of reaching a successful agreement.

Telephone

When face-to-face is not possible, the telephone is the next best thing.
However, when people negotiate over the phone, the communicative
elements of body language are lost, from gestural signals to eye-to-eye
contact. This loss can make agreement more difficult to reach, although if a
good relationship has already been established, and particularly if there has
already been face-to-face contact, then this can be very helpful.
With increasing use of video conferencing, the loss of the visual aspect can
be mitigated, although the quality of the image and also of the sound can
still have a significant effect for the better or the worse.

Email or letter

Negotiation by email or letter further separates the two parties such that
they do not have to speak to one another.
This method is asynchronous, as there is a delay between each person

'speaking'. This allows time for careful consideration, research and

consultation with others, but also stretches out the conversation possibly
over a rather long period Where the parties are further apart, it can hence
take a long time to to reach agreement. If, however, there is a need for
agreement, this may be reached in only a few exchanges.
Email messages are notoriously terse and the additional communication
through voice tone and body language are lost, leading to the potential for
misunderstanding and conflict.

Negotiation by proxy

A proxy is an intermediary, a person who takes your demands and offers

and communicates them to the other person. The proxy may be a mutual
acquaintance, a lawyer, a mediator or some other person. This may be
necessary if the parties are already in conflict or where trust is low.
In negotiation by proxy, the parties may never meet or even know who
they are. This can lead to stereotyping, objectification and other
caricaturing of each other, which can lead to further problems.
Where negotiation by proxy can work well is where the proxy, who must be
trusted by both parties, acts as a trust substitute and facilitates an
equitable agreement.

See also

Trust

The Eight-Stage Negotiation

Process
Disciplines > Negotiation > The Eight-Stage Negotiation Process
This is a unique combination framework that puts together the best of many
other approaches to negotiation. It is particularly suited to more complex,
higher-value and slower negotiations.
1. Prepare: Know what you want. Understand them.
2. Open: Put your case. Hear theirs.
3. Argue: Support your case. Expose theirs.
4. Explore: Seek understanding and possibility.
5. Signal: Indicate your readiness to work together.
6. Package: Assemble potential trades.
7. Close: Reach final agreement.
8. Sustain: Make sure what is agreed happens.
There are deliberately a larger number of stages in this process as it is
designed to break down important activities during negotiation, particularly
towards the end. It is an easy trap to try to jump to the end with a solution
that is inadequate and unacceptable.
Note also that in practice, you may find variations on this model, for
example where there may be loops back to previous stages, stages
overlapping, stages running parallel and even out of order.
The bottom line is to use what works. This process is intended to help you
negotiate, but do not use it blindly. It is not magic and is not a substitute for
thinking. If something does not seem to be working, try to figure out why
and either fix the problem or try something else. Although there are
commonalities across negotiations, each one is different and the greatest
skill is to be able to read the situation in the moment and adapt as
appropriate.

Three-Stage Negotiation
The Three-stage negotiation process is a quick and easy method of reaching
agreement in the many different short situations you may find yourself in
where the eight-stage negotiation process is too complex a process for you.
Typical situations where a short negotiation is used includes domestic
requests and retail purchases.

The three stages are simply:

1. Open: Say what you want
2. Bargain: Hammer out the deal
3. Close: Agree and exchange
Open

Request

Say what you want from the other person. Keep your description clear and
unambiguous. Make it clear whether you want them to do something, allow
you to do something, agree with something, just listen to you, tell you
something, and so on.

Explain

It is often useful to explain why you want what you asked. This both helps
the other person decide exactly what to give you and also can act to
persuade them.
When the request is difficult to make, it can be preferable to justify the
request beforehand, showing that you have a legitimate need. Early
explanation of the problem you are trying to solve is also useful if you are
not very clear yourself exactly what is needed.

Offer

Tell them what you will do in exchange for them fulfilling your request. If
they are doing you a favor, you can still say how grateful you will be.

Sometimes the offer is to not do something -- for example when you make a
threat to do something if they do not comply with your request.

Example

Request: Can you please go to bed now, with no complaints.

Explain: You've got school in the morning, and you need your rest.
Offer: I don't want to get cross again.

Bargain

In bargaining, you are seeking to find an agreeable exchange. This is done

with probes and signals before the actual trade is done.

Probe

Listen to their response to your request, including any counter-requests that

they make. Hear any resistance that they offer (this can tell you a great deal
about them).
Probe for details of what they want, why they want it, and why they may not
want to comply with your request.
If they initiated the negotiation, then you might arrive at the negotiation at
this stage, with no chance to open. If this is so, you should still listen and
probe as necessary. Do not move on to trading until you are ready.

Signal

Show that you are ready to negotiate by sending signals that you might
change your request or agree to some alternative arrangement. You can
then wait for a signal back from them or, if it seems appropriate, go straight
to a trade.

Trade

Put together things that you want with things that they want and offer these
as a possible package for the other person to agree. If it looks like you are
close to agreement, then move to closure.
Use trades to handle objections. Offer something in exchange for them
withdrawing their reasons for not agreeing with you.

Example

Probe: Why do you need to stay up? How long do you want to stay up?
Signal: Your bedtime should be ten o'clock, you know.
Trade: You can stay up another 30 minutes, but I want you up and out of
bed by seven o'clock in the morning! OK?

Close

Propose

Make a proposal for the exchange, summarizing what you expect from the
other and what you will give them in return (if anything). Include everything
that you believe is necessary and sufficient to achieve an agreement.
Use closing techniques and other negotiation tactics as appropriate. Watch
out for what the other person is doing in this area and resist any tricks or
handle opposition as needed.

Agree

Check to make sure the other person understands the deal and is ready to
make the exchange. Summarize the agreement as necessary. Be clear about
whether the deal is reversible (for example in a shop, can you take the
goods back?
Handle opposition as needed, including appropriate use of objection-handling
techniques.
Write down what has been agreed as necessary, for example in an email.
Get what written confirmation you need and delay the exchange if you need
to check the details with somebody else.

Exchange

Complete the deal by making any exchanges as agreed. If the other side has
said that they will do something then they should do it.

Ensure you get receipts and other proof of exchange as necessary,

particularly if these are needed to reverse the agreement or claim later
benefits, such as warranty returns.
As necessary, you can follow up later to ensure that they have completed all
the things that they said that they would do.
It is often a nice thing to do to offer a little extra reward, such as thanks or
praise for completing their commitment.

Example

Propose: If I bring you a cup of lemon tea, will you go to bed now?
Agree: Right. You'll be in bed in ten minutes, when I'll bring the tea. OK?
Exchange: Here's the tea. Good to see you're tucked up well.

Negotiation activities
There are a number of specific activities that you may be doing before and
during a negotiation. Note that a number are about preparation. Many
negotiations fail less because of poor preparation but simply failure to
prepare at all. Some negotiations happen on the spur of the moment and
hence are difficult to prepare for, yet for many others spending some quality
time getting ready can pay dividends, especially when the stakes are high.
These are given below:

Location Management: Many ways of getting the best place to

negotiate.
Researching the Other Side: Finding out who they are and how they
will react.
Finding Variables: Seeking the many things that you can exchange.

Finding Fair Criteria: Agreeing on how to agree.

Building Rapport: Connecting with them.
Creating a Constructive Negotiation Climate: Setting a good climate of
trust and focus.
Guiding Decisions: Helping them decide what you want.
Handling Opposition: When the other side gets negative.
Identifying WEB Requirements: Three preparations.
Isolating the Issues: Finding the real problem.
Behavior Labeling: Saying what you will do.
Prioritizing: Deciding what is more (and less) important.
Developing Your Walk-away: Be ready to walk away with nothing.
Deploying Your Walk-away: Steadily walking towards the door.

Negotiation Mistakes
Negotiation is a difficult art as it requires managing, in real-time, both the
other person's mind and your own.
Here are a number of mistakes that negotiators can make (and what you can
do about them).

Accepting Positions: Assuming the other person won't change their

position.
Accepting Statements: Assuming what the other person says is wholly
true.
Cornering Them: Giving them no alternative but to fight.
Hurrying: Negotiating in haste (and repenting at leisure).
Hurting the Relationship: Getting what you want but making an
enemy.
Issue Fixation: Getting stuck on one issue and missing greater
possibilities.
Missing Strengths: Not realizing the strengths that you actually have.
Misunderstanding Authority: Assuming that authority and power are
synonymous.
Misunderstanding Power: Thinking one person has all the power.
One Solution: Thinking there is only one possible solution.
Over-Wanting: Wanting something too much.
Squeezing Too Much: Trying to gain every last advantage.
Talking Too Much: Not gaining the power of information from others.
Thinking in Absolutes: Assuming that there are only a few possibilities.

The Walk-away Trap: Becoming too fond of your walk-away option.

Unconditional Concessions: Giving things away without asking for
things in return.
Win-Lose: Assuming a fixed-pie, win-lose scenario.

Tricks, Kicks and Bricks

Many negative negotiation tactics can be divided into one of three

categories: Deception, coercion or prevention. An easier way of
remembering these is 'Tricks, Kicks and Bricks'.
These are not always 'bad', as the rules of negotiation in which you are
working may allow a certain amount of trickery. It is often important to know
these rules, particularly if you are in a foreign culture where seeminglyaggressive tactics are the norm.

Tricks

Many negotiation tactics are designed to deceive the other person in some
way, making them think or believe something that is perhaps not wholly true
or valid.
Deception (or 'tricks') is a very common part of many people's lives and
there is an evolutionary viewpoint that suggests we have big brains because
tricking others is a good strategy for survival and procreation. The bottom
line is that we all have experienced much deception and, if truth be told,
have probably used a lot as well.

Kicks

A more overt method of getting people to do what you want is to make it

impossible or at least rather uncomfortable for them to refuse.
Coercion (or 'kicks') occurs when a parent tells their child what to do or
when a manager orders their subordinates, with the underlying threat that
non-compliance will lead to dire events such as disciplinary action or
termination.
Coercion can also be physical, of course, but mostly it is psychological. It
also takes two to tango: one to attempt coercion and another to believe that
they have no alternative but to obey.

Bricks

A third method used during negotiations is to block the other person in some
way. By definition, both people in a negotiation have something that the
other wants, and each has the ultimate sanction available of not giving what
is required.
Prevention (or 'bricks') may occur when a person acts as a gateway to other
people or places. I can also prevent you from acquiring information simply
by refusing to fully and honestly answering your questions.

Sales methods
There are two types of selling that match two very different situations. If you
use the methods of one in the other, you may find that you are somewhat
less successful.

Methods

One-off selling: such as simple retail sales.

Relationship selling: such as business-to-business selling.
o SPIN: is a whole approach for Relationship selling
o Customer-Centered Selling is similar to SPIN and came from
Xerox's sales development.
System selling: Sell a system to a system.
High Probability Selling: Head straight for best customers.
Buying Facilitation: Facilitate the buyer's system.
The Challenger Sale: Making them think.

Acronyms
Sales methods and approaches are often reduced to simple frameworks and
acronyms that the sales person can remember and follow:

ADAPT: Assessment, Discovery, Activation, Projection, Transition

AIDA: Attention, Interest, Desire, Action
ARC: Ask, Recommend, Close and Cross-sell
CHaR: Confusion, Humor and Request.
FAB: Features, Attributes (or Advantages), Benefits.
LAIR: Listen, Acknowledge, Identify objection, Reverse it
LOCATE: Listen, Observe, Combine, Ask, Talk, Empathize
SELL: Show, Explain, Lead to benefits, Let them talk
SPIN: Questions about Situation, Problem, Implication, Need-Payoff

Negotiation Tactics
In negotiation, there are many tactics that you may meet or use. They can
be fair, foul or something in between, depending on the competitive or
collaborative style of the people involved and the seriousness of the
outcomes.

All I've Got: Limit apparent availability.

Auction: Set sellers or buyers against one another.
Bad Publicity: Indicate bad publicity of not agreeing.
Behavior Labeling: Saying what you will do.
Better Offer: indicate a better offer from the competition.
Better Than That: Just say 'You'll have to do better than that...'.

Biased Choice: Offering choices that already include your biases.

Big Fish: Show you're the big fish and they could get eaten.
Blackmail: Threaten negative consequences.
Bluff: Assert things that are not true.
Breaking it Off: Walking away from the negotiation.
Bribery: Do that and I'll give you this.
Brooklyn Optician: price or negotiate each item.
Call Girl: Ask to be paid up front.
Cards on the Table: State your case, clearly and completely.
Challenge Cause: Ask why, reframe purpose.
Change the Negotiator: New person can reset the rules.
Changing Standards: Change the benchmarks of good and bad.
Check the Facts: Bring up new information you have found.
Control the Agenda: And hence what is discussed.
Credentials: Show how clever you are.
Deadlines: Push them up against the wall of time.
Delays: Buying time and building tension.
Disruption: Break up their thinking and take charge.
Divide and Conquer: Get them arguing with one another.
Doomsday: paint an overly black picture.
Double Agent: Get one of their people on your side.
Dry Well: Show you've nothing left to exchange.
Empty Pockets: Say you can't afford it, don't have it, etc.
Empty Promises: Make promises that you know you will not keep.
Escalating Demand: the more you get the more you require.
Expanding the Pie: Ensuring there's more for everyone.
Fair Criteria: Set decisions criteria such that is is perceived as fair.
False Deadline: Time limitation on their action.
Faking: Letting them believe something about you that is not true.
Fame: Appeal to their need for esteem from others.
Flattery: Make them look good and then ask for concession.
Flip a Coin: Suggest random chance.
Food Control: Control what and when they eat and drink.
Forced Choice: Subtly nudging them toward your choice.
Funny Money: Financial games, percentages, increments, etc.
Fragmentation: Breaking big things into lots of little things.
Go For A Walk: Take time out to change.
Good Guy/Bad Guy: Hurt and rescue by people.
Highball: Sellers--start high and you can always go down.
Hire an Expert: Get an expert negotiator or subject expert on your
team.

Incremental Conversion: Persuade one person at a time. Then use

them as allies.
Interim Trade: Make an exchange during negotiation that will not get
into the final contract.
Invoke Rules: Bring up standards they should follow.
It'll be Alright on the Night: Promise future success.
Lawyer: Use survey results, facts, logic, leading question.
Leaking: Let them find out 'secret' information.
Linking: Connect benefit and cost, strong and weak.
Log-rolling: Concede on low-priority items.
Lowball: Buyers--start low and you can always go up.
Make a Mountain out of a Molehill: Amplify small things.
Misleading Information: Lead them up the wrong path.
New Issue: Introduce a new key issue during the negotiation.
New player: Another person who wants what you have appears on the
scene.
Nibbling: constant adding of small requirements.
No Authority: refuse to agree because you are not allowed to.
Non-negotiable: Things that cannot be negotiated.
Not Happy: Say you're not happy.
Odd One Out: Show they're they only one who wants this.
Off the Record: Make things informal.
Overwhelm: Cover them in requests or information.
Padding: Make unimportant things 'essential' then concede them.
Phasing: Offer to phase in/out the unpleasant bits.
Plant: A 'neutral' person who is really working for you.
Play Dumb: Act stupid to avoid clever stuff.
Using Policy: Is it your policy to...
Price Not Negotiable: So focus on other things.
Quivering Quill: ask for concession just before signing.
Red Herring: leave a false trail.
Russian Front: Two alternatives, one intimidating.
Reducing Choice: Offering a limited set of options.
Rollercoastering: Taking them on an up and down ride.
See You in Court: Threatening to go to a higher or public forum.
Shotgun: Refusal to continue until a concession is gained.
Side Payments: Add a cash balance.
Slicing: Break one deal down into multiple smaller deals.
Split the Difference: Offer to agree on a half-way position.
Suggest Facilitation: Get a third party involved.
Take a Break: Step out, change the flow.

Take It or Leave It: Give only one option.

Trial Balloon: Suggest a final solution and see if they bite.
Understanding, Not Agreement: Say you understand but don't agree.
Undiscussable: Things that cannot even be discussed.
War: Threaten extreme action.
What If: Introduce possibility.
Widows and Orphans: show the effect on the weak and innocent.
Wince: Repeat price loudly, then silence.
The Zone Defense: Individuals each have areas of responsibility.

All I've Got

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > All I've Got
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When buying something, say that you only have a limited sum of money.
Plead poverty. Let your body sag. Look sad.
If your are buying with cash, show them the money (prepare your wallet or
pocket beforehand, hiding other money in another pocket or elsewhere).
Look surprised that you do not have enough.
If the money is elsewhere, say the offer is all you are able to spend. Say this
is all that you have to spend on this item. Say your partner will not allow you
to spend more.
Example

Look. All I've got is 27.32. Will you take this? I've not got any more.
Oh dear. I've only got a 10. Is that enough?
Sorry, I'll get into trouble if I spend more than 25.
Discussion

Showing you have limited money demonstrates a real ceiling on what you
can pay, as opposed to what you might be persuaded to pay. This makes this
tactic very much a 'final offer' and which may hence persuade the other side
to take the offer. The demonstration of poverty is also a plea for sympathy,
suggesting that the other person should feel sorry for you and accept your
offer because this is a 'good' thing to do.
There is also an underlying suggestion that not only is this all you have in
cash today, but that this is all the money you have, and that you are offering
them everything you have in the world. For them to give you what you want
when they also have more than you shows an imbalance that they can help
redress by accepting your offer.
See also

Cards on the Table, Empty Pockets

Auction

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Auction

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When many parties want the same thing, set them against one another.
Bring them all together and let them know that only one will get what they
want.
This can be used to make both sellers and buyers compete.
Example

A normal auction is one in which bidders offer increasing prices until nobody
else makes an offer.

A Dutch Auction is one in which an initially high price is lowered until the
first bid, which secured the deal.
Discussion

When people know that they may lose out on something, then they will want
it even more.
We are naturally competitive animals, and when faced with others who want
the same thing, the goal can move from possession to simply winning the
competition. This is what happens in auctions when two people start bidding
against one another and go way beyond the item's true value.
See also

Scarcity principle
Bad Publicity

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation Tactics > Bad Publicity

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Point out that, if the other person gets what they are asking for, then they
will be criticized by others.
Show how knowledge of their actions will spread to a wide range of people.
Indicate that the people who will know and criticize are the people who the
other person particularly respects.
Example

If your parents find out about that they will not be happy.

Well, we could do that, but I don't think that the neighbors would be very
pleased.
You know that this is something that the newspapers would love to cover? I
don't think you'd look very good if that's all you did.
Discussion

It is surprising how important the opinions and esteem of others about us is.
In particular we fear criticism by others which may impact our social status.
We hence often base our decisions on social desirability as much as logic or
the substantive value of what we are seeking.
See also

Esteem, Belonging, Identity, Status

Behavior Labeling

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation activities > Behavior Labeling

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Say what you are going to do before you do it. You can also describe how
you want them to behave.
Describe a single activity or, if you can, detail the whole process that you will
use.
Ask the person if this makes sense to them. Deal with any objections they
have, then do what you said you would do.
If they object later on in the proceedings, explain how your are doing what
was agreed.

Example

I am going to ask you about your product features.

This is how I want to work. First I will describe our need, then you show how
you will meet the need, then we consider pricing. Does this make sense?
Discussion

When you say what you are about to do and then do it, this shows that you
are a reliable person and hence increases trust.
Asking if something 'makes sense' effectively works to gain agreement. If
they can make sense of what you are saying, there is an implied agreement
that it also makes sense to implement it.
Saying what you are about to do or talking about process slows things down
a little, which can be useful to give you some thinking space.
Discussing and agreeing process creates a sense of fairness, which makes it
subsequently more difficult for the other person to back out of any agreed
actions.
See also

Steering the conversation

Better Offer

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Better Offer

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person makes an offer, say that you have already received a
better offer from somebody else.

If they ask what that offer is, then you may or may not choose to tell them.
If you do, then you have the opportunity to set a limit that the other person
knows that they cannot exceed.
Example

Sorry, I've already had a better offer that.

I was offered twice that price only last week.
Discussion

A better offer from elsewhere is a walk-away alternative that you can deploy
at any time. The other person does not know whether you actually do have a
better offer or whether you are bluffing. The problem for them is that if they
call your bluff then you might actually have such an offer.
If you actually do have a better offer, you are indeed in a stronger position if
you do need to conclude the deal. As a part of developing your walk-away,
you would have also better understood the overall situation and built your
own confidence -- which alone is worth the effort of looking elsewhere
beforehand.
See also
New Player
Better Than That

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Better Than That
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person makes an offer, say 'You'll have to do better than
that!', or something similar, such as:

I'm not happy with that.

That's not good enough.

That is insufficient.

I can't accept that.

You can accompany this with a saddened, shocked or disgusted look.

Then be quiet and wait for them to do better.
Example

A person buying a car asks for the price. The sales person says it. The buyer
raises an eyebrow and mutters 'You'll have to do better than that.' and
looks, appraisingly at the sales person.
Oh, come one. I'm not a fool. You'll have to do better than that.
Discussion

When you say 'You'll have to do better than that', you are actually implying
that you know that the other person is trying to deceive you, for example
with an exorbitantly high price.
Having been 'found out' (although you actually may not know what a fair
price is), this puts them under social pressure to conform to norms of
decency and fair pricing.
This method also demonstrates that you have higher standards and
expectations although you do not name these. A reason for this is that if you
provide a counter-offer, they may work towards but will never exceed it. Just
by stating unhappiness, you may be able to elicit an offer that is even better
than you had hoped for.
See also

The Wince, Social Norms

Biased Choice

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Biased Choice

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Offer the other person a set of choices, but bias the set of choices towards
those things that you want and away from the things that you do not want.
Ways of doing this:

Offer them a set of options such that any choice they make will be acceptable to you.

Remove and do not mention the things that you particularly do not want.

Paint your choice in glowing words (and others in dull shades).

Create a forced choice that utilizes their natural biases.

Example

We could go to that really nice new restaurant or maybe back to Tony's

(though I hear their chef just left).
Well, going to Winchester, Salisbury or Bath all sound like safe choices.
You could study accountancy, law or medicine. The choice is yours.
Discussion

We all have natural biases and preferences but often do not realize that we
have them. These biases appear in our choices, including when we are
shortlisting options for other people to choose.
In a negotiation, we can deliberately add bias towards those things we want.
When you reduce choice in negotiations, you can eliminate those things that
you do not want and focus on the things you do want.
Bias is often not noticed by other people unless they are looking for it.
Noticing is more likely in a 'professional' negotiation but may well go
unnoticed in less formal situations.

When playing to their biases, it can help if you first understand their
preferences, so you can customize what you offer them.
See also

Alternative Close, Reducing Choice, Forced Choice, Preferences

Big Fish

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Big Fish

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Act as if you are Big Fish who can swallow whole any small fry at a whim.
Cast the other person as a small fry.
Show how you you are Big Fish. Act as if you can do whatever you like.
Wave money around. Arrive in a big fast car. Dress expensively. Name-drop.
Talk confidently. Act confidently, as if you are lord of all you survey. You can
even appear arrogant, but beware of overdoing this. The idea is to make the
other person feel small in your presence, not to annoy them.
Example

A businessperson in talks about working with another company talks

expansively about other deals and plans for the future that include several
acquisitions.
A real estate agent arrives late at a house that he is selling in a new BMW.
The buyer, partly put off and partly impressed the way the agent talks so
nicely, is drawn into the web...
A young woman walks confidently into a bar and calls to the barman, slightly
impatiently, giving her order without waiting to be asked. She is served

before many others.

Discussion

By acting big and important, you are standing on a pedestal, inviting the
other person to admire and look up to you and seeking to please you.
By acting superior to them, you are inviting them to act inferior to you,
conceding to your wishes.
A danger with this method is that the other person may see themself as a
bigger fish and so turn the situation into personal conflict. It is hence
important when using a confronting method like this to assess the other
person first to determine the likelihood that they will be suitably influenced.
See also

Authority principle, Confidence principle

Blackmail

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Blackmail

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Find something that the other person does not want to happen and say that
it will happen if they do not do as you ask. You can note that you may make
it happen or may not prevent it from happening.
This can include:

Things from their past that, if revealed, would embarrass them or otherwise cause
them trouble.

Things you can do that will cause them problems.

Other harm that may befall them or their friends which you could act to reduce.

How you will feel if they act in particular ways.

A common form of blackmail is 'emotional blackmail', where the principle is

to say 'If you don't do as I say then I will be upset'.
Example

If you don't give me that book I'll tell your mother.

If you want to be considered for promotion, I'd suggest you do as I ask
without all those questions.
I've found that you've been sleeping with another woman. It would be a
shame if your wife found out. Now I'd like you to do a few things for me...
Discussion

Blackmail is generally considered to be bad and socially unacceptable, yet it

happens in subtle ways in many relationships and situations. It is easy for
those who have some form of lever to use the power this gives in a direct
and threatening way. Blackmail can also be subtle, with hints of negative
consequences rather than direct threats.
Blackmail is different to bribery in that it is often negative, suggesting that
the person will be harmed if they do not do as requested, as opposed to
positive benefits they will gain that bribery suggests. Blackmail is a threat
while bribery is an offer. Blackmail sometimes follows bribery, where once a
person has accepted a bribe they are blackmailed with the threat that their
acceptance might be revealed.
Emotional blackmail is common in relationships where 'Do as I say or I'll be
angry' is used by parents, partners and others as a quick and harsh way to
get what they want. Usually, a better longer term result is gained by more
thoughtful and considerate approaches.
Blackmail is often an indication of a lack of skill in persuasion. Unable to
change the other person's mind, the blackmailer resorts to this heavy-

handed method. They typically get around the ethical dilemma by convincing
themselves that this approach is 'necessary'.
See also

Bribery
Bluff

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Bluff

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Tell the other person something that will impress them and get what you
want, even though it is not true.
Act confidently. Do not hesitate or otherwise indicate that you are lying.
When selling, say that you have already had a good offer, or that someone
else is arriving soon.
When buying, say that you know you can get the item much cheaper
elsewhere (and ask them to match the price).
When asking someone to do something, say that you can easily get another
person to do it.
Take small truths and exaggerate them. Talk of dire consequences should
you not get what you want.
And so on.
Example

Well, I like this place but I've just had an offer of a similar house at a much

lower price.
Yes, Dad, I've done my school work. Can I go out now?
If I don't get the day off work I'll lose my apartment and have nowhere to
live!
Discussion

Bluffs work when the other person believes what is said and feels that they
must act or concede in order to achieve goals.
Bluffing is of course a dangerous game, as the other person may call your
bluff. If you are found out, then you will be suspected for a long time into
the future and will hence most likely fail in attempted other negotiations.
See also

Confidence principle, Lying, Trust

Breaking it Off

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Breaking it Off

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Threaten to break off the negotiation, citing some arbitrary reason such as
a lack of progress or the unreasonableness of the other person.
You can also threaten to break off relationships. This can be particularly
effective when you have a relationship with the other person that is
important to them.
Do this in a dramatic way. You can even rant and rave and storm out

(hopefully, they will call out to stop you or run after you).
Example

Right! That's it. I'm off.

I'm sorry. If you will not move then I can't continue.
I'm sick up to here with your intransigence and bloody-mindedness! If you
can be like that, then so can I! Goodbye.
Discussion

When people do not have a walk-away alternative, which many do not, then
threatening to leave makes them face up to the possibility of getting
nothing. The contrast between a solution that includes them making
concessions and a solution that contains nothing can result in the thought
of making concessions around something that is more acceptable.
If you have a walkaway alternative, then you can use this approach more
effectively. The danger if you do not is that the other person may call your
bluff.
When relationships are involved, the issue then becomes a lot more social.
Ostracizing is a punishment that is feared by many and the threat of
becoming a social pariah is enough to make many people cave in.
See also

The Walk-away Alternative, Belonging

Bribery

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Bribery

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Offer financial or other incentives to persuade people to give you what you
want. The most common incentive is money, but you can also offer goods,
access, information, attention, etc. Find out what they value most through
careful conversation.
Be very careful when considering bribery, especially when it can get you into
trouble.
Example

If you help me clean the house I'll give you $5.

What might it take to let me into your beautiful country? Let me show you a
picture of my wife here in my wallet.
Looks nice, huh? ... Oh, yes this could be a gift to you.
Discussion

In is easy to dismiss bribery as wrong, bad or dangerous, and indeed it can

be. Yet it is surprisingly common and sometimes necessary when the other
person expects to be offered a bribe. Bribery and corruption are endemic in
a number of countries and cultures, including with government, local and
company officials. If you want to travel or do business there, then you may
face the moral dilemma as to whether or not you will abide by this custom.
Bribery often happens by disguised means which would allow either party to
deny that it exists. Gift-giving is a common ritual that suggests reciprocal
help. Incentives may be put on display or left behind, such as placing money
on a table and not saying what it is for.
Bribery may not be seen as such, for example where parents offer their
children rewards for behaving well or where financial incentives and bonuses
are used to encourage work performance.
A danger of bribery is that it is an extrinsic motivator that can actually demotivate or corrupt people, making them focus on the bribe rather than

deeper and more social reasons for collaboration. It also gives power to the
person being bribed as they may expose or punish your act of attempted
corruption. Others who know about the bribe may even attempt blackmail to
prevent them from blowing the whistle.
See also

Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation

Brooklyn Optician

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Brooklyn Optician

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Break everything down into small packages and then negotiate them one at
a time. If you are selling things, price them individually.
Focus first on selling or negotiating the main item. Then show that extra
parts are needed. Avoid talking about the total cost until you have agreed
each item.
Example

The computer, sir, will cost three hundred. You'll take that -- good. Will you
be needing a keyboard with that -- only twenty. And we've a good deal on
an optical mouse...
Will you take the kids to school -- thanks. Whilst you're out, can you get
some things for me.
A restaurant prices its main course without any vegetables, which are each
priced separately.
Discussion

The name of this tactic comes from a (probably politically incorrect)

archetype of an optician who sells you a pair of glasses one lens at a time.
When people are buying something or otherwise getting something in a
negotiation, they will start with a rough price in mind. When they see the
offered price, they will be impressed by the contrast and will rapidly reach
closure on it. Once closed, they will unwilling (or maybe unable) to re-open
the negotiation. They are thus trapped, and are forced to pay the extra
amount for the other items that they now need.
See also

Nibbling, Closure principle, The personal-closure trap

Call Girl

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Call Girl

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Demand payment up-front, particularly where you are offering something

cannot be taken back if they do not fulfil their part of the deal.
Where any exchange is taking place, get the other side to go first.
Example

I've got to buy a lot of materials so I really need to be paid before I begin.
Tell me your name, then I'll tell you mine.
Discussion

Prostitutes work in a shady environment where they have very low trust of
their clients who may 'do a runner' or argue about the price after the deed is

done. There are many other situations where up-front trust is needed that
the other person will later fulfil their side of the deal.
In an exchange, getting the other person to go first makes it safe for you. It
also creates a little anxiety as the other person then has to hope you will
complete your part of the bargain. When you do, you will have built a certain
amount of trust, on which you can call at a later date.
See also

Exchange principle
Cards on the Table

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Cards on the Table
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Tell the other side exactly what you want, or otherwise give them
information that they did not know before.
Explain why you are doing this, for example is because you trust them,
because you want a good relationship or because you are in a hurry.
Example

Look, I'll put my cards on the table. What I really want is...
I think I can trust you. The full story of why I need the ticket is that...
Sorry, the truth of the matter is that Mike says I have to do this.
Discussion

In card games, putting your cards on the table is showing others exactly
what you have.

When a person 'puts their cards on the table' they are asking the other
person to believe them. By using such a gesture and also talking about why
they are doing it, they are asking the other person to accept that they are
being trustworthy.
By showing trustworthiness in one area, such as giving unexpected
information, you are implying that you are trustworthy in other areas, for
example later when you are negotiating the price.
See also

Trust
Challenge Cause

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Challenge Cause

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person says they want something, ask why. Why do they
want X? Why are they proposing action Y?
You can go up the causal chain, looking at consequences of proposals. You
can also go back up the chain, looking at what led them to their current
position.
Cause questions include:

What are you hoping to achieve by doing that?

Why is that important?

If you do that, what do you think will happen?

What else will happen? What will not happen?

When they give their rationale, then you can challenge the purpose or
method of their argument, for example by indicating poor reasoning or
exposing fallacies.
In particular, if you can show how they can get what they really want by
another method, you may be able to change their minds, or at least get
them to accept another way.
Example

How will you get that to work?

If you do that, what else will happen?
Why do you need to take a week? If I can show you how to do it in a day,
can we go with that?
Discussion

Asking why repeatedly can help you get to the real purpose of the other
person's actions. This is itself useful. It may also let you challenge
Cause and effect is often not carefully considered when people decide what
they want and what should be should do and what they want. It is often
considered to be a straight line, with one cause leading to one effect, which
then leads to a secondary effect, and so on. This simplicity of thinking is
easy to challenge, though people may use irrational arguments to defend
their reasons (such as 'It stands to reason').
In practice, one action can have many effects, not all of which are desirable.
Cause and effect can also be circular, which be a spiral up or a spiral down
(for example the way exposure leads to more fame, which leads to
exposure). Even when the cause and effect as assumed are correct, a range
of side-effects can appear, for example in the way spending more on a target
project that makes it successful may mean diverting funds from other
projects which then fail.
When the other person asks you why, then you can avoid this by making it a
'confidential' item that you are unable to discuss. Another route is to move
on quickly, using urgency to gloss over any logical inaccuracies.

See also

Cause-and-Effect Reasoning

Change the Negotiator

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Change the Negotiator
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Change the person who is doing the negotiation for your side. Explain that
the previous negotiator has been called away.
The new negotiator then goes over all the decisions and agreements with a
fine-toothed comb, weeding out all the exchanges that he or she does not
like. Or maybe starts rebuilding a relationship that has turned sour.
In fact, the new negotiator can, if they choose, start the negotiation from
scratch.
Example

I'm sorry, to do this properly we have to start from the beginning.

Hmm. Before we continue I'd like to review what has been agreed so far.
I hear things got rather heated yesterday. Can we start afresh?
Discussion

Negotiations and exchanges are often considered to be done at the personal

level, even though one person may be negotiating on behalf of and entire
corporation. Changing the negotiator can be very much like starting over
again.

Particularly when the negotiation is stuck or not going to plan, a new person
can bring new ideas to the table.
When relationships have soured, a new person can apologize for the
previous person or otherwise renew the relationship.

Changing the Standard

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Changing the Standard
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Find the standard

A trick with negotiation is to understand the comparisons that are being

made in people's heads. What are the benchmarks against which people are
deciding? What are their actual or constructed standards?
To find the standard, ask them about their ideals. Get them to describe their
best experiences or perfect ideals. Be enthusiastic and they will tell you
more. Another way is to ask for company policies in the areas of interest.
Change the standard

If you can change the comparison standard by which they judge all others,
you can make what you are offering look wonderful or what they are offering
look bad.
You can change the entire standard or just one part of it.
Example

Could you describe your perfect house?

...
Imagine a beautiful little house in the country with roses around the door...
(change the standard)

You know, wooden windows are considered rather old fashioned now.
(change an element)
Tell me about the best holiday you have had.
...
You've not seen the Maldives, have you? Let me show you a picture of
paradise...
Discussion

We make many decisions by using contrasting comparisons between two

items. To decide whether something is good or bad, we fix one of these as a
standard (which can be a standard for bad things as well as good).
Comparisons may be against fixed standards or ideals. For example, if I am
buying a house, I may have an actual house in mind I have seen against
which I compare all others. Alternatively, I may have built one mentally,
perhaps as a composite of desirable elements I have seen.
See also

Fair Criteria
Changing the Standard

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Changing the Standard
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Find the standard

A trick with negotiation is to understand the comparisons that are being

made in people's heads. What are the benchmarks against which people are
deciding? What are their actual or constructed standards?

To find the standard, ask them about their ideals. Get them to describe their
best experiences or perfect ideals. Be enthusiastic and they will tell you
more. Another way is to ask for company policies in the areas of interest.
Change the standard

If you can change the comparison standard by which they judge all others,
you can make what you are offering look wonderful or what they are offering
look bad.
You can change the entire standard or just one part of it.
Example

Could you describe your perfect house?

...
Imagine a beautiful little house in the country with roses around the door...
(change the standard)
You know, wooden windows are considered rather old fashioned now.
(change an element)
Tell me about the best holiday you have had.
...
You've not seen the Maldives, have you? Let me show you a picture of
paradise...
Discussion

We make many decisions by using contrasting comparisons between two

items. To decide whether something is good or bad, we fix one of these as a
standard (which can be a standard for bad things as well as good).
Comparisons may be against fixed standards or ideals. For example, if I am
buying a house, I may have an actual house in mind I have seen against
which I compare all others. Alternatively, I may have built one mentally,
perhaps as a composite of desirable elements I have seen.
See also

Fair Criteria
Control the Agenda

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Control the Agenda
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are holding a meeting in which negotiation may take place, you
can control what is being discussed by deciding what will and will not be on
the agenda.
The order of things on the agenda also is important: Carefully consider about
how people will thinking and feeling at each point during the meeting. It is
often best to put items where you want attention near the beginning (an
innocuous item first can be helpful as a warm up). When you do not want
people to think too much, put the item near the end.
You can also control the meeting whilst it is running, particularly if you are
chairing it, by encouraging talk about an item or closing it down quickly.
Items you do not like at the end of the agenda can be squeezed or pushed
off by allowing more time for earlier topics.
When you are not running the meeting, you still have certain control of the
agenda, especially if the person running the meeting is relatively lax about
what is discussed. You can request that certain items be added, you can
control where they are on the agenda (for example by saying you have to
leave early you can get items in at the beginning of the meeting). You can
bring up new items in the meeting as 'Any Other Business (AOB). You can
also control the agenda during the meeting by what you say and what you
propose.
Example

In a salary-decision meeting, a manager makes sure his people are

discussed first and then talks a lot about how good they are. There is less
time then for discussing other people. His people get the best pay rises.

In a meeting to select a new supplier, a manager ensures that the supplier

she prefers is on second and that only four suppliers are discussed.
In a high school parents meeting, one person brings up the controversial
subject of sports fees right at the end. The result is that sub-committee is
set up and they are elected to chair it.
Discussion

Meetings are quite public decision environments. If a person makes a

commitment there, it is difficult for them to retract it (particularly if it is
minuted). Meetings are also social environments and group pressure can be
brought to bear on individuals.
When you control what is being discussed, you can control what is decided
and agreed (or at least have a greater influence over this).
Meetings do vary in formality, from meetings that are run with strict control
and detailed minutes to a relatively loose discussion. You can control both of
these but need different approaches.
The chairperson of a meeting has particular power in deciding who speaks
and how long things are discussed. Where appropriate, you may need to
spend time getting them onside beforehand or otherwise knowing how you
will control them.
Do remember that many meetings are not actually decision bodies but
largely ratify what has been discussed in more private meetings beforehand.
See also

Authority principle, Theories about groups, Theories about conforming

Credentials

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Credentials

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Show how you are qualified to say the things you will say.
Put your qualifications on your business card.
Talk about your experience. Show how you have practiced what you preach.
Name-drop. Show how you are friends with the rich, famous and influential.
If appropriate, compare their credentials with yours.
Example

When I was talking with the CEO the other day, he though my ideas for new
products were, as usual, quite outstanding.
You know, I've been doing projects like this for twenty years, and I've
always found that building the plan with all stakeholders an essential
activity.
I have a Ph.D. in the subject. What about you?
Discussion

In negotiation you are often selling yourself as well as the idea that you
want to get across to the other person. If they believe in you, then they are
more likely to believe in your ideas, particularly if your credentials are in a
related area.
When we know that another person is well-qualified in one area, we may
assume that they are generally intelligent and able to pronounce on things in
completely unrelated areas. Thus, for example, a doctorate in anthropology
will be seen first as a doctorate. The letters 'Ph.D.' after your name will often
impress others and prevent them from questioning what you assert.
Demonstrating how you are qualified or experienced lets the other person
know that what you say is true. In a collaborative situation, this will build the
relationship and create confidence. In a competitive situation, it effectively

says 'I know more than you. What I say is true and what you say is false.'
See also

Assertiveness, Intelligence Testing

Deadlines

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Deadlines

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Set a deadline by which the other person has to decide or act. Make it clear
that this is an absolute time by which they must do what you want them to
do.
As the deadline approaches, increase the emotional tension, talking more
about what will happen if the deadline is missed. This may be specific and
threatening actions or vague and disturbing hints.
Use things which cannot be challenged, such as contract completion dates,
demands made by senior people and so on.
Example

I must have your answer before we leave today.

I am talking to Steve later. He will want to know what we have agreed.
The product will be released at the end of the week. If you can't deliver by
Thursday, it will be too late.

Discussion

A deadline creates tension through the scarcity of time that it gives and the
imagined consequences of not reaching the deadline.
Hurrying people up reduces the time they have for reflection and considered
thought. If you can occupy them with worries about what may happen if the
deadline is not met, then they will spend less time thinking of objections and
counter-arguments to your suggestions.
Deadlines can easily be challenged, but it is surprising how often they are
not questioned.
See also

Scarcity principle

Delays

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Delays

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Use time to stretch out the negotiation, especially at critical moments.

When you feel you are being pressured or hurried, take a break or
otherwise put off making any decisions until you have thought things
through.
When the other person is constrained by deadlines, delay right up to the
wire.
Dangle something under their noses that makes them salivate and then do

not talk about it until later.

Example

Excuse me, I just need to go the to the bathroom.

Well, we could look at the things you want. But it's time to stop for today.
John will be very unhappy if this does not happen. I think I will call him in
later.
Discussion

Introducing delays can be helpful for you to regroup and rethink.

When you have increased tension of some sort in the other person, whether
it is desire for something you may give them or some negative
consequence of not agreeing, then a delay can serve to heighten that
tension as they focus on the good and bad possibilities.
The tension of delay is increased with uncertainty, when the other person
cannot predict what will happen.
See also

Breaking it off, Deadlines, Tension principle

Disruption

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Disruption

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Disrupt their thinking by breaking into their thoughts, distracting them,

making them feel unsure.
Intrude into their personal space. Provoke them when they are thinking. Say
things they do not fully understand. Change the room layout. Sit next to
them. Put them facing into the sun. Move proceedings into a cramped small
room or a big auditorium.
Then take charge and direct them towards the way you want them to think.
Example

Sorry, the room from yesterday is taken. This is all we have today. You sit
there. It's a bit uncomfortable, but I'm sure we'll manage.
I know you're thinking about this and it's late, but you also need to consider
our design people, who I'm sure will have something to say.
Discussion

Negotiation is a process where there is simultaneous internal thinking and

external activity. We are seldom good at doing more than one thing at a
time, so by disrupting the context, we can stop the other party from thinking
too much. This is particularly useful when you do not want them to challenge
points you have made.
Disruption also brings their attention back to the room where they will be
momentarily confused as they re-orient, during which you can take charge
and control what is said and how the proceedings will continue.
See also

Distraction principle
Divide and Conquer

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Divide and Conquer
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Cause confusion in the enemy camp. Get them at each other's throats so
they pay less attention to fighting you. A way to do this is by paying more
attention to one person or one group in a broad field of others, or by sowing
false information.
Initially put more effort into persuading the more sympathetic person. Then
when you have convinced them of your argument, work together with them
to persuade others. You may also have to put in effort to keep them apart,
particularly if those who are strongly opposing you are also working on the
sympathizers.
When they are arguing amongst themselves, propose solutions that the key
people will accept and which will support their internal negotiations.
Example

A side member of a negotiating team spends time with some of the younger
members of the other side whilst the main negotiations are going on
elsewhere. In their discussions, they touch on how the ideas from these
bright young people are being ignored by their superiors.
A negotiator and a colleague 'privately' talk about how one person on the
other side is more successful than another. They know that they are being
overheard and their talk is designed for the listener.
A negotiator hints in an aside to the other person how one solution will allow
them to win some of their internal battles.
Discussion

It is common that negotiating team members have different views and that
some are more hard-line while others are more moderate. The members will
have different motivations, including their desires to be on good terms with
you and to conclude the negotiation sooner or later. If you can understand
these (watch body language, listen to words, etc) then you can test your

assessment in breaks and other times where you may talk privately with
them.
If you can get the other side to take their eye off the substantive ball then
you can consequently gain control of the proceedings. When others disagree
with one another, then one may well take your side in order to win points
against their internal opponents.
When there are two other people, such as a married couple, then views may
be quite different. Watch for the dominant partner then direct innocent
questions at the quieter one to test their views and also to see how the
dominant partner reacts.
In team negotiations, people with non-direct roles such as note-takers may
be approached to test their roles and their ability to influence others.
This, of course, is a hazardous strategy which can backfire if they discover
what you are doing. To succeed, it must be executed with great care and
finesse.
See also

Confusion principle
Doomsday

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Doomsday

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Paint an overly black picture. Describe the outcome of any suggestion in

negative terms. Be pessimistic and gloomy.
When they make a suggestion, suck through your teeth and describe how

bad this is.

When you are describing your own situation, show how badly-off you are
and how you cannot afford what the other person is asking.
Of course, you describe only the things you do not want in this negative way.
Against this, you can describe the things you want as a ray of light that
relieves the gloom of alternative solutions.
Example

I suppose we could go out, but it looks like rain and the car is having
problems.
It's a nice house, but it needs decorating, the area is going downhill and it's
a long way to drive to work.
It may look like a good investment now, but the markets may go down next
year.
Discussion

Painting something black often is playing with percentages, suggesting that

something that has a real probability of X actually has a probability of Y.
Where things are uncertain, then it is easy to argue the percentage points.
Against this pessimistic description, an optimistic alternative provides a
welcome contrast.
See also

Contrast principle
Double Agent

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Double Agent

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Persuade someone on the other side of the table to act on your behalf.
Get them to provide useful inside information to you that will help your
negotiations. Give them information and materials to help them persuade
their colleagues to your point of view.
Protect their position, ensuring that they do not get into trouble for their
views and actions.
Example

A computer salesperson convinces the IT department of the need to upgrade

their systems. Now all they need to do is to also convince the purchasing,
finance and general managers.
A man wants to buy a particular new house and enlists the help of the selling
agent in persuading his family of the benefits of the house and the area.
A car sales person speaks privately to a customer's partner to get them to
provide useful information about the customer.
Discussion

This situation legitimately occurs when a person on the other side genuinely
is persuaded and seeks to help others on their side also see the benefits of
the deal.
In a less salubrious variant, deliberate actions are taken to blackmail or
bribe the target person, or otherwise subvert an individual to your cause.
Beware of double agents on your side. Watch for people who seem overzealous in taking up the cause of the other side.
See also

The Annotated Art of War (Parts 13.4-6: Foreknowledge), The Annotated Art
of War (Parts 13.14-20: Using Spies)

Dry Well

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Dry Well

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person demands more from you, say that 'the well is dry'
and that you do not have anything else to give.
Plead poverty or other constraint on your ability to exchange more than you
have already offered.
Example

Sorry, I can't afford any more.

I'd like to increase my offer, but I'm afraid I've come to the end of my
resources.
Discussion

When you show that you have no more to give, the other person cannot
demand more without inferring that you are lying.
If they still refuse to agree to a deal, then this puts you in a difficult position
of possibly showing that you were not telling the truth. One way around this
is to find other variables to use.
See also

Appeal to Pity

Empty Pockets

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Empty Pockets

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When the other person makes a demand on you, say that you cannot afford
it, you have not got it, cannot do it, or otherwise are unable to give them
what they want.
Show that it is a lack of ability, not lack of desire, that leads you to refuse
them.
Example

Sorry, that's just too much. I really cannot afford that on my salary.
I'd love to help, but I don't know much about that.
If I had it, I'd give it to you.
Discussion

Showing that you cannot fulfil a request is a good way of refusing, as the
other person then cannot persist.
Pleading poverty may also get you sympathy and give reason for the other
person to ask less of you.
See also

Appeal to Pity
Empty Promises

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Empty Promises

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make promises that you know that you will not have to keep.
Or make what sounds like a promise by adding a qualifier (e.g. 'could') or by
making the statement vague.
Use this to get things moving when the negotiation is stuck and the item
being requested seems relatively minor.
Example

I don't see why I can't come back some time.

I guess I could spend extra time with you.
Why not? I'm sure I can find the time.
Discussion

When the other person is fixated on getting something, particularly if it is

minor, then they may well be more trapped by the wanting rather than really
want it. Suggesting that you will give it to them gives them closure for now
and lets you move on with the rest of the negotiation.
This works better for things that will be delivered at an uncertain time in the
future. When asked, you can then delay delivery. If pressed, you may
actually have to deliver.
As any deceptive method, this holds the danger that it will cause betrayal
response.
See also

Trust
Escalating Demand

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Escalating Demand

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Ask for something from the other person. When you have gained this, ask
for something else, even larger. Then something bigger still, and so on until
they refuse (then take the biggest offer).
This may be done in exchange for nothing, just asking for concessions (and
perhaps rewarding only with thanks or other non-substantial exchange). It
may also be done when the other person asks for something from you (so
you increase the demands on them).
Example

Can I go out with my friends Dad? Can I have money for the cinema? And
we're going to the Pizza House afterwards...
Can I come in? Can I stay the night?
Will you do this extra work? And keep going until it's done?
Discussion

When you ask for something from another person, and they comply, as Ben
Franklin knew, they have to justify it to themselves, for example by
concluding that you are a nice person and they wanted to give it to you all
along. This frames you as a friend who can ask for other things. A small
concession thus creates bonding and also the obligations of friendship.

See also

Nibbling, Ben Franklin Effect, Better Than That

Expanding the Pie

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Expanding the Pie
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Change the frame of the negotiation from a zero-sum, win-lose game to a

win-win scenario where both sides can benefit more by working together on
mutual benefits.
Use 'we' language rather than 'you' and 'I'. Frame the situation as a joint
problem where you both want to succeed and that you can both get more by
working together.
Example

Two business competitors on an industry standards committee agree to

settle differences and promote the standard as this will help increase the
number of total customers, thereby giving each a greater market value.
A husband and wife who are negotiating about holidays and the ability to
take time off work reframe the situation as 'getting away together' and end
up with a decision that when one goes away on business the other will go
along too.
Discussion

In many negotiations there is an assumption that it is win-lose, such that

every gain that one person makes leads to the other person losing an equal
amount.
In a worst-case scenario (which is surprisingly common), the negotiation

turns to conflict and it all becomes becomes personal. The sense of fair play
(or even getting what I need) then goes out of the window as each player
seeks to harm the other before they get harmed themself.
'Zero sum' is a limiting perception and it is often possible for both people to
gain, especially if they collaborate.
'Expanding the Pie' comes from the metaphor where people are negotiating
about a single pie, such that where one person gets more of the pie it is
clear that the other person gets less. If both parties work together to get a
bigger pie, then both can have more with the same percentage division.
See also

Collaborative negotiation
Fair Criteria

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Fair Criteria

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When decisions are being made, be deliberate about finding and selecting
criteria that the other person can accept as being fair.
You can deliberately engage the other person in a search for fair criteria,
asking them 'what is fair'. You can also bring along something that is, by
definition, fair.
A good way of ensuring criteria are fair is by seeking the advice of an expert
and clearly impartial third party.
You can also reject criteria that the other person is using on the grounds that
it is not fair.

In a worst case, you can also use third parties such as mediators or
arbitrators to resolve negotiation breakdown.
Example

Now, how can we be sure that we each get a fair share?

I've brought along Parker's Price guide -- it gives industry-standard prices.
Let's ask the minister what he thinks...
Discussion

We have a basic need for fairness, and feel a loss of control when others
may be unfair without our knowing. In negotiations in particular, we fear that
others will try to deceive us by using comparisons and criteria which are not
fair.
Fairness can be asserted, but it is best if it is agreed by both people. This
also implies that any one person has right of veto.
Engaging the other person in the search for fairness is itself an act of
fairness and will help to engender trust.
External standards are difficult to argue against and can include price
guides, industrial standards, company policy and even social norms.
See also

Decision Criteria, Fairness, Fair exchange, Finding fair criteria, Changing

standards, The Third Side

False Deadline

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > False Deadline

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Say that something must be done by a certain deadline or else the deal is
off.
Make the deadline in the near future and such that the other person will
panic.
Explain how, due to circumstances beyond your control, if agreement is not
reached within this short timescale, you will be unable to find a satisfactory
conclusion.
Show them what will happen if the deadline is not met.
Example

The project milestone is next week. If this report is not ready by then, it will
slip at least a month and it will be your responsibility.
Prices go up at the end of the week, sir. You haven't got long.
If you're not in bed by ten, you will not wake up in time tomorrow.
Discussion

Constraining the time in which people have to make a decision forces them
to consider the other side of the deadline and what would happen if it is not
met.
When there is some action to be completed, the other person will be focused
on all the things that have to be done between now and the deadline.
Hurrying people, especially if it panics them, has the effect of reducing the
rational and reflective thought that they put into the process and thus makes
them more likely to agree with you.
See also

Hurry Close, Scarcity principle, Hurry Up

Faking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Faking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Dress well and pretend to be affluent. Or dress down and pretend to be poor.
Mention qualifications that you do not have. Talk about experiences that you
have not had.
Name-drop about people you have not met. Mention your membership of
exclusive clubs.
Or otherwise pretend to be someone you are not.
Example

When I was working on my doctorate, I proved that this is the hardest

substance with the required flexibility coefficient.
I was talking with Brad at the Oscars ceremony and he said that celebrity
interest in these is going up.
No, I've been doing this for ten years and I can tell you that would cost a
mint and take at least a year to get going.
Discussion

Credibility is often very important in negotiation, for example when you need
to be seen to be expert about something you are selling or buying. Faking
credentials or experience gives you that credibility.
Many of us would like to be famous and linking your name to someone

famous gets you some of that fame, perhaps making the other person a bit
envious and wanting to be like you. Similarly, faking affluence or other
desirable attribute can help.
When you are buying something, the reverse may be true and it might be
more effective to plead poverty.
Be careful and subtle with name-dropping and other ostentation as it can
easily seem like status-grabbing boasting. As ever with deception, if you get
caught out, you can expect disproportionate punishment.
See also

Trust, Authority principle, Confidence principle, Deception principle

Faking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Faking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Dress well and pretend to be affluent. Or dress down and pretend to be poor.
Mention qualifications that you do not have. Talk about experiences that you
have not had.
Name-drop about people you have not met. Mention your membership of
exclusive clubs.
Or otherwise pretend to be someone you are not.
Example

When I was working on my doctorate, I proved that this is the hardest

substance with the required flexibility coefficient.
I was talking with Brad at the Oscars ceremony and he said that celebrity
interest in these is going up.
No, I've been doing this for ten years and I can tell you that would cost a
mint and take at least a year to get going.
Discussion

Credibility is often very important in negotiation, for example when you need
to be seen to be expert about something you are selling or buying. Faking
credentials or experience gives you that credibility.
Many of us would like to be famous and linking your name to someone
famous gets you some of that fame, perhaps making the other person a bit
envious and wanting to be like you. Similarly, faking affluence or other
desirable attribute can help.
When you are buying something, the reverse may be true and it might be
more effective to plead poverty.
Be careful and subtle with name-dropping and other ostentation as it can
easily seem like status-grabbing boasting. As ever with deception, if you get
caught out, you can expect disproportionate punishment.
See also

Trust, Authority principle, Confidence principle, Deception principle

Flattery

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Flattery

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make the other person look good. Tell them how clever, intelligent, attractive
(etc) they are.
Be impressed by what they have done. Listen attentively. Ask them to tell
you more.
Use romantic body language as appropriate, or otherwise ensure your body
aligns with your words.
Example

That was amazing! How did you do that?

You seem young to be in such a senior position. You must be very good at
this.
You look absolutely fantastic. Can I be your slave?
Discussion

Flattery makes the other person feel good about themselves and, by
association, you. It creates a bond with them and offers them higher status
and a boost to their sense of identity.
Flattery also creates a sense of exchange, where the other person will want
to repay your kindness to them. When you act like a friend, it puts them into
a position where they will want to act as a friend to you.
See also

Exchange principle, Bonding principle

Flip a Coin

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Flip a Coin

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

If you cannot agree, suggest rolling dice or flipping a coin to decide who gets
a disputed resource.
You can also suggest this if the other person is gaining an advantage over
you or where they are being obstructive.
This is a good method to use when it seems that you have a less than 50%
chance of getting what you want through normal negotiation. It is also useful
when the discussion is about who should have a single item, where one
person getting it means the other person gets nothing (or a lesser item).
If they are suspicious, you can let them flip the coin. If they do so, ensure
the coin falls to the floor rather than being caught (where tricky peek-andflip methods can be used).
Example

Look, we're getting nowhere. Let's just toss a coin to see who gets it.
If you can guess which hand I've got it in, then you can have it, otherwise I
keep it. Ok?.
Discussion

This is a suggestion of using random chance to decide, and while it may

seem unsophisticated it is actually very fair when the reasons for each
person wanting something are both valid.
Tossing a coin has the advantage of being a quick and clear method, which
makes it useful when you are in a hurry and where getting the disputed item
or not is not a critical issue.
The simplicity of the method makes it useful with children and friends, where
a quick, fair decision is important to keep things going and to preserve a
relationship that may be strained by regular protracted negotiations.

The idea of fairness is important as this is what persuades. It moves

discussion from what each should have to what is fair in terms of the process
of deciding. The unwritten assumption behind it is that each person has an
equal right to the item in dispute, although this is not always the case (a
point that may be deliberately overlooked).
See also

Statistical Principles
Food Control

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Food Control

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Control what is eaten and what people drink in order to subvert and weaken
their minds and bodies, reducing their ability to make good decisions.
Make food and drink a reward. Link breaks to agreements. Hold off until you
have got what you want. A related reversal is to request or demand food
breaks for yourself in order to disrupt their tactics.
Other variants include:

Ply them with caffeine drinks to get them agitated.

Take lunch late, so they become hungry and less able to concentrate.

Give them stodgy, heavy food that will make them sleepy.

For yourself, consume less, choosing lighter food and less stimulating drinks,
but do occasionally have something sweet in order to keep you energized
and focused.
In general, always consider the effect of different food and drink on the body
and brain, using these to your advantage.

Example

Would you like some more coffee? Or perhaps a Coke then?

Sorry it's getting late. Let's just agree this then go eat.
Would you like some water? Sorry we have no snacks.
Discussion

The brain is a delicate system that is driven by the chemicals in the blood.
Any change in blood chemistry hence can upset the working of the brain and
mind, including reducing our ability to make sound decisions. As we think
with the brain, we may well not notice this change, which stops us holding
back when decision-making ability is impaired.
Food and drink can speed us up with stimulants such as coffee, stopping us
pausing to reflect. Food also slows us down as blood is diverted to the
digestive system. Without the right balance of chemicals, we also lose ability
and slow down to conserve energy (hence that post-meal doziness).
The effects of caffeine and alcohol are well-known, yet many will still
indulge, as much out of politeness to an offer of food as natural craving.
There are also many lesser-known effects, such as the way lowered glucose
in blood reduces will-power and decision sense.
Water can be the safest drink but, with the lack of nutrients, it is insufficient
if there is no other sustenance for a long time.
See also

Dietary control, Take Glucose

Forced Choice

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Forced Choice

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When offering a set of options, make it easy for them to choose the one you
want them to choose and hard for them to choose the ones you do not want
them to choose.
Methods you can use for this include:

Offer the thing you want them to take either first or last.

Make the thing you want them to take memorable (and other things not memorable).

Make the thing you want them to choose more desirable.

Make the choice you want them to make easier.

Create contrast to highlight and polarize the desirable and undesirable.

Use words and part-words that sound something like what you want them to choose.

Offer things that may normally be acceptable but which you know are unacceptable
to the the person (leaving the obvious choice...).
Example

Do you want this one, the other one or that one. (using emphasis and
primacy).
You can have a brown one, a blue one, a bright yellow shiny one, a grey one
or a purple one (emphasis memorable).
There's suet pudding, chocolate ice-cream or heavy fudge cake. (desirability)
This house is far away, that house is expensive and the other house is a real
bargain and it's nearby. (contrast and desirability)
We could get a rat, a snake or a dog. Which would you prefer?
I like that hat. Now shall we get a dog or a cat. (repeating 'at' emphasizes
'cat')
Discussion

One of the tricks that magicians use in doing card tricks is known as
'forcing', where they get the target person to pick the card they want them
to pick, while the target person thinks that they have made the selection
without external influence.
Choosing the first or last thing offered utilizes the primacy effect or recency
effect. Contrast makes things stand out. Making things more noticeable may
also use emphasis of some kind. This also helps make them easier to
remember.
You can also push the option toward the person in some way or weakly try to
take it away and let them jealously grab it back.
See also

Reducing Choice, Biased Choice, Alternative Close, Memory, Primacy effect,

Recency effect, Emphasis, Contrast principle
Funny Money

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Funny Money

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Use financial talk to make things sound better than they are or to emphasize
real value.
When you are selling, offer financial arrangements that makes it appear the
price is lower than it actually is. Spread the cost over time. Use complex
investment options. Hide future costs.
When you are buying, offer to pay by different means, for example by
paying in kind, offering goods and services rather than cash.

Play with risk and valuations of it. Deal in future value. Consider
depreciation. Make payments non-linear, for example with early low payment
and (later higher payment).
Talk about savings and opportunity. Discuss tax avoidance. Hint at the
effects of inflation. Show how they really can afford it.
Example

Well, we can double down the future reversal and save you at least 29% for
you next 12 months of payment.
Hmm. Well if inflation is at 5% and base rate increase by two points per
month, then we'll be able to double your income and avoid the setup charge
for the third year.
Well, sir, I know you have said you can't afford it, but if I can show you a
way that you could manage the payments, would you like to drive away in
this wonderful vehicle today?
Discussion

Most people become quickly lost when financial arrangements start be

discussed. All they want to know is what they have to pay, in particularly in
the short term. It is thus easy to bamboozle them with relatively simple (or
even fake) financial wording.
Various financial services, from investments to pensions have surprised
investors by losing their money, when they have been told that they 'couldn't
lose'.
See also

Faking, Confusion principle

Fragmentation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Fragmentation

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Break down what is being negotiated up into small pieces and negotiate for
each one.
When the other person seeks to get something from you, break it down and
talk about each item as if it is really important. Go into detail about the
benefits that it gives (even if these are the same benefits as other items).
You can also apply the same approach when describing the down-side of
what they are offering. Break down the big bad things into lots of bad
things.
When you have a hierarchy of things, you can make them seem like even
more by talking not only about the bottom-level 'child' items, but also the
'parent' items at each level of the tree.
Make a big thing about each item, negotiating hard for something in
exchange for each one.
You can even fragment time, breaking up the things done into small
segments of activity that together seem like a longer time.
Example

You have been so naughty. You've broken your tractor, you've scratched
your best toy car and you've broken your new toy that you got last week.
This is a great computer. It's got Windows XY, that includes SquidgyOffice
Word, SquidgyOffice Spreadsheet, SquidgyOffice Data and SquidgyOffice
Presentation, as well as a whole host of utility programs such as...
Now, if I cancel my meetings and come home on time, I want you to ensure
everything else is ready. I could bring some wine -- can you make sure
dinner is made?
Discussion

When we want to assess size, we often use the size heuristic, whereby we
mistake quantity for a more important measure of size. This gives the
negotiator a method of making something that is actually quite small seem
really quite big.
By breaking down a large item you have more negotiables. In this way, you
can turn a small opportunity into a larger advantage.
See also

The Size Heuristic, Nibbling

Go For A Walk

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Go For A Walk

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When things are getting tough or you have reached deadlock, go for a
simple walk with the other side.
Go outside the negotiation zone. Preferably walk in the park, the countryside
or other green spaces. If you are in the concrete jungle of a big city, then
the streets will have to do.
Walk side by side and talk, maybe just about them and their lives. Talk about
your humanity too. Listen to them and then see if they can listen to you.
When you have re-established a connection with them, bring up the subject
of negotiation. Ask them what they think can be done about it. Pose
possibilities.
Example

A sales team presenting to a large company seem to be getting nowhere as

the company is focusing just on price. The sales lead person suggests going
for a walk in the park nearby. A few key people go out and the sales person
ensures an equal balance of people from either side. They just talk about the
world. Tempers cool. Some apologies are made. Feeling better about one
another, they return to the negotiating table and achieve a more equitable
solution.
Discussion

The context of a negotiation can force a competitive or defensive attitude. If

we are on my territory, for example, then I feel dominant and you may feel
like an intruder who must either submit or attack. Even if the territory is
neutral, then it can quickly become associated with negative or aggressive
feelings.
Getting away from this context gives space to return to humanity, to pause,
take breath and re-ground yourself. And also to help the other side do this
too.
Walking side by side helps too. This is a position of equals. You are not
facing each others as competitors. Eye contact is broken. You are shoulderto-shoulder and may touch without giving a sense of invading their space.
It is better with pairs of people walking together as this gives an equality.
When there are three, the person in the middle either has a dominant
position (choosing who to speak to) or may be bombarded from those either
side.
See also

Proxemic Communication

Good Guy/Bad Guy

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Good Guy/Bad Guy

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

One person acts in an aggressive and pushy way, making unreasonable

demands and requiring compliance.
The other person then acts in a kind and friendly way, asking nicely -- and
getting compliance.
The good guy (or gal, of course) may apologize for the bad guy, or plead for
compliance because the bad guy is being horrible to the good guy too.
You can even do it as one person: be unpleasant and then apologize (you
are under such stress) and ask nicely for what you want.
Example

A husband and wife go out to buy some hi-fi speakers. He acts in an

aggressive and dominant way, complaining about the price and the sales
person's 'condescending' manner. She takes the sales person aside and
apologizes for her husband and whispers a price at which she thinks he will
buy.
A senior manager makes a presentation in an unpleasant and aggressive
way, demanding that tough goals are met. A liked line manager meets with
her people afterwards and says that if the goals are not met then she will be
punished.
Discussion

This is a classic implementation of the hurt and rescue principle, which is a

core element of many persuasion methods. The bad guy acts to cause
discomfort and tension, after which the good guy offers escape and closure.
This is often seen on TV in the good cop, bad cop routine that is often seen
in police dramas. It can also be a subconscious pattern for parents, where
one parent tries to impose discipline by demanding compliance after which
the other seems to get it easily by gentle request.

What the good guy says often gives the target person an excuse to comply,
allowing them to rationalize their action and retain dignity. Sometimes the
person complies with the good guy as an act of revenge to 'teach the bad
guy manners'.
Gender can make a difference here. While each can play either role, it plays
to tendencies and stereotypes if the controlling 'bad guy' is a man and the
nurturing 'good guy' is a woman.
See also

Good Cop, Bad Cop, Hurt and Rescue principle, The Drama Triangle
Highball

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Highball

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

This is a tactic for sellers, where you make your first offer as high possible
without completely putting off the customer.
This can be helped by determining what constitutes a reasonable range of
prices, so do your research beforehand to find the buyer's zone of
acceptability, then start at, or even above, the top of their range.
Be careful about asking the other person what they will offer, as their first
bid anchors the discussion, quite possibly on the low side (although if they
seem particularly keen to settle, asking them might give you a pleasant
surprise).
Example

A child who wants a parent to fund a night out starts by asking for about
three times as much as they really want.

When selling goods, a market trader starts with a high price. He then
reduces the price without being bargained with, using excuses about being
kind, needing to sell everything today and so on.
An estate agent takes buyers to houses that they cannot afford. This,
however, raises their desires and the house they eventually buy is more
expensive than they had anticipated.
Discussion

Where you start sets expectations for the other person. When you start high,
you can always go down. When you start low, you can never go up.
Starting high creates an anchor for the other person, whereby they may well
assume that this is in a reasonable range. If their counter-bid is also high,
then you will end up with a high price. Even if they are above what you
expected, do not settle immediately -- at best split the difference and you
may be able to nudge them even higher.
A high start may well take longer to reach resolution, giving you more
opportunity to find out more about the other person and to build effective
tension.
If the other person starts low, then it may be socially difficult for you to
counter with a high bid, although this can actually be a good move.
Responding to a low bid with a high bid indicates that you know they are low
and may be seeking
If the other person counters with a low bid (or starts to walk away), this may
be a signal that they know what you are doing. Hold your nerve! If you
collapse your position, they may well take advantage and seek to pull you
even further down.
Be careful about starting too high, as this may cause a betrayal response
whereby they leave without further ado, ignoring anything you may say.
Extreme positions outside of a range that may be considered fair can also be
damaging to relationships (which may be important).
The difference between your start position and your end position is a signal
to the other person about how much you have conceded to them. A

significant difference will make them believe they have got a bargain (a view
you can encourage with sighs and supporting words).
See also

Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic

Hire an Expert

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Hire an Expert

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

If the stakes are high, do not try to do it all yourself. Get in the
professionals.
Hire a subject expert to give you advice on the substance of the deal.
Hire an expert negotiator to do the actual deal.
Discuss things with them beforehand so they know what you really want.
Decide how you will work together. Options include:

They act fully as your agent, doing all negotiation themselves.

They sit in negotiations with you and are engaged in the discussions.

They sit in negotiations but mainly as an observer.

They do not attend negotiations but provide coaching and suggestions for you
beforehand.

During the negotiation, watch for signals from them. Also take breaks during
the negotiation to confer with them about what you might be really getting
and the costs and real value involved.
Example

I am buying a second-hand car, so take along a mechanic to thoroughly

examine the car before I start negotiating and also to give advice on such as
cost of repairs.
An entrepreneur is selling her company. She hires a professional negotiator
to do the negotiation and a lawyer to check details of the contract.
Before selling an antique, I talk to an auctioneer friend.
Discussion

Experts are not usually cheap. You can expect to pay top prices for a topclass expert in the field.
The basic reason for hiring an expert is that, although they are expensive,
they will save or make you much more money than they cost, or at very
least reduce the risk of being deceived.
Negotiators will often take a percentage of the sale price that they get for
you (or, if buying, a cut of what they save). Remember that a good
negotiator may also negotiate with you for their percentage!
See also

Authority principle, Experience principle

Incremental Conversion

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Incremental Conversion

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are seeking to convince a group of people, rather than trying to
convert them all at once, pick them off one at a time.

Focus on the individual, finding their separate needs. Then seek ways of
satisfying these needs.
Listen to many different people, putting together the jigsaw of
understanding to get the bigger picture of their organization.
If you are using team negotiation, match people up one-on-one with the
task of wooing over those on the other side.
When you have converted individual people, then you can also use them as
allies, getting them to subvert and convert others.
Example

A negotiation team 'shares out' the people on the other side and get.
A negotiator uses breaks to catch people in informal situations, build trust
and nudge them towards conversion.
A sales person makes an ally of the technical expert in the company and
feeds them with material to help them do internal selling.
Discussion

Incremental conversion uses a 'divide and conquer' approach and helps

break down group effects in the other side, for example where they may
cluster around a polar position even when individually they are more open to
persuasion.
It also allows for individual one-on-one relationships to be built that develop
trust and hence move overall towards agreement.
See also

Fragmentation principle, Theories about groups, Theories about conforming,

Conversion techniques
Interim trade

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Interim trade

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are stuck in a negotiation because something is wanted by the

other side but which you do not want to give (or are unable to obtain),
indicate that they will be able to get what they want, in order to get them
moving.
Then, later, remove or otherwise minimize that thing which was 'conceded'.
For example:

Try ignoring it in the final agreement.

Claim to have misunderstood the original request.

Give less that what might have been originally expected.

Reinterpret the commitment and give something else.

Negotiate the point away in a trade for something else.

Include the item in the agreement, but just do not deliver it.
Example

Yes, I'm sure I can get that for you. I'll look into it when I get back home
(where you call back and apologize that it just isn't possible now).
Of course -- let's include it in the final agreement (where it gets conveniently
forgotten).
I don't see why not. Now, let's move on to the main agenda. (later -- oh, I'm
sorry, I thought you meant...)
Discussion

Sometimes people get stuck on a demand that actually is not that important.
They become personally invested in it to the point where they feel they will
lose face if they concede. Your concession on this point thus lets them move

on to the next topic. If the point was not really important, then they will not
notice or object to its later removal or minimization.
When there are a lot of sub-items in the negotiated item, for example a
construction contract then you can often quietly drop in convenient things
without them being noticed.
See also

Attention principle, Distraction principle

Invoke Rules

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Invoke Rules

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Invoke rules that require certain behavior, by you or by them.

Rules can be any requirement that points to how a person should act. This
includes:

How: Procedures for negotiating, deciding and reaching agreement.

What: Things that are allowed or required as items for exchange.

Sources of rules that may be applied includes:

National laws.

Industry standards.

Company policies (yours or theirs).

Social norms (politeness, ethics, etc.)

When invoking standards, it can help avoid resistance if they are brought up
incrementally.

If they deny that the rules exist or otherwise try to ignore them, you can
threaten to escalate to the rule-makers, such as the CEO of their company.
Example

Sorry, I couldn't do that without involving our finance people. They have to
be involved in all changes to payments. Shall I get them in tomorrow?
Does it conform to ISO1347? Our customers will require this.
Is it your policy to sell sub-standard goods? Does your company have
service standards? What do they say about customer satisfaction? Is it your
first priority? Yes? So why are you acting as if it is a low priority?
Discussion

Using rules is a powerful method as it provides an external source for

required behavior that you can use to excuse what you 'must' do or require
from them.
Your rules

When you use rules that apply to you, you constrain what you can do by
saying you are not allowed to do things or must follow certain procedures.
When negotiating for a company or client, then you can be regulated by
their requirements. When negotiating for yourself, you can still reference a
partner or use social norms or national laws.
For example:

Not engaging in bribery or other inducements.

Have to check with others before agreeing.

Payment must be up-front or by a certain method.

Need to check wording of contract with lawyer.

Cannot give discount beyond certain level.

Their rules

It is surprising how often people do not know the rules that govern them,
and so easily stray outside the boundaries of what is strictly permissible. If

you can learn their policies and know other rules, then you have a powerful
tool with which to influence them.
Using their rules is particularly powerful in everyday situations where you
are an individual dealing with a company. The basic principle is to invoke
their company policies that they are not following. This is quite common.
People who set up policies are often detached from the front line and tend to
be rather idealistic, leading to customer policies that strongly favor
customers. Then CEOs sign the rules, which means failure to comply with
the rules is a PR disaster-in-waiting for the CEO.
See also

Values, Lawyer

It'll be Alright on the Night

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > It'll be Alright on the Night
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Paint the deal with a big brush, using grand descriptions and gestures. Gloss
over details, saying that there will be no problems with these or that they
can be sorted out later.
Be positive and enthusiastic, with a 'can do' approach. If the ask you about
details dismiss their concerns, perhaps showing slight disappointment at
their lack of confidence in you.
Example

Don't worry, we'll sort out all that stuff once we get going.

This will be a brilliant project and I'm sure we'll get all kinds of things done.
You've just got to have faith. It's negativity that would kill it, not lack of
ability.
That's a great thought and I'd like you to hold the question for now. Let's
agree on the deal and we'll sweat the small stuff later.
Discussion

Many people do not like conflict and will readily agree to procrastination or
otherwise avoid disagreement. This technique appeals to that avoidance
tendency.
'It'll be alright on the night' is a classic show-business comment, where
dress-rehearsal disasters are common and readiness for opening night may
be questioned. It effectively dismisses challenges as unnecessarily negative,
sweeping problems under the carpet, assuming they can be dealt with at a
later date.
See also

Overconfidence Barrier
Lawyer

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Lawyer

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Be like a lawyer, cross-examining the witness and postulating probabilities.

Draw them out, give them rope and let them hang themselves.
Use logical arguments that are rational and show cause-and-effect.
Quote chapter and verse of laws and regulations. Or just name the rules.

Ask searching and direct questions that surprises them into 'confessions'.
Be passionate about legitimate and correct causes.
Follow the law, either in the letter or the spirit (or maybe both).
Example

So, Mr Jones, tell me more about what you want to gain from this, and why
this is a legitimate goal.
Yesterday, Jeffery, you said you have not been to see anyone else, yet I
have it on good authority that you were seen leaving Alco's offices last
week.
Does this product conform with all Federal and European emissions
regulations, including the recent reduction targets?
Discussion

Lawyers succeed by preparing long before the show begins. They are also
very well qualified and usually extremely sharp and intelligent. You do not
need to be as clever as a lawyer -- just acting like one will make many
people think you are as clever as one.
Lawyers also succeed by confusing and dominating their subjects, asking a
barrage of questions and not letting the other person finish or letting them
talk themselves into trouble.
See also

Questioning techniques, Argument, Invoke Rules

Leaking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Leaking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Let misleading information 'leak' out from your side.

Let them overhear you talking about particular (but false) needs or
strategies that you have.
Leave documents on the table that they might read or copy.
Let something 'slip out' during conversation.
Have a person on your side 'sympathetically' tell them something.
Example

In a negotiation I have my papers flat on the table with a highlighted section

that can be easily read upside down.
We have a corridor conversation near where they are having coffee -- we
get excited and voices get raised...
Discussion

When people receive 'leaked' information, it can be very exciting for them as
they believe they have a significant advantage over you. They will also be
more likely to believe that it is true as it does not come from official
channels.
This may well lead them to focus largely on the leak areas -- and
consequently avoid other areas (where perhaps you do not want them to
go).
When the leak proves eventually to be false (if they ever find out this), then
they are unable to complain, for to do so would be to admit deceptive and
possibly criminal behavior.
See also

Distraction principle, Evidence principle

Linking

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Linking

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are building agreements, link items together, building a web of
commitment.
Use the word 'if...' a lot. Say 'If you...then I...'.
In particular link the things they want with the things that you want.
Link in consequences as well. Use words such as 'otherwise'.
Also link in things that are not wanted. Make agreements conditional upon
things being achieved. If they fail to deliver, then you can choose to call the
whole deal off.
You can link weak issues with strong ones, making it conditional that gaining
the main item means also gaining a number of other smaller items.
Example

In a performance-related agreement with staff, a pay rise is agreed to be

given only if employee productivity increases to a given level.
If you give me a 25% discount, then I will buy today, with cash, otherwise I
might come back next week with a credit card.
I will only go where you want if I can bring my mother. If you go where I
want, then we can go alone, just the two of us.
Governments will add small items to larger bills, such that as the main item
gets voted into law, a few small but very useful extras get towed along as
well.

Discussion

Linking shows cause and effect, answering the question 'why' and allowing
the other person to predict.
Linking is also associative, connecting things together by rule of meaning or
general connective thought process. Associative connections are not
necessarily causal, even if they appear so.
Linking shows them the route to what they want, linking benefit and
method. By highlighting their needs, they may be so focused on these that
your needs seem less significant.
Linking strong and weak items, the contrast between them makes the weak
item seem insignificant and so it gets a free ride.
See also

Cause-and-effect reasoning, Connection Language, Association principle

Log-rolling

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Log-rolling

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make a range of requests, some of which are less important as well as those
which are critical for you. When pressed or making an exchange, concede on
items which are lower priority in order to get those which are higher priority.
You can also help the other side find the best value for them. Ideally, each
person offers things that are less value for them but are higher value for the
other person.

Example

A person buying a car says that low cost and high performance are both
important. When offered a lower performance car they use their stated
priorities to help reduce the price.
In a contract negotiation, the buyer tries to put in a number of strict
sections about timescales and product features. Later, they concede on
some of the features a little but keep the timescale which is more
important.
Discussion

Negotiations often include concessions and exchanges as the players seek to

find agreement. In order to exchange you have to have something to give
away. If all you have are things that are important to you, then you may lose
out in any exchange. If, however, you have items that you would like but
which are less important, you can gain by exchanging low value items for
high value items.
The best way of doing this is to have items that are lf lower priority for you
but which are higher priority for the other party. Such low-for-high
exchanges are often called elegant negotiables (or 'elegant variables').
See also

Highball, High-Low, Elegant Negotiables

Lowball

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Lowball

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

This is a method for buyers, where you start your bidding particularly low.

When negotiating a price on something, for example, it can help to know

what constitutes a reasonable range of prices, so do your research
beforehand to find the seller's zone of acceptability, then start at, or even
below the bottom of their range. This may be justified with an argument
about why you are offering so little.
Be careful about starting out asking the other person what their price is, as
this will anchor the discussion (and their expectations) at a higher price.
Example

My son wants to stay out late, coming back at 3am. I start by saying that I
want him back at 10pm. We settle on midnight.
Sorry, sir, there's no call for these thing nowadays. It's damaged, too. The
best I can offer is...
A car dealer phones around personal adverts of individual selling cars,
making very low offers. If they are not immediately rejected, they follow up
to see how low a price they can get.
Discussion

Where you start sets expectations for the other person. When you start low,
you can always go up. When you start high, you can never go down.
Starting low creates an anchor for the other person, whereby they may well
assume that this is in a reasonable range. If their counter-bid is lower than
you expected, then you will end up with a good price. Even if they are below
what you expected, do not settle immediately -- at best split the difference
and you may be able to nudge them even higher.
A low start may well take longer to reach resolution, giving you more
opportunity to find out more about the other person and to build effective
tension.
If the other person counters with a highball (or starts to walk away), this
may be a signal that they know what you are doing. Hold your nerve! If you
collapse your position, they may well take advantage and seek to pull you
even further down.

Be careful about starting too low, as this may cause a betrayal response
whereby they leave without further ado, ignoring anything you may say.
Extreme positions outside of a range that may be considered fair can also be
damaging to relationships (which may be important).
The difference between your start position and your end position is a signal
to the other person about how much you have conceded to them. A
significant difference will make them believe they have got a bargain (a view
you can encourage with sighs and supporting words).
See also

Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic, Highball

Make a Mountain out of a Molehill

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Make a Mountain out of a
Molehill
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Take a small issue and make it a big issue. Take things personally. Be
surprised. Become upset. Raise your voice. Talk a lot about the issue and the
problems it will cause. Amplify and exaggerate.
If you are buying something look for blemishes or scratches and say it is
damaged goods. Become upset about a casual comment. Be insulted by a
price that is too high or an offer that is too low. Accuse them of being too
fussy, too casual, etc.
Example

Look at this scratch! It's like second-hand goods and will cost a lot to fix,
and even then just won't be the same!
Oh no! The box is damaged. I wanted it for a gift, too. This deserves a big
discount.
What did you call me? How dare you! I have never been so insulted in all my
life!!
Discussion

Making a fuss over something distracts attention away from other things that
you may want to avoid. It also takes up time, giving less time for the other
person to find problems and negotiate a better deal for themselves.
When you become upset about something you shift the focus from the
negotiation to yourself, with an implied requirement that you must be
calmed down before the negotiation proper can continue. This also
establishes you as a fussy person and dissuades the other person from doing
anything that might upset you further. They may also seek to conclude the
negotiation quicker by giving you more concessions or accepting a more
favorable price.
See also

Amplification principle, Intensifiers

Misleading Information

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Misleading Information

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Tell them things that will distract them, hurry them up, or otherwise provide
information that will help your cause.

You can do this directly or indirectly, for example through other other
people. Misinformation may also be passed to them by playing on their
dishonesty, for example by leaving papers behind that they peek at when
you leave the room.
Make sure the information is credible. If they do not believe it then they will
at best ignore it and at worst feel disgusted and seek to punish you.
Example

At an industry meeting with a competitor, a market manager exposes a flyer

for a new product that makes it appear the company has made a
technological breakthrough. This encourages the competitor to collaborate
on industry standards.
In wartime, a country plants a dead officer with 'secret plans' in a pocket,
where the enemy will discover it.
A child tells his parents he has tidied his room in order that he may be
allowed out to play.
Discussion

Misinformation is an opposite of information. Information lets you make

good decisions. Misinformation encourages you to make bad decisions.
Misinformation is often lying, although its users will seldom describe it as
such. It seeks to distract or inform others in ways that will affect their
decisions or make them more open to requests. Misinformation can be true,
but is selective in what is communicated such that the other person will
come to desired conclusions.
If we believe the source of information then we will likely accept the
information as true. This is also helped if the information itself makes sense.
Misinformers must hence take care to manage both their own credibility and
that of the information they provide.
Misinformation is often subtle exaggeration, such as when a job applicant
claims they achieved more than they really did. Misinformation may also be
a large and complex lie that needs other support, such as corroborating

evidence on websites. The web in general can be problematic when

misinforming as it offers so much information that may contradict the
misinformation provided.
Misinformation is deceptive and may present a moral dilemma. If discovered,
even at a later date, it creates the risk of damaging the relationship and
leading to punishing recriminations by the other party.
Misinformation is a classic wartime activity which seeks to confuse and
misdirect the enemy. It was used to very significant effect during World War
2.
See also

Lying, Propaganda, Intelligence, Confusion principle, Confidence principle

New Issue

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > New Issue

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Bring up a new issue in the middle of the negotiation.

Use this when things are getting sticky and you need to get them thinking about
something else.

Use it when you think you have conceded too much and they are getting more than
their fair share.

Use it to cause delays when you need time to think or take other action.

You can later drop the issue as appropriate (perhaps negotiating this for
another concession).
Example

I've just had a call from the boss -- he now needs to do this in half the time.
I've been looking at the design and I think we'll need an extra safety
system.
...You know, I know I added this, but I think we may be able to do without
it...
Discussion

When the other side is struggling to handle the complexities of the

negotiation, adding extra things can overload them, thus creating pressure
for them to make concessions in order to reduce the pressure.
When the other side is having things too easy, a new issue can cause them
to pause, breaking the flow of their progress.
Adding the issue late into the session will make it less likely that they will
respond by pulling out.
See also
Quivering quill, Confusion principle,
New Player

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > New Player

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When a negotiation that is taking a number of meetings is getting stuck or

things are turning for the worse (for you), bring a new person from your side
to the table.
Add a new member or change a person in a negotiation team.

Change the person doing the negotiation.

Bring in a subject expert to give advice.
Bring in an observer to watch body language and add a fresh eye.
Example

I am getting nowhere in persuading my son, so I ask my wife to talk with

him.
A person is unsuccessful at asking the boss for a raise, so they bring in their
trade union representative.
A buying team wants to shake up a negotiation with a sales team and so
changes several members of its team.
Discussion

As negotiations progress, relationships start to build between the two sides.

This creates an inter-group social pattern of which the other side can be
taken advantage, for example by incremental conversion. Changing your
team make-up breaks this pattern and allows you to remove any suspect
people.
A new person on your team will disrupt and distract the other side as they
seek to figure out what this person is like and what part they will play.
A new negotiator is often able to sweep away commitments made by the
previous negotiator.
A new expert can help you challenge claims from the other side, identify that
which has not been mentioned. They can counter arguments or create your
own new arguments.
See also

Distraction principle
Nibbling

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Nibbling

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Ask for small things, one at a time. Get agreement on each.

Frame the request as being very easy for the other person to give. Be
appreciative when they give. Reward them with kind words and thanks.
You can leave a delay between each one. You can also ask a short sequence
of nibbles and then give it a rest before asking for more.
This can be particularly effective near the end of the negotiation, when the
other person is seeking to reach a final agreement. It can also work near the
beginning, to get the ball rolling.
Example

Oh, just one more thing -- it's not much really -- could I have one more
seat?
Can I have that table there? And please send the waiter over immediately. I
also want water for everyone, now.
This window system is just what I want. The stained glass is included, of
course?...The hardwood surrounds as well, I know?
Discussion

In the way that a rabbit nibble at a lettuce leaf with small bites, so also is
'nibbling' a way of getting a lot.
Asking for a small thing makes it seem mean for the other person to refuse.
It can also make them feel good by giving you something that seems small
to them and makes you so happy.

At the start of the negotiation, getting a small concession sets the tone of
the negotiation (that you get something for nothing).
When the other person believes the deal has been agreed (or nearly
agreed), then they will give in on a small detail very easily.
See also

The personal-closure trap, Escalating demand, Foot In The Door (FITD),

Incremental Persuasion

No Authority

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > No Authority

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Refuse to give in on items based on the fact that you have not been given
authority to do what is being requested by the other person.
You can, if you wish, offer to take the request back to that authority for
consideration (and, at the next meeting, tell them that the request has been
turned down).
You can name the authority, particularly if the person named is known and
has a high position.
Example

Sorry, I only have the authority to spend up to a thousand.

I'll have to ask your mother about that.
I'd love to give you that, but I don't think I'd get away with it.

Discussion

When you claim that you do not have authority to make a decision, then this
effectively prevents the other person from disputing your decision, as the
authority person is not there.
If you use the name of a person in particularly high authority, then you gain
by proxy a certain amount of that authority, and can make more demands
than you might otherwise.
Claiming no authority can cause problems when the other person asks to
deal with the person in authority. For this, you will have to be able say no
(you do have authority for this!).
See also

Non-negotiable, Mandate
Non-negotiable

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Non-negotiable

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make one or more items that you need or want to be things on which you
will not concede at all.
When the other person tries to bargain with you on a non-negotiable, state
that you are not prepared to negotiate on this thing. If they persist, just use
a broken record response.
You can distract them from any persistence by offering a concession on
something else.
Example

I'm sorry, I cannot include the carpets. They were my parents.

I must have four wheel drive. That's a nice car, but I must have four wheel
drive.
Sorry, son, homework comes first. It may be your best friend's party, but
you can't go until homework is done -- to my satisfaction, too.
Discussion

When the other person believes that you are not going to concede on a
particular item, then they have the choice of terminating the negotiation or
giving in on that point.
Unless they have a walk-away alternative, then the thought of terminating
relationship will not be a good option for them.
See also

Needs, wants and likes, The walk-away alternative, Mandate

Not Happy

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Not Happy

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Say you are not happy and then wait for the other person to improve their
offer. Do not ask for something specific -- let them decide.
Shake your head and look sad, annoyed or distressed. Frown. Purse your
lips. Send body language signals to reinforce your unhappy state.
Do not be woolly, weakening your statement with softening qualifiers like 'I
can't say I'm happy' or 'I'm not that happy'.

When they do make an improved offer, say you are still not happy.
When they have run out of offers, you can ask for one more thing and then
say you'll be happy with this.
Example

You know, your company let me down and I'm really not happy at all.
I'm not happy with that...I'm still not happy...If you can add the whole
package then I'll be happy.
Discussion

There is a social rule that says you should not be unkind to others, and an
indicator of this is that they are unhappy. Declaring your unhappiness
invokes this rule and encourages the other person to improve their offer.
Being unhappy also hints that you may back out or escalate. This provides a
second line of pressure on the other person to work hard to get you happy
again.
Not saying what you want has two effects. If you ask for something, it looks
like you are playing a game to get more. When you say you are not happy,
you are not asking. Also, you may well be surprised when they give you
more than you expected or wanted.
This is a useful method to use when you have received poor customer
service, where representative often have a clear directive that customers
should be happy and also have lot of scope to ensure this.
See also

Better Than That

Odd One Out

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Odd One Out

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When a person takes a position on something (or, better, before they do),
show that everybody else prefers another position. In fact you can indicate
that positions which you do not want them to take are socially very
undesirable.
Tell them that others prefer different options. Point out how choosing the
undesirable option is personally hazardous for them or that they somehow
will be looked down on by other people.
Example

Everyone else has voted. I guess it's time for you to show your cards.
That's a rather odd request. I've never heard of people who want that.
The last time somebody asked for that, they didn't last long here.
Discussion

The principle here is to use the social compliance principle to coerce the
person away from an undesirable choice. We are a very social species and
what other think and do is very important for us as it implies they can offer
us esteem and change our social status.
See also

Social Compliance principle, Social Proof principle

Off the Record

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Off the Record
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Ask if you can talk 'off the record' then tell them something that appears to
be new information for them. You can also ask them about something that
they may be holding back.
Another method is simply to add 'off the record' in the middle of a
conversation and then continue with what you want to say, assuming that
the other person will not repeat what you tell them.
You can even ask for an entire 'off the record' meeting where you might for
example exchange information or give a presentation about the overall
business context. The negotiation meetings are then held separately to
these.
Variations of 'off the record' include:

'As an aside...'

'Confidentially...'

'Don't tell anyone, but...'

'Truthfully,...'

Do not tell them anything that would cause you a problem if they brought it
up later.
Example

Strictly off the record, is Michael the only person who can approve this?
Confidentially, I'm not happy with it myself, but I still have to go through
with it.
Let's go and have a cup of coffee. I want to give you some background
information that may help.
Discussion

Of course nothing is really off the record, and in many negotiations you can
never fully trust the other party. However, it can be very useful. When you
place something off the record, for example, you imply that you are trusting
them and, by reciprocation, they should trust you. This also puts them in an
awkward position, where they are socially obliged to you not to repeat
things, yet still are obliged to their employer or other associates. If they
accept your obligation, you will have moved them towards you, and they
may hence be more open to other suggestions.
Going off the record is also useful when things are getting stuck in the
negotiation and a bit of honesty can help get things back into motion. By
declaring that you are being truthful or open, you make what you say next
more credible and also suggest you are willing to give as well as take.
Another variant of 'off the record' is to declare 'Chatham House Rules'. This
is an English expression meaning that 'what is said in the room, stays in the
room'. In other words, everyone is strictly bound not to reveal to anybody
else what is said.
See also

Trust, Exchange principle, Obligation principle

Off the Record

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Off the Record
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Ask if you can talk 'off the record' then tell them something that appears to
be new information for them. You can also ask them about something that
they may be holding back.

Another method is simply to add 'off the record' in the middle of a

conversation and then continue with what you want to say, assuming that
the other person will not repeat what you tell them.
You can even ask for an entire 'off the record' meeting where you might for
example exchange information or give a presentation about the overall
business context. The negotiation meetings are then held separately to
these.
Variations of 'off the record' include:

'As an aside...'

'Confidentially...'

'Don't tell anyone, but...'

'Truthfully,...'

Do not tell them anything that would cause you a problem if they brought it
up later.
Example

Strictly off the record, is Michael the only person who can approve this?
Confidentially, I'm not happy with it myself, but I still have to go through
with it.
Let's go and have a cup of coffee. I want to give you some background
information that may help.
Discussion

Of course nothing is really off the record, and in many negotiations you can
never fully trust the other party. However, it can be very useful. When you
place something off the record, for example, you imply that you are trusting
them and, by reciprocation, they should trust you. This also puts them in an
awkward position, where they are socially obliged to you not to repeat
things, yet still are obliged to their employer or other associates. If they
accept your obligation, you will have moved them towards you, and they
may hence be more open to other suggestions.

Going off the record is also useful when things are getting stuck in the
negotiation and a bit of honesty can help get things back into motion. By
declaring that you are being truthful or open, you make what you say next
more credible and also suggest you are willing to give as well as take.
Another variant of 'off the record' is to declare 'Chatham House Rules'. This
is an English expression meaning that 'what is said in the room, stays in the
room'. In other words, everyone is strictly bound not to reveal to anybody
else what is said.
See also

Trust, Exchange principle, Obligation principle

Padding

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Padding

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Add in requirements to your initial position that you do not really need. Then
later, when you need to concede in order to get something you want, give
away this 'padding'.
Do not do this lightly. Act in the same way as if you were conceding
something you really want.
You can pad on any variables or individual items or even some combination.
Be ready to justify why you want these things. Beware of including what you
cannot reasonably justify.
Example

I must have this done by the end of the week...well, ok, I'll accept it next
Friday if you include a full specification.
My wife said it must be red...Well, I'll take the green one, but only if you
include the full insurance package. I guess I'll have to think about what to
say to Jean...
I need a meeting room for twenty people...Well, I guess I'll have to stop Jim
and Mary from coming. Coffee is included in that price, isn't it?
Discussion

Your initial position is often taken as what you really want, and that its entire
contents are at least very desirable to you. When you concede from this,
then is is assumed that you are giving away something that you would
rather have.
In order to work, padding has to be credible. If it is suspected that you are
deliberately padding then all of your requirements will be suspect and open
to challenge.
See also

Bluff

Phasing

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Phasing

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you are introducing something that is unpalatable or unpleasant in

some way, offer to phase it in over time.
The reverse may also be done: phasing out something that is desirable.

Sometimes you can do this in one go. Announce it at one point and then
delay the introduction.
Example

A salesperson makes an offer to phase payments over time in return for

signing the deal today.
A change manager phases in difficult changes over time, whilst phasing out
some of the benefits that can no longer be afforded.
A government announces a tax increase, but defers it for six months. This
results in a muted response from the general public.
Discussion

When something painful happens, there is a double blow in the pain of the
announcement and the pain of it actually happening. If the occurrence is
delayed, then by the time the event occurs the people involved will have
adjusted and be emotionally ready for the event.
Phasing a thing over time makes the pain more frequent, but also more
tolerable each time. This may range from financial pain (whereby the person
simply could not afford it in a single go) to emotional pain, where the pain of
loss (for example) can be particularly upsetting.
See also

Slicing

Plant

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Plant

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Have another person upset the applecart by saying something controversial

or otherwise putting the other person off their stride. For example:

Criticizing the other person's argument.

Introducing a new consideration that changes the whole situation.

Asking irrelevant questions.

Talking for a long time.

Using contradictory or negative body language.

This person can be someone on your side who acts like a 'loose cannon' or
may be an apparently neutral bystander.
Be careful that the plant is not so annoying that they completely dissuade
the other person from wanting to negotiate with you. Also, of course, make
sure that the other person does not guess that the plant is acting
deliberately. For this reason, the plant is often played by someone who is
naturally a bit geeky or otherwise has less gentile social skills.
Example

When telling my son to go to bed, my daughter makes a comment about it

being childish to argue against this request (which I asked her to say
beforehand, knowing how the argument would proceed).
In a team negotiation, a person on one side brought in as a subject expert
keeps talking about things that are not relevant, wandering off-topic when
they are talking. They do this particularly when the other side is getting into
awkward territory.
A primed bystander looks shocked at the other side's position. They shake
their head and frown at many of the things that people on the other side
say.
Discussion

A 'plant' is a person who is deliberately 'planted' into a situation for a

particular purpose.
A Plant is also a Belbin's team role, where the person is creative and comes
up with good ideas, but may well not be focused achieving closure on the
best answer (and thus, in teams, needs to be controlled).
See also

Belbin's Team Roles

Play Dumb

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Play Dumb

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Act stupid. Ask dumb questions. Be a bit confused. Do not show how smart
you are.
When they talk about things, apologize for not quite understanding and ask
them to explain various details again. Frame your requests as if they had
just occurred to you. Be impressed at their ideas.
While not actually being stupid in annoying them or agreeing to things that
disadvantage you, be vague and give the impression of being their
intellectual inferior.
Example

That sounds amazing. I don't know how you thought of that.

Um, sorrry, I didn't get that bit about finance stuff. Could you explain it
more simply, please?

Ooh. How about this. Maybe you could bring a spare in case the first goes
wrong. I think that would help avoid contract failure. Is that right?
Discussion

When people think you are smart, they will be on their guard and will avoid
giving things away. They also may resent being made to feel relatively
unintelligent. When people feel superior, they feel safe and so relax. They
become less guarded and may let slip important pieces of information.
Appearing less intelligent while not giving things away is a delicate balancing
trick. Much can be done to help this by using simple language, acting unsure
and praising the other person. Listening intently and agreeing to as much as
possible also helps them feel good.
To get what you want, you may leave your proposals until later, when you
have gathered much useful inform action. Another approach is to casually
get agreement on small items then change the subject and keep flattering
them.
See also

Bluff, Confusion principle

Using Policy to Persuade

Techniques > General persuasion > More methods > Using Policy to
Persuade
What is policy? | Selling | Buying | Service interactions | See also

Policy is a lever that can be powerful in buying, selling and other persuasive
situations.
What is policy?

Policy is a set of over-arching rules that are intended to guide and direct
what people do. To be understood and remembered, they are often (or
should be) brief and clearly stated.
Policy can often be quite specific, for example a retail policy that limits
returns to 30 days. On a company website it may may be found under other
names such as 'Customer charter', 'Our Values' and so on.
Selling

When selling, you can use policy as a limit beyond which you cannot go. This
allows you to say 'no' in a final way that brooks no argument. Rather than
saying 'I don't want to do that' you can say 'It's against policy'.
You can also offer to break policy to help customers, for example saying 'It's
against policy, but I'm going to do this for you.' This creates delight in
customers who realize you are 'going above and beyond' to help them. It
also causes obligation for them to do something in return (like buy more).
Buying

When you are going to buy something, it can be helpful to look first at the
company's policies that affect you. These include policies around customer
satisfaction, such as 'We aim to delight all our customers' to price promises
and guarantees of product quality ('We sell only the best'). Also read
carefully harder policies such as those about returning goods and general
service.
Now when you are buying, bring up those policies. If you are not happy, ask
about their policy about customer satisfaction. If you have found the product
cheaper elsewhere (including on the web) bring up their price promise. 'I am
not happy with this' can be a surprisingly powerful phrase that sends
customer agents scurrying to make you happy, as their policy demands.
You can even talk policy if you do not know if they have one, by using
common sense comments, such as 'Is it your policy to advertise goods that
are not in stock?' This question of 'is it your policy to...' can be used in a
host of settings.

You can also ask about policy in the positive sense, such as 'Is it your policy
to try to satisfy customers?' of course they reply 'yes' and then you can say
what it will take to satisfy you.
Service interactions

Invoking policy when taking to people on the phone can be especially

powerful, particularly when they seem not to care too much about helping
you (in fact they may invoke policies about things they are not allowed to
do).
You can use much of the approach for buying in the service context and the
'Is it your policy...' phrasing can be very successful.
Bringing up policy can seem quite threatening, so it can be better to use this
method if they do not offer the help that you need after initial repeating
requests.
See also

Sales, Negotiation

Price Not Negotiable

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Price Not Negotiable
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Do not negotiate on price. Seek to negotiate on other variables such as

delivery time, quality, service and so on.
As a way of preserving the standard 'book' price, you may be able to offer
discounts, for example for higher quantities or immediate orders.

Example

Sorry, I cannot change the price. However, I can throw in an extra year's
insurance at no extra cost.
The unit price is fixed but we may be able to agree a good bulk discount for
you.
I know they are expensive. These are premium goods built by skilled
craftspeople. They will last you for many years.
Discussion

Many buyers think first and last about price, yet this immediately harms
your profit. Reducing your price is a tacit admission that you have charged
too much and can make them less trusting.
When price is mentioned, especially if this is early in the negotiation, it is an
opportunity to show exactly what they are getting for their money. Only
consider price changes as a last option and seek to ask for something in
return.
See also

Say no, Non-negotiable

Quivering Quill

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Quivering Quill

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Wait until you are just about to sign the deal and then pause. You may even
have the pen in your hand (the 'quivering quill'). Look at the other person
and ask for some extra concession. It may even be something quite
significant.

Example

Mmm. Before I sign, I want one more thing to be included in this. If you
give me an upgrade to the next model for the same price, then the deal is
yours today.
Whoops. I forgot to ask. I can bring the children as well, can't I?
Oh yes, before I go, you will ask Bill, won't you?
Discussion

When the deal is just about to close, then the other person may well have
already emotionally closed and assumed that the deal is complete. The
thought of you pulling out is thus so painful for them that they will make
significant concessions just to get the agreement complete (and the pain of
re-opening relieved).
See also

The Personal-Closure Trap

Red Herring

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Red Herring

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Lay a false trail that the other person will follow.

Make sure the trail goes away from the things you do not want them to
discover.
If you want them to waste time, make the trail long.

If you want them to expend effort, make the trail difficult to follow (but with
enough interesting clues to keep them sniffing.
You can highlight 'problems' which turn out not to be problems (after a
degree of examination).
Be careful to retain credibility, for example by referencing the trail through
other people.
Example

A company shows some interesting, but minor problems to an auditor,

distracting them from the really serious issues that may be found elsewhere.
There might be a problem with the paintwork, let's look...No! The paintwork
is, in fact, perfect.
Discussion

Laying a false trail leads people away from areas that you do not want them
to see. To do this, the trail must be of sufficient interest that the other
person misses any clues to other areas.
Red herrings are particularly useful when the activity is time-bound -- that
is, time spent following the red herring is time that can not be spent in other
areas.
Talking about problems that are not really problems has effects beyond
distraction. For example, it may show you in a positive light as willing to
highlight issues that may count against you. Also, the relief that problems
are not problems creates a sense of closure that easily becomes agreement
to the deal.
If the other person realizes that it is a deliberate red herring, they may be
very unhappy about this, so it should either be cloaked carefully or you must
be protected from any anger.
See also

Confusion principle, Red Herring (storytelling)

Russian Front

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Russian Front

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Offer them something that they will never choose. Dress it up so that it
seems more reasonable (at least that it is reasonable that you might offer it
to them).
Make it seem inevitable. Show how it is going to happen. Paint the picture of
pain.
Then offer them the alternative that you really want them to choose.
Example

Well, I do hear they need people with your talents down in Sewage
Maintenance, and there are openings there -- the last guy ended up in
hospital. Though I've also got contacts in reception -- would you like me to
ask them?
You can go to bed now ... or you can clean up this mess.
Uh oh. You've done it now. Michael will not like that. And he's coming down
in ten minutes. Tell you what: there is something I can do...
Discussion

One of the things that many German soldiers feared in the second world war
was being sent to the Russian front, where you were as likely to die from the
cold as from a Russian bullet (and the Russians were pretty mad at being
invaded, just as they were when Napoleon tried the same trick).

Offering something that is clearly undesirable creates panic and discomfort.

This causes people anxious to get away from this -- to the point where they
are looking more at what they are avoiding than what they are getting
instead.
This is an application of the Hurt and Rescue principle and also the Contrast
principle. The Russian front provides the pain, against which any alternative
sounds wonderful.
See also

Hurt and Rescue principle

Reducing Choice

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Reducing Choice

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Reduce the choices that the other person has to a limited number -- two or
three is often good. Four or five may be ok but can be too much. Ten is way
too many.
In offering choices, you can of course provide biased choice, making the
things you want the best or only things that they choose.
Avoid offering too many choices at once. Too many options will either lead to
confusion or happy mulling over all the options (but no decision).
You can get through many options by revealing new choices or descending a
hierarchical tree of choices.
Example

We can visit your family next week or the week after -- I'm away for a while

then. (limited choice)

Do you want fries with that?...and salad?...green or mixed? ...what dressing
would you like?... (revealing choice)
Do you want a large or small car?...is is for family or just you?...how many
doors?... (hierarchical choice)
Discussion

When you reduce choice in negotiations, you can eliminate those things that
you do not want and focus on the things you do want.
If you give a person no choice, they will feel as if you are controlling them. If
you give them too much choice, they will be confused. Judging vs.
perceiving preferences will affect choice, as perceivers prefer more options
(so give them more).
See also

Alternative Close, Biased choice, Fair criteria

Rollercoastering

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Rollercoastering

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Keep showing interest, then backing off (then repeating the cycle) until they
offer the deal you want. You can even back off after you have agreed a

price, apparently getting 'cold feet' about the purchase.

Start by saying that you are at an early stage in your buying process, still
finding out what is available and the sort of prices you can get. They
continue to show interest. This should give them hope of 'stealing' the sale
before competing sales people can make their pitch. Listen and then say the
product seems great but you really should check out other sources first.
Then say that to buy now, you would need to be made a really good offer.
This should get them to give you a good price. They may also seek to take
advantage of your apparent ignorance, while of course your research has
told you what a good price really is. This lets you check their tendency to
deceive and also gives the opportunity to shame them into agreeing to a
low, but reasonable, offer.
Example

We've only just started looking ... This is rather nice ... Well, I guess I
should really check out other places first ... How much could you do this for
now? ... That's too much for me. I'll give you twenty. ... That's good ...
Actually, I'd better not, I'll get into trouble ... Wow, that's a really great deal
...
I'm not in a hurry. It's early days yet. ... Go on tell me more ... Really?
That's nice ... You'll have to offer a great price to tempt me today. ... I'm
not sure, maybe I should check out other prices. ... That's better ... I don't
know, though ... .
Discussion

When you say that it is early in your buying, the sales person knows that
selling to you will be difficult. But then when you show increasing interest,
their hopes of a sale are increased again, only to be dashed when you say
you want to look elsewhere, and then increased when you talk prices. This
puts the salesperson on a rollercoaster of hope, wearing them down and
making them increasingly desperate.
The longer you engage the sales person, the more time and emotion they
will have invested into the process and the more they will want to achieve

the sale to give some return on this investment.

The rollercoaster effect increases when you yourself seem to be
rollercoastering too, swinging between desire and uncertainty. As the
salesperson bonds with you, they will empathetically be tied to your
apparent mood swings.
You can use nibbling as a part of this approach, asking for more extras to be
thrown into the deal for no extra cost. These may even be offered without
prompting, especially when the sales person has reached the lowest price
they are allowed to offer.
See also

Trial balloon, Nibbling

See You in Court

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > See You in Court
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Threaten to take the whole thing to a higher authority or some public forum.
Suggest that some third party be brought in to mediate or arbitrate.
You can accompany this with either cool rationality or emotion and drama.
Each will have a different effect.
Example

Right! I'm telling Mum on you!

If we can't agree here, then we'll need to involve the whole team in the
decision.
That is just too much. I think we should ask Michael what he thinks.
Hmm. I think I am going to have to get the Union involved.
Discussion

In court, control is taken away from the negotiators, with a judge or jury
making the decisions. If you believe you are more likely to win the case in
this kind of environment, then moving to this will gain you advantage. If the
other person knows this, then the threat of doing this will get them to
concede more.
Court is a very public place where people's dirty washing gets aired. The
thought of this loss of face can be very persuasive in getting people to think
again about the agreements they are making.
See also

Review: The Third Side, Threat principle

Shotgun

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Shotgun

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Refuse to continue until a concession is gained.

Make it clear that nothing is going to happen until they give in on a single,
named item.
Example

I let you use the car yesterday. I'm not doing that again until you clear up
your room.
I want a much better discount...Sorry, I'm not interested in talking about
add-ons or finance deals until we agree the discount.
Discussion

Use this method particularly when you have conceded to the other person,
but they have not given enough back in return.
Generally, people concede in turn. When you have the upper hand in that the
other person wants what you have more than you want what they have,
then you may be able to demand several concessions before you concede on
one thing.
See also

Breaking it off
Side Payments

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Side Payments

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When what one side wants is more than what the other side wants, balance
the difference with a cash payment.
This will need a valuation of the items being exchanged. An independent
agent may be used for this or it can just be included in the negotiation.
Example

In a house exchange, where an older couple are swapping their big house
with a young family who have a smaller bungalow, the difference in value is
negotiated and the family pay this in cash.
Look, I'll give you this Honda and five hundred extra for your Ford, which I
know is a bit newer.
Discussion

Where the negotiation is not about buying something, there is often an

unspoken assumption that the exchange is goods-for-goods or some other
non-financial interaction. Bringing in a compensatory balance can help to
make things more acceptable.
The same principle can be used in other ways, for example where a sales
person 'throws in' additional products to make their price more tempting.
See also

Exchange principle
Slicing

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Slicing

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Slice a larger deal up into a number of smaller complete deals.

Build smaller packages on which you can gain agreement.
You can take out the items that are difficult to agree and agree on the things
on which you can get a good agreement. The difficult items may then be
negotiated one at a time.

Gain clear agreement on each one before moving on to the next, possibly at
another time.
Example

Right, so you'll spend tomorrow digging the hole. Let's get back together
when that's complete.
Look, we are not agreeing on the location, so let's first agree on the
timescales.
If we sign the contract as is, we can add a contract variation later.
Discussion

Slicing allows you to gain agreement in a situation where there may be a

sticking point over which agreement cannot yet be gained.
Sometimes slicing a deal up just into two parts can be very helpful in
achieving focus.
By breaking down the negotiation into lots of smaller negotiations, you may
be able to get more for your money.
See also

The size heuristic

Split the Difference

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Split the Difference
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you have offered one amount (often, but not necessarily, money) and
the other person has named another amount, then offer to 'split the
difference', to agree on a price that is half-way between what you want and
what the other person wants.
Example

It's lower than I really wanted, but I'd be prepared to split the difference.
You are offering 200. I want 300. For a quick sale, I'll accept 250.
Discussion

Splitting the difference, agreeing a solution that is half-way between two

positions, appears to be fair, and hence can be difficult to refuse.
The trick with this is to maneuver the situation such that a half-way position
is actually still a very agreeable solution for you.
See also

The Need for Fairness

Suggest Facilitation

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Suggest Facilitation

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When there is an impasse and you are unable to agree, suggest getting a
third party in to help unstick things and facilitate the process.
Suggest someone who will be good at this (and who will likely be more
sympathetic to your cause). Oppose people they suggest.

You can also suggest arbitration, where a third party makes decisions that
you and the other person are unable to agree.
Example

We're going round in circles. Let's call in Sue to facilitate the process. she's
good at keeping things moving.
Listen, we're not going to agree here. Why don't we put the arguments to
Jim and let him choose.
I think we are losing our way here. Let's get Sam to help out.
Discussion

Support from third parties can be effective if both parties trust this
intermediary, so the person must be chosen wth care. If you suggest
someone they suspect will be biased towards you, they will not easily agree.
The suggestion of a third party can just change the argument to who is the
most duitable person. Note that a facilitator must not only be neutral, they
must also have the considerable skills to help both parties come to an
agreement.
As a good facilitator will bring fairness to the proceedings, suggesting
facilitation can be a good move if the other person is being deceptive, unfair
or otherwise seems to have ained an advantage.. Making this suggestion can
make the other party worried about the re-balancing effect and so give you
more concessions.
Bringing in someone else may seem likely to slow things down. Suggesting
facilitation can hence act as a threat when the other person is in a hurry.
See also

Coaching
Take a Break

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Take a Break

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you're unsure and need to check things out, looking up facts or calling
other people, take a break. You can also use the break as a disruption tactic,
breaking up their flow, especially when things are going well for them.
Another reason to take a break is where you think you are being pressured.
Breaks can range from seconds to days. Pausing within the discussion can
give you vital seconds to gather your thoughts and reflect on suggestions.
Refreshment breaks give time to talk with others and look up detail.
Overnight gives even more time. You may also want to go back to your
people and discuss the situation.
Example

Hang on, just let me think for a moment about that.

Excuse me, could you direct me to the bathroom?
Hmm. I have heard some interesting things today and want to step back to
reflect. Let's meet again next week.
Discussion

We often pressure ourselves into quick agreement or allow others to

pressure us. In most cases, especially if we are buying and there is no real
urgency, we can step back at any time to collect our thoughts and make
cooler decisions.
The human brain is very clever at making decisions based on large amounts
of uncertain data, but is prone to many decision errors and traps, especially
when stressed. By giving it time to reflect it can be much more accurate.

Breaks as disruption work when they interrupt flows of thinking and

speaking. When you return you can also use this to rewind and go back to a
former stage.
See also

Interrupting, Decisions
Take It or Leave It

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Take It or Leave It

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you make an offer to the other person, say 'Take it or leave it'.
Leave a long pause after this, just looking expectantly at them (or maybe
leaving them to stew for a while by themselves).
Show that if they leave it, then this is not important to you, for example by
demonstrating your walk-away beforehand, or by acting in a casual manner.
Example

That's all I've got. Take it or leave it.

That's the best offer I can make. I've done as much as I can for you now, so
you're going to have to take it or leave it.
Well, you can take it now, or you can leave it forever. If you don't take it, I
really think you'll regret that decision for a long time.
Discussion

Saying 'take it or leave it' is a form of Alternative Close, that offers two
choices, but where one is intended as being unacceptable, thus forcing the
actual choice.
If the other person has a walk-away alternative, then leaving it may be a
very real option, so be careful about using this method in such
circumstances (for example by making sure your walk-away is better).
See also

The walk-away alternative, Using pauses

Trial Balloon

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Trial Balloon

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Suggest a final solution and see if the other side bites. Float out an idea and
see if they run with it or away from it. Explore possibilities that will lead to
closure.
For example:

Ask 'what if?' and wait for 'how?'

Use 'If I...will you...'

Use 'Let's...' and see if they agree.

Say 'Are you ready to agree now?'

Example

How about going to the restaurant tonight?

If we can agree on the final numbers, are you ready to sign today?

Right. We've agreed on the date and price. Is that it?

Discussion

It is easy to assume that the other person will not accept an idea or is not
ready for closure. The fear of their refusal can thus prevent you from
exploring or trying something out.
All you need to do to use a trial balloon is to add some form of qualifier or
otherwise ask questions that will lead them to consider moving forward with
you.
See also

Assumption principle

Understanding, Not Agreement

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Understanding, Not

Agreement
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When you have said yes to something, later deny that this was agreement.
Say either that you said 'yes' to indicate that you understood or that the
agreement was a temporary understanding, not a contract.
This may be done during a protracted negotiation, forcing a return to earlier
negotiation. It may also be used in everyday life where you feel you were
manipulated into an agreement or where going back on what was agreed
gains more benefit than the anger and recrimination that it may trigger.
Example

When I said 'yes' I meant 'I understand' not 'I agree'. Sorry for the
misunderstanding.
You know what we spoke about was just an understanding. I think we need
to talk more about it.
I feel I've been tricked. The agreement was based on an understanding that
has turned out to be wrong, which makes the whole thing null and void.
Discussion

There are a number of cultures in which saying 'yes' does not indicate a
binding agreement, for example it may be said to save face and avoid the
embarrassment of conflict. Real commitment here is gained by allowing time
for reflection and the involvement of others in the discussion and decision.
In other cultures where governmental and judicial corruption is rife, even
legal agreements may be worth little. In such places, agreement is based on
social agreement and handshake, and even then much work needs to be
done in support of the relationship to ensure commitments are completed.
Even in more familiar cultures people go back on agreements and seek to
avoid legal redress. This underlines the nature of human agreement and
commitment, which may be tested when we feel that expectations have not
been met. A sad example of this is in the number of relationship break-ups
and acrimonious divorces.
If you are unsure whether the other person is agreeing or just
understanding, ask them. Check that when they say yes they are making a
firm commitment. You may need to rephrase this in several ways to be sure.
Also take time to explain that you are doing this because such a
misunderstanding has caused problems in the past.
See also

Confusion principle
Undiscussable

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Undiscussable

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Make a subject that is particularly embarrassing undiscussable. If the other

person brings it up, refuse to talk about it.
This can be applied to individual negotiables also.
Distract them by moving quickly on to a separate and different subject -preferably one that they will find interesting.
If they persist, a way to prevent them continuing is to give some detail that
embarrasses them into giving up.
Example

Sorry, I don't talk about my private life. Would you like to hear about what
happened at the party last week?
No, it has to be green...I just want green, ok!!
I can't be at the meeting tomorrow because it's my grandmother's funeral.
Ok? Happy now??
Discussion

Making something undiscussable puts it off the agenda. A flat refusal is often
enough, especially if it is repeated as a broken record.
This is a typical method that is used for things that are particularly
embarrassing. In groups, it is not uncommon for people to have unspoken
agreements that 'I will not talk about your failings if you do not talk about
mine'. When a new member enters the group, they quickly learn what not to
talk about.

The 'Emperor's New Clothes' is a parable that shows how even obvious
things become undiscussable.
See also

The Wince
War

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > War

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Threaten them with extreme action that will cause them significant
discomfort.
If they do not comply with your demands, threaten to do something that will
cause them significant trouble and pain, even if it also would cause you pain.
There are two dimensions that you can apply: the level of pain and how long
it goes on for. A short, sharp shock is often better than a long campaign.
However, if you cannot cause significant pain, a long war of attrition may be
enough. A dripping tap wears away even the hardest stone.
Example

If you don't give me what I want right now, the next thing you hear will be
from my lawyer. I'm not kidding here: I'll sue you for everything you've got.
If we cannot agree on the right price for your company, I may just set up in
competition with you and drive you out of business.
I won't! I won't!! I won't!!! And if you try to make me, I'll scream and
scream and scream!!
Discussion

When you threaten war or some other extreme action, you are
demonstrating that you are prepared to go to any lengths to get your way.
This lack of consistency with 'normal behavior' makes it difficult for the other
person to predict what you will do and their consequent fear leads them to
capitulate.
It is particularly scary when they realize that you are prepared to do battle
even if the cost to you is high. This lack of rationality again makes you
difficult to predict.
The notion of extreme action also gives a contrast between the loss of
capitulation and the loss that the extreme actions would cause. In this case,
even total capitulation may seem like a better option.
See also

Contrast principle, Threat principle

What If

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > What If

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Use the language of possibility to test interest in ideas and introduce

concepts gently. Use this method to stimulate their imagination, to get them
excited and realize that they could possibly get, and that it may be even
better than what they are seeking.
'What if' language can use words such as:

What if...

How about...

Let's try...

Suppose...

Imagine that...

Just consider...

Two places that the 'what if' approach can be used is earlier on, when
exploring options, and near the end, when hammering out final details. Early
on, you can open up avenues of exploration and discussion. When looking to
close the deal, you can also use 'what if' to test out a package, effectively
saying 'If I do this, will you agree to the complete deal?'
Example

Let me show you this other car. I know you aren't looking at something this
big at the moment, but how about if we could find a way so it would easily
fit into your budget.
So we've a loyalty problem with experienced staff. What if we gave a bonus
only to those who have been here for at least five years?
What if I give you another 1%? Is that enough to make your people agree to
the deal? I'd have to check, but I think I may be able to get it for you.
Discussion

Asking 'What if' invites them to think beyond their current view. This can be
difficult as many people use closed thinking, where they severely limit their
consideration of possibilities. This is particularly true in negotiation where
they 'know what they want' and do not consider alternatives. They may also
be suspicious of any more to introduce new elements, so you need to ensure
they have sufficient trust in you before you open the field to new thoughts.
Do this with such as listening and talking positively about them. When they
seem warmer towards you, act as if you just had an idea and are voicing
your thoughts when you say 'what if'.
Talking in the language of possibility is less threatening and hence less likely
to trigger objections. It introduces an idea gently, emphasizing that it is just
that -- an idea. Then, once they have acknowledged that it is a reasonable
proposition, you can increase its perceived value further by explaining how
good it is for them.

See also

Possibility Language, Trial Close

Widows and Orphans

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > Widows and Orphans
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Get the sympathy vote by showing how you are helping those less fortunate
than yourself.
Alternatively, show how what the other person is suggesting will hurt those
innocents.
Play to the crowd: Add some drama. If there are others there, play to them
as well.
Example

Nice idea, but have you thought about the effect it will have on the
children??
I thought that as we go to London, we could stop off to see my father. He is
rather unwell and would be cheered up by the visit.
Excuse me Mike, do you agree with Sally? She wants to get rid of Jennifer,
who is, as we all know, a struggling single parent.
A woman begging takes a child with her.
Discussion

Using the 'widows and orphans' approach is an appeal to the values of the
other person, in particular the broad social moral which says that we should
not harm those who are weaker than ourselves.
In normal use, this is a highly effective value for creating social cohesion and
support for the needy. In negotiation, it can be a coercive and effective bind.
See also

Appeal to Emotion, Vulnerability and Values

The Wince

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > The Wince

Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

When they name their price or what they want in exchange for what you are
offering, visibly wince.
Look startled and shocked. Look at them in disbelief.
Say nothing, as if you are shocked into silence. And then wait for them to
make another offer.
If they say nothing (give them plenty of time), you can ask them to repeat it
or ask if they are sure.
Example

I am buying a car on a private sale. The seller names his price. I jump a
little take a sharp intake of breath and look alarmed. I take a few paces
back from the car and shake my head. Then I look at him and raise my
eyebrows. He reduces his price. I incline my head and step forward again...
An antique dealer invariably winces loudly when someone tries to sell them

something at anything less than a very low price.

Discussion

When you wince and look shocked at a named price, you are sending a
signal that the other person that they are breaking social norms. Most
people are very fearful of the consequences of such an act and, even in a
negotiation, will back down rather than thought of in this way.
When you show shock, it is also a signal that you may well back out of the
negotiation (a physical movement backwards emphasizes this). To keep you
in the negotiation, the other person will believe they have to act fast,
perhaps by making a substantially revised offer (if you are thinking of
leaving, a small change may not be enough).
See also

Social Norms, Better than that

The Zone Defense

Disciplines > Negotiation > Negotiation tactics > The Zone Defense
Description | Example | Discussion | See also

Description

Each person on the negotiating team has an area of expertise and/or

responsibility.
A way this may be used as a tactic is that one person negotiates with the
other side to gain some concession. Then as the other person thinks they
are making progress, a new negotiator is brought in and who takes a
different tack, making new demands, including in areas that the other side
thinks is all agreed.

Zone methods can also be used for such a one person taking notes, another
watching for body language while another negotiates the fine detail.
Example

Hello. I represent the estates department. I know you have been talking to
the facilities people, but I have some particular needs that must be covered.
Yes, I know my husband agreed some thinks about the kitchen and I just
need to check the fittings are suitable.
Now then, I'm Michael's manager and he may have over-stepped his
authority in a few places. Before we agree I want to clear up a few details.
Discussion

The zone defense is used in team sports games where different players 'own'
separate parts (or 'zones') of the field. Hence if an attacker crosses a zone
boundary a fresh defender will seek to tackles them. This limits the need to
run long distances, giving each new defender increasingly more energy than
a single running attacker. Also, if an attacker gets past a defender through
greater skill in one area, the different skills of the next defender may enable
a more successful tackle.
When the other side agrees things with you they will think they are making
good progress and are close to a final agreement, bringing in a new player
can demoralize the opponents, making it more likely they will give more
concessions.
This approach is related to the 'higher authority' method, where the needs of
unseen other people are introduced. The zone defense enlivens this with
actual other people being brought in. Be careful in this that the other people
are competent negotiators or else are tightly scripted on what the can and
cannot say.
See also

Change the Negotiator, No Authority