By
Simon Hazeldine
In business and in negotiation not everyone plays fair and some people are downright unethical and deceitful! Therefore, it is a good idea to understand some of the dirtier tricks and tactics that some people may use in negotiation situations.
The best defence against such tactics is to be aware of them so that you can respond to them effectively. So, let’s journey over to the dark side….
“Good Cop / Bad Cop”
Anyone who has watched enough police shows on television will have seen the interrogation tactic where one cop is nasty, and one cop is nice. One cop shouts and threatens the suspect whilst the other befriends him and is nice to him. In reality good cop and bad cop have stage managed everything so that meeting the demands of good cop seem preferable to have any further encounters with bad cop. Although this tactic is widely known it can still be a very effective way to manipulate someone’s behaviour.
The more primitive regions of the human brain are primarily motivated to act to either avoid pain/discomfort (away from motivation) or to gain comfort/pleasure (towards motivation). These motivating forces operate at a deep and largely unconscious level in human neurology. If you consider the “Good Cop / Bad Cop” tactic with an understanding of the deep seated towards /away from motivation, then you will understand why it can be so effective. Whilst we all know about this tactic (perhaps we watch too much television!) we may not understand the unconscious motivating factors that make it so effective. Some people will feel under pressure and stressed during negotiation, and this combined with the towards / away from motivation can make the individual more susceptible to this sort of manipulation.
“My Boss Is A * * * * * * * * !”
Another people based tactic is where the person you are negotiating with attempts to convince you that you really ought to agree to what they are asking for, as if the negotiation has to be escalated to their boss then you will be in big trouble.
The implication is that you will get a better deal if you agree to what they are asking for. If their boss gets involved then it is going to get even worse.
The counter to this is to firstly, inform the other person that you too have a tough boss and secondly, to be fully prepared to negotiate with their boss. This can be even better for you as the boss will have a higher authority level within the organisation. Very often people will not want their boss involved as it will look as if they cannot do their job properly and they are only mentioning their boss to get you to give them what they want.
“I Need to Get This Approved By My Boss”
During a negotiation this tactic is utilized to get you to make your proposals and concessions concrete and the return from the other party less so. You will be asked to confirm your proposal and in return the other party will tell you that they “would love to confirm back to you but that they need to get it approved by their boss”. You are required to kindly let them have your full proposal so that they can take it to their boss. This reduces your ability to trade concessions and secure a robust deal. This tactic makes the concessions rather one sided in the other party’s favour!
The counter is to insist upon negotiating with the boss directly. If they cannot confirm the value that they will give in return for any concession that you may be prepared to make, then inform them that you cannot proceed with the negotiation.
“I Need to Get This Approved By Marketing”
A variation on this tactic is to state that some other person or department needs to sign off the agreement. Again, request that in order to conclude the deal to both parties’ satisfaction that that person joins the negotiation.
“Hurry! Hurry!”
Time can be a factor that affects the power balance in negotiations. The person with the most time generally has the power balance tipped in their favour. If you desperately need to have a deal concluded to hit your year-end targets, then you are far more likely to make generous concessions than if you had another nine months to hit them.
In addition, the less time you have available to think and plan and prepare the weaker you will be in the negotiation. For this reason, watch out for people who insist that they need to know immediately, or by the following day. They are using the time factor to try to force you into making the concessions they need.
Always act as though you are unhurried – even if you are under time pressure!
“The Salami Slicer”
When you buy salami from the delicatessen the meat is sliced in very thin slices. In a negotiation the other party may attempt to “salami” you by securing a series of what seem to appear to be minor concessions on your part. It is only when the salami slice concessions are viewed in the totality that you realize just how much you have given away! You can counter the salami by using the “If You..Then I” principle (“If you give me X, then I can give you Y”) with every attempt at taking a slice. Salami back – there’s no such thing as a free lunch!
“The Nibble”
The nibble tactic is used when the negotiation appears to have been concluded. You have shaken hands, and you think it’s all over. You relax and sit back in your chair. In what appears to be an afterthought, perhaps even as you are walking out of the meeting, the other party casually states, “That includes the free warranty, right?” Caught off guard many people will end up agreeing to a minor concession. The Japanese samurai had a saying: “After victory tighten your helmet straps” – and they were right.
The counter to the nibble is to politely refuse and to state that you thought the negotiation has concluded and that if the other party wants the free warranty (or whatever) that you will need to revisit the agreement. An alternative approach is to nibble right back!
“Cherry Picking”
This is a tactic where the other party chooses the elements of your proposal that they do like and rejects the elements that they don’t like. They are cherry picking just the elements that they want. For the deal to work for you, you may need all of the elements included in your proposal. Make sure your positioning is clear – nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
“Meet me halfway”
This tactic involves asking the other party to “meet me halfway”. It appears to be very fair with each party making a concession. However, halfway is not necessarily a good place for you and the other party may have added significant amounts of “padding” (e.g. They have told you that they can’t pay any more than $100 per unit when in fact their available budget is up to $200 per unit) to their initial position anyway. A good counter is to thank them for their willingness to move, and then to emphasize the fact that, due to their concession, the gap between where you and they want to conclude is now smaller. Then keep looking for ways to close this now smaller gap!
“Help me out this time and I’ll see you right next time”
This is when the other party makes some promise of future benefit to you if you make a concession this time. Unfortunately, the benefit you will get is somewhat vague and it is very likely that having set the precedent this time that the same tactic will be applied in the future also. Counter this by only enhancing your proposition to the other party only when you receive specific and tangible benefits in return.
“My Hearing Isn’t Very Good”
This tactic is where someone pretends to have misheard you during a negotiation. They will then proceed through the negotiation as though what they “misheard” is genuine. Sometimes these erroneous concessions can gather a life of their own. This is another reason why clarifying and summarizing regularly are strongly recommended. Don’t let any differences of understanding gather momentum. If the other party purposefully mishears what you say, politely and firmly correct them. Once this has been done they will be less likely to repeat this behaviour.
“The False Concession”
This tactic works by getting you to make a concession because you cannot meet a demand from the other party. However, the demand is a work of fiction, and its sole purpose is for it to be used to get a concession from the other party. For example, if someone knows that it takes you a week to arrange delivery then they may demand next day delivery. To compensate for your lack of ability to deliver tomorrow you might be tempted to concede on the price of the item being delivered. The other party know that you can’t possibly deliver tomorrow and indeed don’t expect or need you to do so. They are only demanding the next day delivery to force a concession from you. To counter this make sure you are differentiating genuine needs from artificial demands during the negotiation by asking probing questions about what is most important to the other party and why.
“We Will Send You to The Russian Front”
During World War 2, no-one wanted to be posted to the Russian front. Even the worst postings were better than being sent to the Russian Front. This tactic works in the same way. Let us assume that the other party in the negotiation have a proposal that they want you to agree to. For the sake of illustration let’s call this Proposal A.
The other party encourage you to accept Proposal A because the alternative (being sent to the Russian Front) is far worse. It is only the contrast between the Russian Front alternative and Proposal A that makes Proposal A seem in any way attractive. Proposal A could be an awful deal for you. The only reason it seems in any way reasonable is by comparison with the Russian Front proposal.
A classic use of the Russian Front tactic is where a company tells a current supplier that they will have to make a 10% reduction in their pricing, or else the company will be “forced” to put the contract out to tender.
Faced with the alternative of losing the business or at best having to submit a more competitive tender the supplier may decide to make the price reduction. The 10% price reduction is more attractive than the Russian Front threat of having the contract put out to tender.
The counter is to do your homework and realistically assess their ability to carry out the threat. For example, to conduct a full tender process will take a considerable amount of time and money and therefore may not be a realistic threat.
Having awareness of these tricks and tactics is the best defense against them and I hope that this article helps you to negotiate with confidence.
Good luck and good negotiating!
Subscribe to Simon Hazeldine’s
“More Sales, More Often, More Margin” newsletter.
Simon’s regular newsletter contains powerful and practical sales and negotiation
strategies, tactics, and tips to help you to grow your revenue and bottom-line profits.
About the author
Simon Hazeldine works internationally as a revenue growth and sales performance speaker, consultant, and coach. He empowers his clients to get more sales, more often with more margin.
He has spoken in over thirty countries and his client list includes some of the world’s largest and most successful companies.
Simon has a master’s degree in psychology, is the bestselling author of ten books that have been endorsed by a host of business leaders including multi-billionaire business legend Michael Dell and is co-founder of leading sales podcast “The Sales Chat Show”.
He is the creator of the neuroscience based “Brain Friendly Selling”® methodology.
Simon Hazeldine’s books:
- Neuro-Sell: How Neuroscience Can Power Your Sales Success
- Bare Knuckle Selling
- Bare Knuckle Negotiating
- Bare Knuckle Customer Service
- The Inner Winner
- How To Lead Your Sales Team – Virtually and in Person
- Virtual Selling Success
- How To Manage Your People’s Performance
- How To Create Effective Employee Development Plans
- Virtual Negotiation Success
